ICT-supported Learning For Inclusion of People With Special Needs: Review of Seven Educational Technology Journals, 1970-2011

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 202–230
doi:10.1111/bjet.12086
ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special

needs: Review of seven educational technology journals,
1970–2011
Andreja Istenic Starcic and Spela Bagon
Dr Andreja Istenic Starcic is an associate professor at the University of Primorska Faculty of Education and the
University of Ljubljana Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering and an Honorary Fellow at Macquarie University,
Sydney, Australia. She teaches instructional design and educational technology, learning environments, information
and communication technology (ICT)-assisted learning for people with special needs, ICT in health, media education
and contemporary learning theories. She is conducting research at all levels of education, adult education, workplace
learning, professional development and teacher education. Andreja’s website has details of her activities and publi-
cations: http://andreja-istenic-starcic.eu/. Spela Bagon is a PhD student at the University of Primorska Faculty
of Education. She is conducting research in the field of ICT-assisted learning-environment design for primary
school. Address for correspondence: Dr Andreja Istenic Starcic, University of Primorska, PEF, Cankarjeva 5,
SI-6000 Koper, University of Ljubljana, FGG, Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Email: andreja.starcic@
siol.net
Abstract
Research and development of information and communication technology (ICT)-
supported learning for people with disabilities has not received adequate attention. It
is also difficult to access research findings and developments in this field. Under the
ENABLE Network of ICT Supported Learning for Disabled People (2011–2014) project,
an emerging European Union reference point portal for end-users will provide this infor-
mation for a broad audience. In the design phase of the project idea, the authors of
this paper conducted a review of papers indexed in Web of Science to provide a needs
assessment and a design template for the project objectives. The results of the search
clearly showed that ICT-supported learning for people with special educational needs is
in the domain of the educational technology journals, with more papers published in the
British Journal of Educational Technology than in any other journal. This paper presents
the results of a content analysis of all papers published from 1970 to 2011 in seven
educational technology journals indexed in Web of Science. More papers were published
from 2006 to 2011 (44.7%) than during any other of five periods examined. Findings in
terms of ICT intervention, disability groups, groups of study participants by relationship
with ICT, and research design, together with trends in published studies in terms of
mainstreaming and inclusion, are presented. The main objective of the study was to
identify the level of inclusion through analysis of educational context (special schools
[30.51%], mainstream schools [28.81%] and general support for life [40.68%]). Based
on content analysis, ICT interventions were classified into the two categories of technical
intervention in the pedagogical context (62.71% of all papers published) and technical
intervention in the wider context (37.29% of all papers published), with nine paper
types identified: papers on ICT access, papers on teaching and learning methods, papers
on development and testing of ICT solutions, reviews, assessments, papers on inclusion,
papers on behavioural and social development, papers on use of information technology
and papers on interaction. Papers were also categorised according to types of disability
and according to groups of study participants by relationship with ICT. Published papers
© 2013 British Educational Research Association
ICT-supported learning for special needs 203
were divided into four categories by research design: descriptive (49.15%), developmen-
tal (26.27%), experimental (17.8%), and developmental and experimental (6.78%).
During the period from 1970 to 2000, papers examined design of learning materials
with regard to particular categories of disability and particular accessibility needs, while
papers published after 2000 also discussed universal design.
Based on the review, the authors of this paper have identified a need for application of
universal design principles in research and development of learning environments to
provide equal accessibility and inclusive education.
Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
• The main dilemmas of teaching and learning for people with special needs are the
dilemma of identification, the dilemma of curriculum and the dilemma of location
(Norwich, 2008). The use of ICT-assisted learning is becoming increasingly signifi-
cant in addressing these three dilemmas (Ralph, 2006).
What this paper adds
• This paper presents the results of a content analysis of all papers published from 1970
to 2011 in seven educational technology journals indexed in Web of Science. The
results of the search clearly showed that ICT-supported learning for people with
special educational needs is in the domain of the educational technology journals,
with more papers published in the British Journal of Educational Technology than in any
other journal.
• This paper presents trends in ICT-supported teaching and learning for people with
special needs, examining ICT interventions used, disability groups investigated, par-
ticipant group size, research design and trends in mainstreaming and inclusion.
• This paper focuses on how ICT-assisted learning provides accessibility and facilitates
inclusion and integration. The issue of the potential of ICT-supported learning for the
inclusion process of people with special needs has not been explored sufficiently. This
study has determined that papers on this issue began to appear in 2001 and has
categorised, in total, 17 papers in this category published during the period from 1970
to 2011.
Implications for practice and/or policy
• By addressing questions about the role of ICT for inclusion and mainstreaming, this
paper raises broader issues of inclusion and social integration in modern society and
the educational process, allowing researchers from various fields insight into the field
of ICT-supported learning for people with special needs.
• ICT-supported learning is becoming important in formal educational settings, in
nonformal settings and in general support for life. ICT-supported learning should be
investigated and designed on the basis of universal design, providing accessibility and
facilitating inclusion for all. The main conclusion derived from the papers reviewed is
that research supporting the design of inclusive learning environments needs to
address students with special needs and students who do not have special needs equally.

204 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014
Introduction
The main dilemmas of teaching and learning for people with special needs are the dilemma
of identification, the dilemma of curriculum and the dilemma of location (Norwich, 2008). The
use of information and communication technology (ICT)-assisted learning is becoming increas-
ingly significant in addressing these three dilemmas (Ralph, 2006). ICT has a transformative
and equalising potential for efforts to achieve integration and inclusion of students with
“special educational needs” in mainstream classrooms and society (Florian, 2003). This
paper focuses on how ICT-assisted learning provides accessibility and facilitates inclusion
and integration. It presents a review of published scientific papers on this topic for the
period from 1970 to 2011. Analyses were conducted with regard to ICT interventions used,
disability groups, groups of participants by their relationship with ICT, school level and the
research designs of published studies, including sample size. The paper also summarises the
research trends in published studies focusing on mainstreaming and inclusive educational
opportunities.
In the last 40 years ICT has become an important part of learning and developmental support
for children with special needs. In the past, attention to ICT in learning was restricted to experts
in special education and ICT specialists. In the last several decades ICT has become an important
part in the design of inclusive learning environments in mainstream schools and classrooms,
with teachers in mainstream classrooms involved in ICT-supported learning for children with
special needs (Istenic Starcic, 2010). This paper presents trends in ICT-supported teaching and
learning for people with special needs, examining ICT interventions used, disability groups
investigated, participant group size, research design and trends regarding mainstreaming and
inclusion.
Some countries define one or two types of special needs (disability groups), as for example do
Denmark and Austria (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010).
Others, like Poland (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010), clas-
sify special needs into more than 10 categories, while most countries recognise from 6 to 10 kinds
of special needs (Opara, 2009), as does, for example, the Belgian Flemish-speaking community
(European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2010). The term “special edu-
cational needs” has been used for 30 years to define the needs of children with developmental
difficulties that affect learning, behaviour, social and emotional development, communication,
ability and independence (Lindsay, 2007).
Shortly after the start of the second half of the 20th century, the idea of integration emerged in
opposition to the segregationist school system, which separates the regular and special education
systems. A new paradigm of integrated education for children with special needs emerged, based
on new philosophical foundations and ethical values. It facilitated integration of children with
special needs into a regular classroom environment, facilitating their engagement based on
appropriate conditions and relationships of mutual acceptance and respect (Opara, 2007, 2009).
Integration supports a child’s development and learning in the company of peers, providing
social engagement (Kolenc & Lebarič, 2007). The integration of a few decades ago has further
developed into inclusion, based on postmodern philosophy, ethics and values such as human
rights, absence of discrimination, equal opportunities and justice, from which developed the ideal
of the modern heterogeneous school where every child is different (Opara, 2009). “Inclusive
education constitutes the inalienable right of children with special needs to appropriate and
effective education in mainstream schools” (Kavkler, 2007, p 77). Research on the effects of
inclusion and inclusive approaches in education on pupils is inconclusive. Lindsay (2007) inves-
tigates the tension within inclusive education between the children’s rights and the effectiveness
of educational processes and outcomes. While it is important in terms of providing equality to put
students with special needs in mainstream classrooms, this is not enough. In order for them to
be fully included rather than just being present, a change in culture is needed within the teaching
profession in order to produce suitable teaching practice, and according to Lindsay, there also
needs to be research-based evidence for what constitutes optimal teaching and learning practice
and children’s outcomes.
There is little literature available about the diversity of contexts in which children are educated
(Davis & Florian, 2004). Recent research findings indicate that pedagogical practice is still not
ready for inclusion (Runswick-Cole, 2011). This study deals with the use of ICT and its potential
for inclusion of people with special needs. ICT could present an important contribution to differ-
entiated instruction, establishing a creative learning environment and supporting teachers in
an inclusive classroom (Istenic Starcic, 2010; Istenic Starcic, Cotic & Zajc, 2013). While ICT has
the potential to promote inclusion and support differentiated instruction, the technology itself
could also present the main obstacle to inclusion.
“For many disabled people, computers offer the potential to increase independence and quality of
life and to reduce the degree of handicap caused by their disability (Neilson, Pickering & Vella,
1989, p 57).” In addition, “the use of information technology is often the vital link that enables
disabled students to participate fully in learning (Wisdom et al, 2007, p 222).” “Information
technology may be the only means for communication and self-expression for people with special
needs (Kurhila & Laine, 2000, p 163),” and it can provide “access to their environment and
opportunities for personal development which are otherwise denied them (Hegarty, Bostock &
Collins, 2000, p 199).” “Assistive technology offers socially impaired individuals an environment
in which they can learn the meaning of emotions and understand more about the way they
communicate with their peers (Bishop, 2003, p 554).”
Hegarty et al (2000) present a definition of ICT intervention for special needs that considers psy-
chological aspects (ie, attitudes and self-confidence) and technical aspects. A 4-category classifi-
cation based on the World Health Organization classification of impairment, disability and
handicap is used; the categories are cognitive difficulties, emotional difficulties, physical disability
and sensory disability. The definition highlights the dimensions of activity and participation.
In this context, ICT support therefore provides opportunities to increase performance in activities
and/or opportunities to increase participation (Douglas, 2001). Lewis and Neill (2001) identified
the following main functions of ICT support: interaction communication, physical control and
access to the normal curriculum, subject-linked learning, reward/motivation, information tech-
nology skills, assessment, record-keeping and teacher support.
In this paper, the authors have focused on ICT-supported learning. They conducted a content
analysis and identified two categories—technical intervention in the pedagogical context and
technical intervention in the wider context—covering nine types of paper: papers on ICT access,
papers on teaching and learning methods, papers on development and testing of ICT solutions,
reviews, assessments, papers on inclusion, papers on behavioural and social development, papers
on use of information technology and papers on interaction.
How equity of accessibility can be addressed has been investigated. Witt and McDermott
(2004) report on the UK, where the Disability Discrimination Act (2002) regulates this for all
education providers, requiring their compliance with accessibility legislation. The World Wide
Web Consortium (W3C) defines three priority levels of Web accessibility provided by the use of
tools (evaluation tools, repair tools and filter and transformation tools). Developers should apply
the principles of inclusive design, barrier-free design, universal design and design for all (Witt &
McDermott, 2004). Universal accessibility in a web-based education system has been explored,
examining standards, interoperability, design and delivery (Iorio, Feliziani, Mirri, Salomoni &
Vitali, 2006; Nevile & Treviranus, 2010). Seale and Cooper (2010) define technical, design and
conceptual tools for accessibility. Technical tools consist of authoring applications, evaluation
applications and repair applications. Design tools for accessibility consist of standards and guide-
lines. Conceptual tools are metaphors and models. Universal design applies to the architectural
environment and requires technological devices to be accessible for all users, including users with
disabilities. Universal instructional design has been applied in education to address accessibility
issues in instruction. Innovative approaches to utilising universal design have been studied,
among them computer-assisted instruction (Silver, Bourke & Strehorn, 1998).
Researching the underlying teaching and learning practice in the use of ICT in inclusive class-
rooms is raising questions of differentiation and individualisation in mainstreaming special edu-
cational needs. Research has focused on curriculum-authoring tools (Bain & Parkes, 2006),
learning-management systems providing digital learning environments (Bishop, 2003; Freire,
Linhalis, Bianchini, Fortes & Pimentel, 2010; Istenic Starcic & Niskala, 2010; Luke, 2002),
teachers’ preparation and professional development (Istenic Starcic, 2010; Wearmouth, Smith &
Soler, 2004; Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005), computer-supported collaborative learning
as social support to facilitate mainstream inclusion (Lewis, Trushell & Woods, 2005; Mavrou,
Lewis & Douglas, 2010; Tan & Cheung, 2008), and accessibility of computer-based resources in
inclusive education and the wider context (Abbott & Cribb, 2001; Iorio et al, 2006; Nevile &
Treviranus, 2010; Witt & McDermott, 2004).
This paper also focuses on groups of study participants by relationship with ICT, structure of
published papers and how disability groups are presented in the papers. To identify the research
design, a 3-category classification was used based on Jonassen’s (1996) classification of educa-
tional communication and technology, which was also applied by Shih, Feng and Tsai (2008).
The classification distinguishes experimental research based on experimental and control groups
(Ross & Morrison, 1996); descriptive research based on descriptions of events or participants’
input describing, explaining, evaluating or investigating the problem (Kunpfer & McLellan,
1996); and developmental research focused on design, development and evaluation of interven-
tions or solutions (Richey & Nelson, 1996).
Method
The research methodology used was a systematic review consisting of a literature search in
the bibliographic resource Web of Science (WOS), one of the most frequently used databases
in addition to Google Scholar and Scopus (Koler Povh, Južnič, Turk & Turk, 2011). Papers with
ICT-supported learning for people with special needs as a topic were included in the review. The results
of the search clearly showed that ICT-supported learning for people with special educational
needs is in the domain of the educational technology journals. The authors therefore limited the
scope of the paper search to the seven major educational technology journals covering this topic.
Searches were conducted in January 2011 and updated in December 2011. A manual search of
papers published from 1970 to the end of 2011 was performed in the selected journals. Quali-
tative analysis of data extracted from all included studies and analyses was performed. Based
on the study objectives, categories of data were identified that addressed five research questions.
The coding of studies was conducted by reading the abstracts and full texts of the papers. Studies
addressing several topics were assigned several codes. The coding was performed by two coders.
Intercoder reliability was checked, and agreement was found to be 0.87. Alignment of codes and
resolution of differences were achieved by discussion.
Research questions
The following research questions were asked:
1. What is the overall state of research in the field of ICT-assisted learning for people with
disabilities and/or with special needs in terms of ICT intervention?
2. What research topics related to ICT-assisted learning for people with disabilities and/or special
needs were published with regard to specific disability groups?
3. Which groups of study participants by relationship with ICT are represented in the published
research papers and what interventions did the participants experience?
4. Which research designs were applied in the studies?
5. What are the trends in published studies in terms of inclusion and mainstreaming?
Instruments and data collection

Data collection was conducted in two steps. In the first step, data were collected via search
procedures undertaken in the WOS database. The second step was a manual search performed in
educational technology and ICT-assisted learning journals in which the most relevant studies
were published. Journals selected were Computers and Education (CE), the British Journal of Edu-
cational Technology (BJET), the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (JCAL), Educational Technology
Research and Development (ETR&D), Educational Technology and Society (ETS), the Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) and the Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
(TOJET).
All relevant papers are listed in the reference list. Space does not allow the inclusion of the names
of all authors in the text every time a research question is discussed, so one research question has
been chosen as an example. Table 2 presents the full results for the second research question:
What research topics related to ICT-assisted learning for people with disabilities and/or special
needs were published with regard to specific disability groups?
Selection criteria
The first criterion for inclusion was that the study should be concerned with ICT-supported
learning, not assistive technology in general. The second criterion was that the study should
report on an intervention involving ICT-supported learning for people with disabilities.
Content analysis of the research topics

Content analysis was conducted using categories related to ICT-assisted learning and disability
groups. During the data analysis, the selected categories and subcategories were refined using the
constant-comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The finalised framework of research topics, categories and subcategories consisted of seven main
coding variables:
• journal title;
• year of publication, starting with the first editions of the selected journal published in data-
bases, from 1970 onwards;
• research design, which was analysed based on
• research approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed),
• research type (experimental, descriptive, developmental; Jonassen, 1996),
• research method (survey, experiment, case study, action research, etc.),
• whether there was a control group and whether the control group also received intervention,
• description and number of study participants or sample (learners, teachers and other
groups) who experienced interventions,
• research questions and/or variables;
• disability by group;
• educational context (special school, integration/inclusion in mainstream school, general
support for life);
• educational level (preprimary, primary, secondary, tertiary, lifelong learning);
• type of ICT intervention (technical, pedagogical, wider-context; Conole & Oliver, 2007).
Results
In this section, the data are presented in the order in which the research questions were given
previously, starting with ICT-supported learning interventions, followed by ICT-supported learn-
ing by disability group, then groups of participants by relationship with ICT and school level, then
research designs and sample sizes, and finally the findings regarding inclusion and mainstreaming,
outlining educational context (special school, integration/inclusion in mainstream school or
general support for life).
The number of identified papers was 118 (all 118 papers are listed in the references section); the
percentage of papers published during each of five time periods is presented in Figure 1. After the
starting period of 1970–1985, the review findings identified growth during the periods of 1986–
1995, 1996–2000 and 2001–2005 and extensive growth during the period 2006–2011.
Among the selected journals, BJET has the highest number of relevant papers (44), followed by
CE (34) and JCAL (14). BJET published the most papers (18) during the period 2001–2005, and
CE published the most (20) during 2006–2011. The number of relevant papers by journal is
presented in Figure 2.
Based on the content, papers were divided into two groups according to whether they focused on
the pedagogical or the wider context (Table 1). They fell into nine types: papers on ICT access,
papers on teaching and learning methods, papers on development and testing of ICT solutions,
reviews, assessments, papers on inclusion, papers on behavioural and social development, papers
on use of information technology and papers on interaction.
Table 2, which lists all 118 papers, presents research topics related to ICT-assisted learning for
people with disabilities and/or special needs, organised by disability group. Disability terms are used
as originally published in the papers. Throughout the world, groups of persons with disabilities are
classified very differently. In addition there are variations in terms between the USA and the UK, for
example, “learning difficulties” versus “learning disabilities” (Lindsay, 2007). The information
about past research in Table 2 will inform the future research, design and development of inclusive
50
45
44.07%
40
35
30
25
21.19%
20 19.49%
15
10 10.17%
5 5.08%
0
1970–1985 1986–1995 1996–2000 2001–2005 2006–2011
Figure 1: Percentage of papers about ICT-supported learning for people with special needs by publication year
25
20 20
18 CE
BJET
15
JCAL
ETR&D
10 10 10 ETS
AJET
7
6 TOJET
5 5
4 4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
1970–1985 1986–1995 1996–2000 2001–2005 2006–2011
Figure 2: Number of papers about ICT-supported learning for people with special needs published in selected
journals by publication year
Table 1: Number of papers published by publication year according to type of ICT-assisted learning intervention
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
Category (n, %) (n, %) (n, %) (n, %) (n, %) (n, %) papers
Pedagogical 2 (2.70) 16 (21.62) 8 (10.81) 16 (21.62) 32 (43.24) 74 (100) 62.71

context
Wider context 4 (9.09) 7 (15.91) 4 (9.09) 9 (20.45) 20 (45.45) 44 (100) 37.29
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100
learning environments providing access to quality learning experiences based on universal acces-
sibility standards for users with various preferences and accessibility needs.
In order to identify particular groups of study participants by relationship with ICT, the study also
analysed who was being studied in the identified papers. The following categories were identified
(Table 3): learners, teachers, learners and teachers, users, experts, mixed. Under the category
of “not defined” are papers that did not identify to which of these groups study participants
belonged. Table 4 presents the participants according to level of education. Analysis of the
research designs is presented in Table 5. Data on the size of the target groups of study participants
or samples are presented in Table 6. Papers in which empirical study with a sample or group of
participants was not conducted are also listed. An analysis of educational context is presented in
Table 7.
Research in mainstream schools has flourished in the most recent investigative period (2006–
2011). Research in the field of inclusion has been less frequent: in total, 17 papers in this category
were identified. Table 8 presents all papers about inclusion. Early papers about inclusion are
concerned about access to technological equipment and Web access at institutional level as a means
of promoting inclusion. Schools and educational authorities facilitated the use of information
Table 2: Papers published according to disability group and publication year
210
Disability Papers
Special needs 1970–1985: MacKenzie, Jones and Payne (1970)

1986–1995: Adler (1994)
1996–2000: Hegarty et al (2000)
2001–2005: Abbott and Cribb (2001); Lewis and Neill (2001); Singleton and Simmons (2001);
Wearmouth et al (2004); Witt and McDermott (2004)
2006–2011: Gabrielli et al (2006); Iorio et al (2006); Nevile and Treviranus (2010); Hartley
(2007); Wisdom et al (2007); Lin (2007); Peltenburg, van den Heuvel-Panhuizen and Doig
(2009); Cifuentes et al (2010); García and Cuello (2010)
Mildly handicapped 1986–1995: Schloss (1986); Straker (1988)
Handicapped 1970–1985: Brebner, Clark and Johnson (1984)

Physical and mental handicaps 1986–1995: Thorne (1987)
Disabled 1986–1995: Wood (1986); Neilson et al (1989)
2006–2011: Ling, Allison, Nicholl, Moodley and Roberts (2006); Konur (2007); Seale and
Cooper (2010)
Speech defects/severe language disorder, cerebral palsy with writing 1986–1995: Newell et al (1991)
difficulties, Down syndrome, Bliss/Makaton users, muscular dystrophy,
special learning difficulties, communication problems, fragile X, visual
impairment, poor motor control, severe spelling problems, writing
British Journal of Educational Technology
difficulties, speech impairment

Hearing impairment 1970–1985: Snell, Dickson and Ingram (1984)
1986–1995: Hertzog et al (1989); Bloor et al (1992); James and Hammersley (1993)
2001–2005: Yang and Lay (2005)
2006–2011: Liu and Hong (2007); Yang et al (2007)
Deafness 1970–1985: Ward et al (1985)
1986–1995: Bailey and Weippert (1992)
1996–2000: Walker and Rostron (1999)
2001–2005: Ohene-Djan et al (2003); Adamo-Villani and Beni (2004)
2006–2011: Ditcharoen et al (2010)
Visual impairment 1970–1985: Law, Maguire, Sabo and Shuparski (1984)
1986–1995: Fetton and Blenkhorn (1986); Habib (1988); Hartley (1994)
Blindness 1970–1985: Vincent (1982)
1986–1995: Habib (1988)
1996–2000: Rosas et al (1997)
2006–2011: Freire et al (2010); Sánchez and Sáenz (2010)
Moderate learning difficulties: slow learning, reading/writing problems, 1996–2000: Chambers (1997)
language difficulties, emotional and behavioural problems, poor
memory retention, lack of concentration and immaturity
Communication disabilities (toddlers with Down syndrome); severe 1996–2000: Schery and O’Connor (1997)
language, learning and behavioural disabilities (severe retardation,
multiple handicaps, severe emotional disorders, autism, cerebral palsy)
Vol 45 No 2 2014
Disabled (with both cognitive disability motor disability); children with 1996–2000: Kurhila and Laine (2000)
deficiencies in mental programming
Adults/workers with severe development disabilities 2001–2005: Furniss et al (2001)
Dyslexia 1986–1995: Nicolson, Pickering and Fawcett (1991); Fawcett, Nicolson and Morris (1993)
2001–2005: Dimitriadi (2001); Gregor, Dickinson, Macaffer and Andreasen (2003)
2006–2011: Beacham and Alty (2006); Woodfine, Baptista Nunes and Wright (2008); Magnan
and Ecalle (2006)
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 2001–2005: Houghton et al (2004)
2006–2011: Tan and Cheung (2008); Kang and Zentall (2011)
Asperger’s syndrome 1996–2000: Rajendran and Mitchell (2000)
2001–2005: Lewis et al (2005)
Intellectual disability, acquired brain injury and dementia 2001–2005: Ager and Aalykke (2001)
Visual impairment; partial sight, learning difficulties, cerebral palsy, 2001–2005: Douglas (2001)
blindness, severe learning difficulties
Normal-stream pupils who are academically less able and who require 1986–1995: Guat and Teh (1987)
extra guidance and assistance
Learning disabilities/difficulties 1996–2000: Nicol and Anderson (2000)
2001–2005: Beale (2005)
2006–2011: Parsons et al (2006a); Bain and Parkes (2006); Bottge et al (2009); Seo and Bryant
(2009); Seo and Woo (2010); Eden and Heiman (2011)
(High) risk for learning disabilities 1996–2000: Mioduser et al (2000)
2006–2011: Shamir and Shlafer (2011)
Special learning needs 1996–2000: Sepehr and Harris (1995); Wilding (1999)
2001–2005: Winter and McGhie-Richmond (2005)
2006–2011: Istenic Starcic (2010)
Mild to moderate learning disability 1986–1995: Brown (1987)
2001–2005: Johnson and Hegarty (2003)
Severe learning disability 1986–1995: Wright and Anderson (1987); McEvoy and McConkey (1991); Wright, Read and
Anderson (1992); Rostron, Plant and Hermann (1994)
2001–2005: Aspinall and Hegarty (2001); Sheehy (2005)
2006–2011: Istenic Starcic and Niskala (2010)
Children with mild learning difficulties in reading,mathematics or other 2006–2011: Kleemans, Segers Droop and Wentink (2010)
school-related areas, with no additional sensory or physical
impairments
ICT-supported learning for special needs
211

212
Table 2: Continued
Disability Papers
Disabled (receptive language and reading comprehension) 2006–2011: Mavrou et al (2010)

Autism/autism and mental retardation/autistic spectrum disorders/autism 2006–2011: Parsons, Leonard and Mitchell (2006b); Selda (2008); Chen et al (2009); Cheng
spectrum conditions and Ye (2010); Cheng et al (2010); Sahin and Cimen (2011); Doyle and Arnedillo-Sánchez
(2011); Mintz, Branch, March and Lerman (2012)
Cerebral palsy and mental retardation 2006–2011: Reis et al (2010)
Social impairments (autistic spectrum disorders, general social phobia) 2001–2005: Bishop (2003)

Disability/learning difficulties: physical, intellectual, learning, vision, 1996–2000: MacCann (1996)
hearing, psychiatric, neurological and other
People with various disabilities: blindness, vision impairment, mobility 2001–2005: Luke (2002)
impairment and learning disability; moderate reading disabilities,
severe learning disability, learning and/or physical disabilities
Down syndrome 2001–2005: Seale (2001)
2006–2011: Ortega-Tudela and Gómez-Ariza (2006)
Mobility impairment/wheelchair user, ADD/ADHD, 2006–2011: Fichten et al (2009)

psychological/psychiatric disability, health/medically related
impairment, deafness/hardness of hearing, difficulty using hands
and/or arms, visual impairment (low vision), neurological impairment,
speech or communication impairment, total blindness, other
Specific reading problems 2006–2011: Merrell and Tymms (2007)
Specific language impairment 2006–2011: Durkin et al (2011)
Vision, hearing, orthopaedic/mobility, others 2006–2011: Ari and Inan (2010)
Orthopaedically impaired 2006–2011: Dinçyürek et al (2011)
Motor disability 2001–2005: Valenti, Fioretti, Maurizi, Panti and Leo (2002); Germann, Broida and Broida
(2003)
Socio-emotional difficulties 1996–2000: Jones (1996)
Intellectual disabilities and additional sensory impairments 2006–2011: Brown et al (2011)
Intellectual and physical disabilities 2006–2011: Standen, Camm, Battersby, Brown and Harrison (2011)
Acquired brain injury 2006–2011: Montero et al (2011)
Specific language impairment 2006–2011: Conti-Ramsden et al (2010)
Total 118 papers
Vol 45 No 2 2014
Table 3: Number of papers published by publication year according to group of study participants by relationship
with ICT
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
Learners 2 (3.57) 12 (21.43) 4 (7.14) 8 (14.29) 30 (53.57) 56 (100) 47.46

Teachers 1 (6.67) 2 (13.33) 1 (6.67) 4 (26.67) 7 (46.67) 15 (100) 12.71
Teachers and 0 (0.00) 5 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (100) 4.24
learners
Users 3 (20.00) 1 (6.67) 1 (6.67) 6 (40.00) 4 (26.67) 15 (100) 12.71
Experts 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (100.00) 3 (100) 2.54
Mixed* 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (22.22) 3 (33.33) 4 (44.44) 9 (100) 7.63
Not defined 0 (0.00) 3 (20.00) 4 (26.67) 4 (26.67) 4 (26.67) 15 (100) 12.71
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100
*Physical, communicational, emotional intellectual, learning and cognitive, vision, orthopaedic/mobility,

hearing disabilities, disorders or handicaps; Down syndrome, autism, cerebral palsy and others.
Table 4: Number of papers published by publication year according to school level
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
Preprimary 0 (0.00) 1 (14.28) 2 (28.57) 0 (0.00) 4 (57.15) 7 (100) 5.93

Primary 0 (0.00) 3 (30.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (30.00) 4 (40.00) 10 (100) 8.47
Secondary 0 (0.00) 4 (40.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (10.00) 5 (50.00) 10 (100) 8.47
Primary and 1 (25.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (25.00) 2 (50.00) 4 (100) 3.39
secondary
Primary, secondary 1 (50.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (50.00) 2 (100) 1.69
and adult
Primary, secondary 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (100) 0.85
and college
Tertiary 1 (8.33) 1 (8.33) 0 (0.00) 3 (25.00) 7 (58.30) 12 (100) 10.17
Lifelong learning 0 (0.00) 2 (20.00) 1 (10.00) 5 (50.00) 2 (20.00) 10 (100) 8.47
Not defined 3 (4.84) 12 (19.35) 9 (14.52) 11 (17.74) 27 (43.55) 62 (100) 52.54
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100
Table 5: Number of papers published by publication year according to research design
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
Descriptive 2 (3.45) 14 (24.14) 4 (6.90) 10 (17.24) 28 (48.28) 58 (100) 49.15

Developmental 4 (12.90) 5 (16.13) 3 (9.68) 9 (29.03) 10 (32.26) 31 (100) 26.27
Experimental 0 (0.00) 4 (19.05) 4 (19.05) 3 (14.29 ) 10 (47.62) 21 (100) 17.80
Developmental and 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (12.50) 3 (37.50) 4 (50.00) 8 (100) 6.78
experimental
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100

Table 6: Number of papers published by publication year according to sample size
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
1–10 0 (0.00) 2 (7.41) 3 (11.11) 9 (33.33) 13 (48.15) 27 (100) 22.88

10–50 0 (0.00) 2 (7.69) 2 (7.69) 5 (19.23) 17 (65.38) 26 (100) 22.03
50–100 0 (0.00) 3 (37.50) 1 (12.50) 2 (25.00) 2 (25.00) 8 (100) 6.78
100–200 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (25.00) 3 (75.00) 4 (100) 3.39
200–500 0 (0.00) 1 (12.50) 0 (0.00) 1 (12.50) 6 (75.00) 8 (100) 6.78
500–1000 1 (100.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (100) 0.85
Over 1000 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 3 (100) 2.54
No sample 5 (12.2) 15 (36.59) 6 (14.63) 5 (12.20) 10 (24.39) 41 (100) 34.75
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100
Table 7: Number of papers published by publication year according to educational context
1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1985 1995 2000 2005 2011 Total of all
Special school 1 (2.78) 9 (25.00) 3 (8.33) 11 (30.56) 12 (33.33) 36 (100) 30.51

Mainstream 1 (2.94) 7 (20.59) 0 (0.00) 4 (11.76) 22 (64.71) 34 (100) 28.81
General support 4 (8.33) 7 (14.58) 9 (18.75) 10 (20.83) 18 (37.50) 48 (100) 40.68
in life
Total 6 (5.08) 23 (19.49) 12 (10.17) 25 (21.19) 52 (44.07) 118 (100) 100
technology for classroom preparation and teaching for teachers working with students with
special needs. Portable computers were distributed to schools across the UK in 1999 (Lewis &
Neill, 2001). Web pages connected special schools and pupil referral units to society and facili-
tated the dissemination of information on the processes related to the issues of separation and
inclusion. Abbott and Cribb (2001) reported on recommendations for website accessibility. Based
on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, standards and repair tools for website
accessibility were the focus of a study of academic websites in the UK in 2004 (Witt & McDermott,
2004). ICT was investigated in terms of providing pedagogical and technological inclusion for people
with physical and/or learning disabilities. A study of inclusion in electronic classrooms included six
courseware environments for people who were blind or visually impaired, were mobility-
impaired, or had a learning disability. The main findings indicated the need for experience with
network environments, immediately available assistance and adaptive technology. Needs of users
with various disabilities were studied to identify requirements and solutions for assisting them in
electronic classrooms (Luke, 2002). Initiatives seeking universal accessibility in web-based edu-
cation systems concerned standards for and development and delivery of computer-based mate-
rial to individual users with various preferences and particular accessibility needs (Iorio et al,
2006; Nevile & Treviranus, 2010).
ICT supports people with impairment in social communication and social participation, provid-
ing them with a safe environment (Bishop, 2003). Collaborative work environments are needed
in inclusion processes, facilitating collaboration and interaction in inclusive learning environ-
ments. Computer-supported collaborative learning is suitable for addressing individual needs,
especially needs related to disability, with regard to social groups and providing interaction with
peers (Lewis et al, 2005; Mavrou et al, 2010; Tan & Cheung, 2008). Based on the idea of design
for all, a developmental study with an interactive whiteboard was undertaken by Freire et al
Table 8: Studies on inclusion
Authors, year of Number and description Educational level

publication and journal Research design of participants Disability group and context Type of ICT intervention
Abbott & Cribb, Descriptive 1132 information Special educational Primary and secondary WWW homepage in special
2001; Questionnaire survey technology needs schools, schools and pupil referral
BJET coordinators and head pupil referral units and units to support inclusion
teachers special schools
Luke, 2002; Descriptive 8 persons Physical and/or learning Inclusion in an electronic
ET&S Qualitative disability; classroom—examination of
Questionnaire blind, vision-impaired, accessibility in six
Observation mobility-impaired courseware environments
and learning-disabled
Bishop, 2003; Descriptive 13 adults Social impairment; Lifelong learning Mobile Internet technology in
JCAL Observation autistic spectrum communication
disorders, general social apprehension
phobia
Wearmouth, Smith Descriptive 3 tutors and Special educational Postgraduate education Computer conferencing for
& Soler, 2004; Mixed 16 students needs for teachers communities of practices
BJET Case study promoting inclusion
Witt & McDermott, Descriptive Academic institutions Physical and/or learning Higher education Website accessibility; standards
2004; Overview of 2200 websites disability and tools
BJET
Winter & Descriptive 40 students in special Special educational Higher education, Computer conferencing
McGhie-Richmond, Collaborative case study education graduate needs teacher education
2005; course
JCAL
Lewis & Neill, 2001; Descriptive 1279 special education Special educational Primary schools Portable computers for special
BJET Quantitative needs coordinators needs needs education coordinators
Questionnaire survey
Lewis, Trushell & Descriptive 3 children Asperger’s syndrome Primary school ICT-supported groupwork
Woods, 2005; Interview interaction to support
BJET Questionnaire inclusion of students with
Sociometric testing Asperger’s syndrome
Bain & Parkes, 2006; Developmental 30 teachers Students with learning Secondary school Curriculum-authoring tools for
BJET Observation disabilities inclusive classroom teaching
ICT-supported learning for special needs
practice in a secondary
school
215

216
Table 8: Studies on inclusion
Authors, year of Number and description Educational level

publication and journal Research design of participants Disability group and context Type of ICT intervention
Nevile & Treviranus, Descriptive n/a n/a n/a Universal accessibility and
2010; interoperability of web-based
JETS educational
systems—AccessForAll
Iorio et al, 2006; Descriptive n/a n/a n/a Accessible learning objects
JETS

Mavrou, Lewis & Descriptive 40 pupils Special educational Primary school Computer-based collaborative
Douglas, 2010; Mixed needs learning—interaction in
BJET Video analyses inclusive classroom
Tan & Cheung, Descriptive 1 pupil Pupil with attention Preprimary school Computer-supported
2008; Mixed deficit hyperactivity collaborative learning in
CE Questionnaire Interview disorder inclusive classroom
Sociometric testing
Istenic Starcic, 2010; Descriptive 45 students Special educational Higher education, Learning management
TOJET Qualitative needs teacher education system/courseware
Case study
Istenic Starcic & Descriptive 23 teachers Special educational Vocational special Learning management
Niskala, 2010; Quantitative needs schools and system/courseware
BJET Questionnaire survey mainstream
vocational school
Freire et al, 2010; Developmental 1 blind participant Blindness Secondary school Interactive whiteboard
CE Case study supporting collaborative
learning; blind students’ use
of graphical content with
interactive whiteboards.
Parsons, Daniels, Descriptive 9 day-care services and Adults with learning Adult education ICT use in day-care centres for
Porter & Qualitative 14 homes disabilities adults with learning
Robertson, 2006; Observation disability to promote their
BJET Interviews community participation
n/a, not applicable.

Vol 45 No 2 2014
(2010) to facilitate inclusion of blind students in collaborative learning. Parsons, Daniels, Porter
and Robertson (2006a) investigated the use of ICT to promote community participation in a
day-care centre for adults with learning difficulties.
The professional development of teachers to prepare them for inclusion relies on the use of ICT-
supported learning, that is, on providing them with skills and competences for the use of ICT for
their own professional learning and for teaching. Computer conferencing facilitates communities
of practice in which teachers exchange their experiences and share their knowledge (Wearmouth
et al, 2004), providing exchange between the experienced and novices (Winter & McGhie-
Richmond, 2005). Istenic Starcic (2010) reports on the development of competences in initial
teacher education for designing learning environments addressing individual needs to facilitate
differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms.
Bain and Parkes (2006) investigated a curriculum-authoring tool for inclusive classrooms in
secondary education, based on teaching approaches in inclusive classrooms: direct or explicit
teaching, cooperative learning, team accelerated instruction methodology and peer tutoring.
Istenic Starcic and Niskala (2010) conducted a study of learning management systems used
in daily teaching and planning with teachers of special vocational education and teachers
in a mainstream vocational school. It has benefits for teachers of students with special needs in
planning and conducting lessons, learning material design and monitoring students’ progress.
Discussion
Since 1970, the number of papers on ICT-supported learning published in selected Social Sci-
ences Citation Index journals has increased, as shown in Figure 1. Findings presented in the
results section are discussed here according to research topic.
ICT intervention
Based on their content, papers fall into two broad categories: those in which the dominant theme
is technology in pedagogical practice and those dealing with technology reaching outside peda-
gogical practice into a wider context. Within these categories nine dominant, recurring paper
types emerged, listed below. Some types appear only in one of the two categories, while others can
be found in both.
Pedagogical context
• Papers on ICT access (for example: Ari & Inan, 2010)
• Papers on teaching and learning methods (for example: Johnson & Hegarty, 2003; Kleemans,
Segers, Droop & Wentink, 2010; McEvoy & McConkey, 1991; Reis et al, 2010; Schloss, 1986)
• Papers on development and testing of ICT solutions (for example: Chambers, 1997; Newell,
Booth & Beattie, 1991; Singleton & Simmons, 2001)
• Reviews (for example: Douglas, 2001; Hartley, 2007)
• Assessments (for example: Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa & Leitner, 2000; Nicol & Anderson, 2000)
• Papers on inclusion (Abbott & Cribb, 2001; Bain & Parkes, 2006; Bishop, 2003; Freire et al,
2010; Iorio et al, 2006; Istenic Starcic, 2010; Istenic Starcic & Niskala, 2010; Lewis & Neill,
2001; Lewis et al, 2005; Luke, 2002; Mavrou et al, 2010; Nevile & Treviranus, 2010; Parsons
et al, 2006a; Tan & Cheung, 2008; Wearmouth et al, 2004; Winter & McGhie-Richmond,
2005; Witt & McDermott, 2004)
• Papers on interaction (for example: Cheng, Chiang, Ye & Cheng, 2010)
Wider context
• Papers on ICT access (for example: Aspinall & Hegarty, 2001)
• Papers on development and testing of ICT solutions (for example: Brown, 1987; Ohene-Djan,
Zimmer, Gorle & Naqvi, 2003; Walker & Rostron, 1999)
• Reviews (for example: Neilson et al, 1989)

• Assessments (for example: Houghton et al 2004; Wilding, 1999; Sánchez & Sáenz, 2010)
• Papers on behavioural and social development (for example: Doyle & Arnedillo-Sánchez, 2011;
Jones, 1996; Ozdemir, 2008; Seale, 2001)
• Papers on use of information technology (for example: Eden & Heiman, 2011)
Disability groups
A detailed overview of types of special needs referred to by authors by year is presented in Table 2
and includes all 118 papers reviewed. The table records the terms used by authors. In the last 40
years, papers have covered many different categories of identified special needs and/or disability
(the most common/significant being attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, Down
syndrome, physical and mental handicaps, hearing impairment/deafness, visual impairment/
blindness, severe developmental disabilities, Asperger’s syndrome, autism, language and reading
difficulties/language impairment, cerebral palsy, motor disability, socio-emotional difficulties,
combined intellectual and sensory impairments, learning difficulties/disabilities, communication
disabilities and intellectual disabilities). In addition to papers that looked at specific types of
special needs, there were 17 papers that explored special needs in general rather than addressing
particular needs (for example Abbott & Cribb, 2001; Adler, 1994; Cifuentes, Sharp, Bulu, Benz &
Stough, 2010; Gabrielli, Mirabella, Kimani & Catarci, 2006; Hartley, 2007; Lewis & Neill, 2001;
MacKenzie, Jones & Payne, 1970; Witt & McDermott, 2004). The first reviewed paper published
on ICT-assisted learning (MacKenzie et al, 1970) investigated the use of ICT in mainstream and
special schools.
Most often, the authors write about learning difficulties or disabilities, with some authors writing
about (high) risk for learning disabilities (Mioduser et al, 2000; Shamir & Shlafer, 2011) and others
discussing mild and moderate learning disabilities (Brown, 1987; Johnson & Hegarty, 2003).
Aspinall and Hegarty (2001), Sheehy (2005) and Istenic Starcic and Niskala (2010), for example,
write about severe learning disabilities, while those writing about special learning needs include
Sepehr and Harris (1995), Winter and McGhie-Richmond (2005) and Istenic Starcic (2010). Most
often, learning disabilities in general are mentioned. Examples include Nicol and Anderson
(2000); Beale (2005); Bottge, Rueda, Kwon, Grant and LaRoque (2009); and Seo and Woo (2010).
The second most commonly mentioned type of special need in the reviewed papers is hearing
impairment and deafness. The first paper about ICT-assisted learning for the hearing-impaired
was written in 1984 by Snell, Dickson and Ingram. Many followed; for example Hertzog, Stinson
and Keiffer (1989); Bloor et al (1992); Liu and Hong (2007); and Yang, Lay, Liou, Tsao and Lin
(2007). The first paper about ICT-assisted learning for the deaf was also published in the 1980s.
It was written by Ward, Lindley, Rostron, Sewell and Cubie (1985). Other papers followed, for
example Walker and Rostron (1999); Ohene-Djan et al (2003); and Ditcharoen, Naruedomkul
and Cercone (2010).
The third most frequently dealt with type of special needs is autism, referred to in studies on
“autism” (see, for example, Chen, Wu, Lin, Tasi & Chen, (2009), “autism and mental retardation”
(for example Sahin & Cimen, 2011), “autistic spectrum disorders” (for example Parsons et al,
2006b) and “autism spectrum conditions” (Cheng & Ye, 2010).
Groups of study participants

Based on participants’ relationship to ICT, papers were categorised as concerning learners, teach-
ers, teachers and learners, users or experts. Most of these contributions were engaged with
learners, with a substantial proportion of papers discussing ICT use for learners with learning
difficulties or disability. In 1987, Wright and Anderson published the findings of an experiment
that proved that children with learning difficulties perform better with the help of computers than
with traditional methods. Seo and Woo (2010) determined that computer-assisted learning
is beneficial for intended learning outcomes in mathematics by examining study supported by
the instructional program Math Explorer. Studies indicate the use of computer-supported com-
munication by email and other means (eg, SMS) provides social and emotional support (Eden &
Heiman, 2011).
Some early papers investigate difficulties of learners in accessing ICT-supported learning and
examine assistive technology devices and the design of learning materials with regard to particu-
lar categories of disability (MacCann, 1996), while more recent papers focus on universal design
(Iorio et al, 2006; Nevile & Treviranus, 2010).
Early papers focus on establishment of websites for special education to connect the special
education environment to the community (Abbott & Cribb, 2001) and on providing computers
(Lewis & Neill, 2001). Accessibility of websites and other e-learning resources remains a problem
and was studied in colleges and universities in 2009 (Fichten et al, 2009). Attitude towards and
acceptance of technology is an important factor in ICT use. Computer anxiety has been compared
between adolescents with language impairment and adolescents without impairment. Complex
relationships between different psychological and emotional factors impact the use of ICT. Ado-
lescents at greater risk may require more support in ICT use (Conti-Ramsden, Durkin & Walker,
2010).
Some papers explore assistive devices and characteristics of ICT-assisted learning for people with
particular categories of disabilities (Table 2). Learning-management systems and virtual envi-
ronments have been proven to facilitate social interaction and connectedness (Lewis et al, 2005;
Mavrou et al, 2010; Tan & Cheung, 2008) and provide safe environments (Bishop, 2003).
Papers also investigate the benefits of ICT-supported learning for people with special needs. These
are in providing social and emotional support, increasing participation, connecting them to
social contexts which would otherwise not be accessible, and facilitating inclusion and access to
a mainstream curriculum (Table 8). From the assistive, compensatory and enabling function
of ICT, the focus has moved towards equal engagement of students with disabilities and towards
the quality of teaching and learning methods with regard to providing differentiated instruction,
developing competence in ICT use and providing opportunities for creative expression.
Papers that examine teachers’ use of ICT for students with special needs focus on ICT in teachers’
initial education and professional development and learning. The main objective is to facilitate
teachers’ competence with ICT in their professional learning and teaching. Hegarty et al (2000)
discuss the need for awareness to rise about psychological factors of attitude and self-confidence
that determine how ICT is used. The benefits of computer conferencing and communities of
practice in the initial education of special-education teachers have been highlighted (Wearmouth
et al, 2004; Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005). Winter and McGhie-Richmond (2005) investi-
gated what effect computer conferencing would have on collaboration between novice and expert
teachers of special-needs students. In line with efforts to facilitate the use of ICT in teaching to
promote inclusion, some papers investigate initial education of teachers to prepare them for
classroom management of differentiated instruction according to learners’ diverse needs, includ-
ing needs related to disability. Curriculum-authoring tools (Bain & Parkes, 2006) and learning-
management systems (Istenic Starcic, 2010) have been investigated.
Papers that engaged with both learners and teachers present testing, implementing or evaluating of
ICT solutions in pedagogical practice and evaluation of ICT use for children with special needs.
Papers investigating solutions aim to study the impacts and benefits for learners and teachers in
language learning and in mathematics. Singleton and Simmons (2001) identify Wordshark—a
multisensory drill-and-practice program for improving spelling and word recognition, widely
used in primary and secondary education of special-needs students—as facilitating their
motivation and improving their skills. For the hearing-impaired and deaf, the alternative second-
language learning tool SignMT was tested and evaluated in terms of translation accuracy and
proven to satisfy users (Ditcharoen et al, 2010). For children with speech impairment and poor
motor control, predictive text entry increased the quality of their written work and reduced
spelling errors (Newell et al, 1991). In a study on mathematical learning for children with severe
learning difficulties, teachers received a video self-instructional course about number games, and
teaching methods used in the classroom were evaluated. Teachers’ learning about new methods
and testing them in the classroom had a demonstrated impact on students’ progress (McEvoy &
McConkey, 1991). Video has also been used for teaching mathematical concepts for a general
population including special-needs students (Straker, 1988).
With regard to ICT use for special educational needs, in the late 1980s there were concerns about
the widespread implementation of microelectronics education in schools (Thorne, 1987), and an
extensive review of projects involving ICT use for special educational needs in the UK found that
the majority were focused on assistive peripheral devices (Neilson et al, 1989).
It is important for research and development of ICT-supported learning to follow equity principles
in inclusion efforts. Learning-environment research has to be taken into account, and design
requirements have to be adopted for the needs of users with disabilities and also people who do not
have special needs. Some studies include both learners with special needs and learners who do not
have special needs in the experimental research. Woodfine, Baptista Nunes and Wright (2008)
combined students with and without dyslexia; Mavrou et al (2010) investigated pairs of disabled
and nondisabled pupils; Conti-Ramsden et al (2010) dealt with participants with specific lan-
guage impairment and their normally developing peers; Durkin, Conti-Ramsden and Walker
(2011) observed adolescents with and without specific language impairment. We have catego-
rised only a small proportion of papers as including both people with special needs and those
without them.
Some authors have surveyed the parents of children with special needs to analyse whether
the use of computer-supported collaboration facilitates acceptance by peers in inclusive class-
rooms (Lewis et al, 2005). Wisdom et al (2007) evaluated whether the US regulations on equal
access to education were supported by ICT, or whether ICT caused an accessibility barrier in
equalising processes. The main obstacles identified in Northwest US K-12 schools were system-
level accessibility policies and a lack of resources for training and implementation. Doyle and
Arnedillo-Sánchez (2011) investigated a multimedia-authoring tool to teach social skills, which
was implemented for children with autistic spectrum disorders and evaluated as beneficial by
parents and teachers. These studies are categorised as mixed and include some other groups
of study participants, for example adults with special needs (see, for example, Nicol & Anderson,
2000; Rajendran & Mitchell, 2000).
Papers about learners and teachers mainly deal with primary and/or secondary education. Papers
focused only on primary school total 10 contributions (for example Kleemans et al, 2010; Reis
et al, 2010), and those about secondary school total 10 contributions (for example Bain & Parkes,
2006; Wisdom et al, 2007). There are four focused on both primary and secondary educational
levels (for example Abbott & Cribb, 2001). There is only one contribution dealing with primary,
secondary and college education, that of Singleton and Simmons (2001). Two contributions
deal with primary, secondary and adult education (Straker, 1988 and Hartley, 2007). Twelve
contributions deal with the tertiary educational level, including graduate school (for example
Winter & McGhie-Richmond, 2005) and university and college (for example Istenic Starcic,
2010; Ditcharoen et al, 2010).
Studies in early learning report on the use of ICT-supported learning for teaching children
language skills and on the effect of computer-supported collaboration on peer acceptance
and socio-emotional support. Most of them are about children at risk for learning disability:
Shamir and Shlafer (2011) (use of e-books), Magnan and Ecalle (2006) and Mioduser et al
(2000) (computer-assisted reading), Wright and Anderson (1987) (vocabulary learning), and
Tan and Cheung (2008) (computer-supported collaborative work applied to facilitate peer accept-
ance). Selda (2008) applied multimedia social stories to provide socio-emotional support for
young children with autism. A study in language training for children with language impairment
conducted by Schery and O’Connor (1997) indicated a better effect on learning outcome for ICT
in comparison with traditional instructional methods.
Studies about the lifelong use of ICT focus on general support in life for users and involve acces-
sibility of ICT resources. James and Hammersley (1993) reported on testing of ICT solutions for
the hearing-impaired, Hartley (1994) investigated designing instructional text for older readers,
and Seale (2001) investigated the use of personal web pages for adults with Down syndrome.
Studies with adults with severe cognitive disability have reported on the use of computer pictorial
instructions to provide support in the job environment (Furniss et al, 2001) and on computer-
supported daily organiser application testing (Ager & Aalykke, 2001). For people with acquired
brain injury, computer-aided relearning activity has been tested by experiment, with the control
group using traditional methods. One paper concludes that computer-aided relearning is efficient
and especially well accepted by younger users (Montero, López-Jaquero, Navarro & Sánchez,
2011). In studies with adults with learning disabilities, the use of websites (Aspinall & Hegarty,
2001; Johnson & Hegarty, 2003), the use of ICT as a support for community participation
(Parsons et al, 2006a) and the use of ICT for basic skills training (Nicol & Anderson, 2000) were
investigated.
Research design
The category of descriptive research design, in which the authors describe, explain, evaluate or
investigate a selected problem regarding the use of ICT for people with special needs (for example
Seale & Cooper, 2010; Seo & Bryant, 2009), contains the largest number of papers (58). Quali-
tative studies predominate among those of descriptive research design (for example Cheng &
Ye, 2010; Conti-Ramsden et al, 2010): in total there are 48. Quantitative studies (for example
Eden & Heiman, 2011; MacKenzie et al, 1970) total seven. Three papers were identified with
mixed-methods research design, applying both qualitative and quantitative research approaches
(interview and questionnaire) (for example Nevile & Treviranus, 2010). Among qualitative
studies, case studies are predominant—in total 17 (for example Doyle & Arnedillo-Sánchez,
2011; Tan & Cheung, 2008). They most frequently use observation and analysis or interviews
(for example Lewis et al, 2005). All quantitative studies are surveys using questionnaires (for
example Ari & Inan, 2010). Among the descriptive studies, the larger part—18 studies—were
conducted on a sample of up to 10 participants (for example Cheng & Ye, 2010; Lewis et al, 2005;
Tan & Cheung, 2008). Eight studies were conducted on samples of 10 to 50 participants (for
example Ari & Inan, 2010; Seo & Bryant, 2009); five studies were conducted on samples of 200
to 500 participants (for example Wisdom et al, 2007). Three quantitative studies covered samples
of over 100 participants (for example Abbott & Cribb, 2001; Lewis & Neill, 2001), two covered
samples of 50 to 100 participants (for example Dinçyürek, Arsan & Cağlar, 2011), one study had
127 participants (Conti-Ramsden et al, 2010) and one had between 500 and 1000 participants
(MacKenzie et al, 1970).
There are in total 31 papers in the category of developmental research design, and they present
design and development of ICT solutions for students with special needs (for example Brown
et al, 2011; Rosas, Nussbaum, Strasser & Csaszar, 1997). Predominant are qualitative studies
(for example Lin, 2007), in total 26, using interviews (for example Gabrielli et al, 2006), review
of journals (for example Istenic Starcic, 2010) and forum discussions (for example MacCann,
1996). There are six case studies (for example Mavrou et al, 2010) and three surveys based on
questionnaires (for example Istenic Starcic & Niskala, 2010; Sheehy, 2005). In this category, the
majority of studies were conducted on a sample of up to 10 participants (for example Liu & Hong,
2007; Mavrou et al, 2010) or 10 to 50 participants (for example Hegarty et al, 2000; Istenic
Starcic, 2010). Two studies used samples of between 200 and 500 participants (Istenic Starcic &
Niskala, 2010; Singleton & Simmons, 2001).
The category of experimental research design (for example Hertzog et al, 1989; Shamir & Shlafer,
2011) contains papers about experiments with experimental and control groups. In total there
are 21 papers, which all used the quantitative research approach, conducting pre- and posttreat-
ment tests (for example Kleemans et al, 2010) or interviews (for example Straker, 1988). Among
the experimental studies, nine studies had a sample group consisting of 10 to 50 participants
(for example Kleemans et al, 2010; Mioduser et al, 2000). Four papers used sample groups of 50
to 100 participants (for example Durkin et al, 2011; Houghton et al, 2004). Four papers used
samples of 100 to 200 participants (for example Bottge et al, 2009; Shamir & Shlafer, 2011), two
papers described samples of up to 10 participants (for example Rajendran & Mitchell, 2000), and
one study used a sample of between 200 and 500 participants (Guat & Teh, 1987).
The category of developmental and experimental research design contains eight papers, presenting
testing of newly designed and developed ICT solutions through experiments with experimental
and control groups (for example Sheehy, 2005; Yang & Lay, 2005). Six studies are quantitative,
using observation and analysis. Two studies combine quantitative and qualitative approaches,
using questionnaires as well as experiments (Walker & Rostron, 1999; Yang et al, 2007). In this
category, four studies were conducted with samples of 10 to 50 participants (for example
Ortega-Tudela & Gómez-Ariza, 2006; Yang et al, 2007), three with 10 participants (for example
Sheehy, 2005) and one with a sample of 98 participants (Ditcharoen et al, 2010).
Inclusion and mainstreaming
In the 1970s, when the majority of children with disabilities were still educated in special insti-
tutions, ideas of integration and inclusion started to appear. Education of students with special
educational needs must take place within the mainstream (Opara, 2007), with children enrolled
full-time in their neighbourhood schools and communities (Tan & Cheung, 2008). While the first
paper on special-education reform was published in 1968 by Dunn (Lindsay, 2007), it was not
until the late 1980s that two contributions appeared in the journals of educational technology in
which we recognise the beginnings of inclusion. Guat and Teh (1987) did a case study with
control and experimental classes exploring the performance of instructional objectives as a learn-
ing aid with pupils who are academically less able and who require high levels of guidance and
support. One year later Straker (1988) published a quantitative study on the effects of the use of
interactive video in teaching students in mainstream schools who have special educational needs
and are mildly handicapped.
Papers directly addressing inclusion began appearing in 2001. BJET published a special issue on
ICT for people with special needs in the year 2001 (Volume 32, Number 3), highlighting inclusion
in ICT-supported learning for people with special needs.
Five dominant themes emerged from the review of papers on inclusion. According to Ralph
(2006) and Florian (2003), the five themes illustrate the use of ICT for transformation of teach-
ing and learning to provide equity for and facilitate inclusion of people with special needs in
mainstream classrooms and society. Lindsay (2007) proposes the evaluation of learning out-
comes and the learning process as a means of providing evidence for effective pedagogical practice
in inclusive classrooms. The reviewed papers address the teaching and learning process in terms
of the themes of planning, learning environment, teaching methods, preparing teachers for
inclusive education and accessibility of computer-based resources.
With regard to curriculum planning, authoring tools have been considered; the effectiveness of
learning-management systems in providing digital learning environments has been discussed;
computer-supported collaborative learning has been investigated as social support to facilitate
inclusive classrooms; and accessibility of computer-based resources has been discussed with
regard to inclusive education and social engagement. Preparing teachers for inclusive teaching
has been considered with respect to computer-supported learning and professional development
practices and communities.
Planning and learning environments are discussed with regard to differentiated instruction.
From the perspective of curriculum planning and lesson conduction, the use of curriculum-
authoring tools has been investigated in facilitating the inclusion of all students in the classroom
using different teaching methods (Bain & Parkes, 2006). Learning-management systems have been
addressed from two standpoints: that of special design and development for special-needs stu-
dents with severe learning difficulties (Istenic Starcic & Niskala, 2010), blind students (Freire et al,
2010), and those with social impairment (Bishop, 2003); and that of being designed to ensure
accessibility for learners with different accessibility requirements (Luke, 2002). Computer-
supported collaborative learning has been investigated as social support to facilitate mainstream inclu-
sion and is reported as enabling this in inclusive classrooms. It facilitates and improves interaction
between students with special needs and their peers (Lewis et al, 2005), improves peer acceptance
of students with special needs (Tan & Cheung, 2008) and has a positive impact on overall
communication and engagement in learning activities in inclusive classroom (Mavrou et al,
2010).
Under the theme of accessibility of computer-based resources in inclusive education and social engage-
ment, papers addressed the issue of accessibility of resources in education and the wider context.
The identified subthemes are promotion of inclusion through websites (Abbott & Cribb, 2001),
use of ICT to support community participation of people with special needs (Parsons et al,
2006a), accessibility to disability groups with particular needs (Freire et al, 2010; Istenic Starcic
& Niskala, 2010) and universal design and accessibility for all (Iorio et al, 2006; Nevile &
Treviranus, 2010; Witt & McDermott, 2004). Universal design can significantly support inclu-
sion processes by providing accessibility for all. Witt and McDermott (2004) investigated aca-
demic websites’ accessibility on the basis of universal design in the UK. Nevile and Treviranus
(2010) focused on interoperability for individual learners’ particular accessibility needs and
preferences. Specifications for display, control and content following principles of design for all
were discussed. Iorio et al (2006) investigated design, production and delivery of accessible learn-
ing materials for people with disabilities compatible with W3C standard-compliant technologies.
Teachers’ preparation and professional development is discussed with regard to teachers’ attitudes
towards and experiences with the use of computers for special-needs education (Lewis & Neill,
2001) and the role of communities of practice and computer conferencing in facilitating
discussion and reflection among teacher–practitioners (Wearmouth et al, 2004; Winter &
McGhie-Richmond, 2005). Approaches to teacher education and training, including ICT-
supported learning environments that enable inclusion and differentiated instruction in inclusive
classes, were developed and presented by Istenic Starcic (2010). The SEVERI e-learning environ-
ment for special-needs pupils enables student teachers to plan and implement the innovative use of
ICT in teaching and develops their ICT competences for inclusive education.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is to review and analyse research papers published in the field of
ICT-supported learning for people with special needs. Based on a search in ISI Web of Knowledge
it was found that the topic has not been extensively investigated, with a total of 118 papers
identified; and that the relevant papers are largely in educational technology and ICT-supported
learning journals. An analysis of all topics published in the five educational technology journals
BJET, CE, JCAL, ETR&D and ETS from 2000 to 2009 also revealed that ICT-supported learning of
special needs was the least-published research topic among all published topics (Hsu et al, 2012).
This review of publications in selected journals over the last 41 years (1970–2011) contributes
to knowledge in the rapidly developing field of how educational technology establishes ICT-
supported learning environments for special needs and contributes to inclusion. The main finding
of the review is that the vast majority of papers published look at specific disability groups or
mixes of disabilities, with most papers published on learning disability. Further, the main conclu-
sions concern two issues: the role of ICT in inclusion and the design of pedagogical and techno-
logical interventions. The two issues identified have not been sufficiently addressed, and this needs
to be resolved by addressing them in future studies.
Our review found a number of papers covering different areas of disability or a combination of
disability areas, with most of these papers covering learning difficulties or disabilities. This is in
contrast with the findings of Williams, Hamid, Jamali and Nicholas (2006), who, in an extensive
review of publications, identified a lack of usability studies for ICT users with learning disabilities
and concluded that students with learning disabilities are disadvantaged in this respect in com-
parison with other disability groups.
The review addresses questions about the role of ICT for inclusion of people with special needs in
mainstream education in order to raise broader issues of their inclusion in modern society. The
design of inclusive learning environments using teaching and learning approaches (for example
differentiated instruction) intended to support inclusion processes is one of the main issues in
contemporary mainstream education and society, especially because inclusion processes have
been inconclusive (Lindsay, 2007). Teaching and learning approaches for inclusive learning
environments can be facilitated by educational technology and ICT, fostering the process of
inclusion in education (Florian, 2003; Ralph, 2006). Papers on this issue began to appear in
2001, with a total of 17 papers categorised in this group. ICT-assisted learning is becoming
important in formal educational settings, in nonformal settings and in general support for life.
Especially for students with disabilities, ICT provides accessibility and equal engagement and
facilitates overcoming of potential isolation by connecting them to social environments and
enabling their participation in education and wider society.
ICT pedagogical and technological interventions were considered as to whether they support
particular needs of users within specific disability groups or are designed for all users, addressing
various needs and preferences and including students with special requirements according to
their disability. Papers mainly investigate ICT-supported learning with regard to particular dis-
ability groups. Only a few papers, published after the year 2000, address universal design. Uni-
versal design principles can make a significant contribution to the support of inclusion processes,
providing accessibility of resources and processes for all. In instructional design, they facilitate
accessibility for all with regard to learning resources and processes (engagement in learning
activities and communication with teachers). Students with different accessibility requirements
should have the possibility of equal engagement in learning environments. Studies in ICT-
supported learning need to address all students—those with special needs and those who do
not have special needs. If they are to foster inclusive processes in education they could, for
example, investigate how students with different requirements use the same learning environ-
ment, or attitudes and experiences of students with different requirements in ICT use in learning
or free-time activities. Studies have determined that universally designed environments that
include solutions for special requirements can be beneficial for general users. Examples include
instructional design solutions for students with learning difficulties (guided instruction, learning-
strategy support, supplementary learning material, varying test formats) that have been proven
to be beneficial for all students (Silver et al, 1998).
The review brings together information from publications in seven major educational technology
journals, providing insight for researchers from various fields into the field of ICT-assisted learn-
ing in order to promote investigation and design on the basis of a universal-design-facilitated
range of educational and access requirements, thus providing accessibility and facilitating inclu-
sion for all.
Acknowledgements
The study is part of the ENABLE Network of ICT Supported Learning for Disabled People 2011–
2014 project (2011-4437/001-001). The project is coordinated by the University of Primorska,
Slovenia and funded with support from the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European
Commission.
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
Abbott, C. & Cribb, A. (2001). Special schools, inclusion and the World Wide Web—the emerging research
agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 3, 331–342.
Adamo-Villani, N. & Beni, G. (2004). Automated finger spelling by highly realistic 3D animation. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 3, 345–362.
Adler, D. L. (1994). Getting clean with Herkimer: a software package for teaching children in special
education to classify common objects. Computers & Education, 23, 3, 227–235.
Ager, A. & Aalykke, S. (2001). TACS: a microcomputer support system for persons with cognitive disabilities.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 3, 373–377.
Ari, I. A. & Inan, F. A. (2010). Assistive technologies for students with disabilities: a survey of access and use
in Turkish Universities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 2, 40–45.
Aspinall, A. & Hegarty, J. R. (2001). ICT for adults with learning disabilities: an organisation-wide audit.
Bailey, J. & Weippert, H. (1992). Using computers to improve the language competence and attending
behaviour of deaf Aboriginal children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 8, 2, 118–127.
Bain, A. & Parkes, R. J. (2006). Curriculum authoring tools and inclusive classroom teaching practice: a
longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 2, 177–189.
Beacham, N. A. & Alty, J. L. (2006). An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the
learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Computers & Education, 47, 1, 74–93.
Beale, I. L. (2005). Scaffolding and integrated assessment in computer assisted learning (CAL) for children
with learning disabilities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21, 2, 173–191.
Bishop, J. (2003). The Internet for educating individuals with social impairments. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 19, 546–556.
Bloor, C., Curran, D. A. S., Fowler, J., Manktelow, K., Middleton, W. & Moscardini, A. O. (1992). A hypertext
system for teaching employment-related language to hearing-impaired school leavers. Computers & Edu-
cation, 18, 1–3, 201–207.
Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Kwon, J. M., Grant, T. & LaRoque, P. (2009). Assessing and tracking students’
problem solving performances in anchored learning environments. Education Technology Research Devel-
opment, 57, 529–552.
Brebner, A., Clark, L. M. & Johnson, K. (1984). Vocational training for developmentally handicapped adults
using CAI. Computers & Education, 8, 4, 445–448.
Brown, D. J., McHugh, D., Standen, P., Evett, L., Shopland, N. & Battersby, S. (2011). Designing location-
based learning experiences for people with intellectual disabilities and additional sensory impairments.
Computers & Education, 56, 1, 11–20.
Brown, I. C. (1987). Special keyboards for special needs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 1,
67–74.
Chambers, P. (1997). IV and SEN: using interactive video with special education needs pupils. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 28, 1, 31–39.
Chen, M., Wu, T., Lin, Y., Tasi, Y. & Chen, H. (2009). The effect of different representations on reading
digital text for students with cognitive disabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 4, 764–
770.
Cheng, Y., Chiang, H., Ye, J. & Cheng, L. (2010). Enhancing empathy instruction using a collaborative
virtual learning environment for children with autistic spectrum conditions. Computers & Education, 55,
4, 1449–1458.
Cheng, Y. & Ye, J. (2010). Exploring the social competence of students with autism spectrum conditions
in a collaborative virtual learning environment—the pilot study. Computers & Education, 54, 4, 1068–
1077.
Cifuentes, L., Sharp, A., Bulu, S., Benz, M. & Stough, L. M. (2010). Developing a Web 2.0-based system with
user-authored content for community use and teacher education. Education Technology Research Develop-
ment, 58, 377–398.
Conole, G. & Oliver, M. (2007). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: themes, methods, and impacts
on practice. London: Routledge.
Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K. & Walker, A. J. (2010). Computer anxiety: a comparison of adolescents with
and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Computers & Education, 54, 1, 136–145.
Davis, P. & Florian, L. (2004). Searching the literature on teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with
special educational needs: knowledge production and synthesis. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 4, 3, 142–147.
Dimitriadi, Y. (2001). Evaluating the use of multimedia authoring with dyslexic learners: a case study.
Dinçyürek, S., Arsan, N. & Cağlar, M. (2011). The orthopedically handicapped and computer usage: the case
of TRNC. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 1, 209–215.
Ditcharoen, N., Naruedomkul, K. & Cercone, N. (2010). SignMT: an alternative language learning tool.
Douglas, G. (2001). ICT, education, and visual impairment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 3,
353–364.
Doyle, T. & Arnedillo-Sánchez, I. (2011). Using multimedia to reveal the hidden code of everyday behaviour
to children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs). Computers & Education, 56, 2, 357–369.
Durkin, K., Conti-Ramsden, G. & Walker, A. J. (2011). Txt lang: texting, textism use and literacy abilities in
adolescents with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27,
49–57.
Eden, S. & Heiman, T. (2011). Computer mediated communication: social support for students with and
without learning disabilities. Educational Technology & Society, 14, 2, 89–97.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2010). Special needs educational. country data.
Retrieved December 17, 2011, from http://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/special-
needs-education-country-data-2010/SNE-Country-Data-2010.pdf
Fawcett, A. J., Nicolson, R. I. & Morris, S. (1993). Computer-based spelling remediation for dyslexic children.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9, 3, 171–183.
Fetton, E. A. & Blenkhorn, P. (1986). Computer assisted communication in the education of the visually
impaired. Computers & Education, 10, 29–33.
Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N. et al (2009). Disabilities and
e-learning problems and solutions: an exploratory study. Educational Technology & Society, 12, 4, 241–
256.
Florian, L. (2003). Editorial. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 3, 3, 139–140.
Freire, A. P., Linhalis, F., Bianchini, S. L., Fortes, R. P. M., Pimentel, M. da G. C. (2010). Revealing the
whiteboard to blind students: an inclusive approach to provide mediation in synchronous e-learning
activities. Computers & Education, 54, 4, 866–876.
Furniss, F., Lancioni, G., Rocha, N., Cunha, B., Seedhouse, P., Morato, P. et al (2001). VICAID: development
and evaluation of a palm-top-based job aid for workers with severe developmental disabilities. British
Gabrielli, S., Mirabella, V., Kimani, S. & Catarci, T. (2006). A boosting approach to econtent development for
learners with special needs. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 4, 17–26.
García, A. M. D. & Cuello, R. O. (2010). A model of equitable and sustainable redistribution of knowledge.
Education Technology Research Development, 58, 781–790.
Germann, C., Broida, J. K. & Broida, J. M. (2003). Using computer-based virtual tours to assist persons with
disabilities. Educational Technology & Society, 6, 3, 53–60.
Gregor, P., Dickinson, A., Macaffer, A. & Andreasen, P. (2003). SeeWord—a personal word processing
environment for dyslexic computer users. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 3, 341–355.
Guat, T. B. & Teh, G. P. L. (1987). The effectiveness of using instructional objectives with less able secondary
school pupils. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 3, 2, 135–144.
Habib, M. (1988). A reading system for the blind based on geometrical shapes. Computers & Education, 12,
2, 311–320.
Hartley, J. (1994). Designing instructional text for older readers: a literature review. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 25, 3, 172–188.

Hartley, J. (2007). Teaching, learning and new technology: a review for teachers. British Journal of Educa-
tional Technology, 38, 1, 42–62.
Hegarty, J., Bostock, S. & Collins, D. (2000). Staff development in information technology for special
needs: a new distance-learning course at Keele University. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 3,
199–212.
Hertzog, M., Stinson, M. S. & Keiffer, R. (1989). Effects of caption modification and instructor intervention
on comprehension of a technical film. Educational Technology Research & Development, 37, 2, 59–68.
Houghton, S., Milner, N., West, J., Douglas, G., Lawrence, V., Whiting, K. et al (2004). Motor control and
sequencing of boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during computer game play.
Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y. et al (2012). Research trends in
technology-based learning from 2000 to 2009: a content analysis of publications in selected journals.
Educational Technology & Society, 15, 2, 354–370.
Iorio, A. D., Feliziani, A. A., Mirri, S., Salomoni, P. & Vitali, F. (2006). Automatically producing accessible
learning objects. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 4, 3–16.
Istenic Starcic, A. (2010). Educational technology for the inclusive classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of
Istenic Starcic, A., Cotic, M. & Zajc, M. (2013). Design-based research on the use of a tangible user
interface for geometry teaching in an inclusive classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 5,
729–744.
[Correction added on 13 September 2013, after first online publication: The publication year and issue
details for this reference have been corrected.]
Istenic Starcic, A. & Niskala, M. (2010). Vocational students with severe learning difficulties learning on the
Internet. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 6, 155–159.
James, V. & Hammersley, M. (1993). Notebook computers as note-takers for handicapped students. British
Johnson, R. & Hegarty, J. R. (2003). Websites as educational motivators for adults with learning disability.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jones, A. (1996). The use of computers to support learning in children with emotional and behavioural
difficulties. Computers Education, 26, 1–3, 81–90.
Kang, H. W. & Zentall, S. S. (2011). Computer-generated geometry instruction: a preliminary study. Educa-
tion Technology Research Development, 59, 783–797.
Kavkler, M. (2007). Ali je šola dovolj dobra za otroke s posebnimi potrebami? Uresničevanje inkluzije v šolski
praksi. Šolsko Polje, 44, 3, 77–94.
Kleemans, T., Segers, E., Droop, M. & Wentink, H. (2010). WebQuests in special primary education: learning
in a Web-based environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 5, 801–810.
Kolenc, J. & Lebarič, N. (2007). Toward inclusive treatment of children with special needs. Šolsko Polje, 3/4,
95–108.
Koler Povh, T., Južnič, P., Turk, Ž. & Turk, G. (2011). Analysis of scientific publications in civil and geodetic
engineering in Slovenia, in the case of the Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering in University of
Ljubljana. Geodetski Vestnik, 55, 4, 764–780.
Konur, O. (2007). Computer-assisted teaching and assessment of disabled students in higher education: the
interface between academic standards and disability rights. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 3,
207–219.
Kunpfer, N. & McLellan, H. (1996). Descriptive research methodologies. In H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp 1196–1212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Association.
Kurhila, J. & Laine, T. (2000). Individualized special education with cognitive skill assessment. British Journal
Law, A. G., Maguire, R. B., Sabo, D. F. G. & Shuparski, B. M. (1984). Computer voice support for visually-
handicapped students. Computers & Education, 8, 1, 35–39.
Lewis, L., Trushell, J. & Woods, P. (2005). Effects of ICT group work on interactions and social acceptance
of a primary pupil with Asperger’s syndrome. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 5, 739–
755.
Lewis, N. & Neill, S. (2001). Portable computers for teachers and support services working with pupils with
special educational needs: an evaluation of the 1999 United Kingdom Department for Education and
Employment scheme. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 3, 301–315.

Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: issues and coping strategies experienced by profes-
sional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Education Technology Research
Development, 55, 411–437.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. London: Sage.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24.
Ling, B., Allison, C., Nicholl, J. R., Moodley, L. & Roberts, D. (2006). Disabilities Information Flow: a disabili-
ties information management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 2, 289–294.
Liu, C. & Hong, Y. (2007). Providing hearing-impaired students with learning care after classes through
smart phones and the GPRS network. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 4, 727–741.
Luke, R. (2002). AccessAbility: enabling technology for lifelong learning inclusion in an electronic
classroom—2000. Educational Technology & Society, 5, 1, 148–153.
MacCann, A. (1996). Designing accessible learning materials for learners with disabilities and learning
difficulties. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 12, 2, 109–120.
MacKenzie, N., Jones, H. C. & Payne, T. (1970). Audio-visual resources in Sussex schools. British Journal of
Magnan, A. & Ecalle, J. (2006). Audio-visual training in children with reading disabilities. Computers &
Education, 46, 4, 407–425.
Mavrou, K., Lewis, A. & Douglas, G. (2010). Researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive
classrooms in Cyprus: the role of the computer in pupils’ interaction. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 41, 3, 486–501.
McEvoy, J. & McConkey, R. (1991). Self-instructional videocourses: a cost-effective approach to in-service
training of teachers in special education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 3, 164–173.
Merrell, C. & Tymms, P. (2007). Identifying reading problems with computer-adaptive assessments. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 27–35.
Mintz, J., Branch, C., March, C. & Lerman, S. (2012). Key factors mediating the use of a mobile technology
tool designed to develop social and life skills in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Computers &
Education, 58, 53–62.
Mioduser, D., Tur-Kaspa, H. & Leitner, I. (2000). The learning value of computer-based instruction of early
reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 54–63.
Montero, F., López-Jaquero, V., Navarro, E. & Sánchez, E. (2011). Computer-aided relearning activity pat-
terns for people with acquired brain injury. Computers & Education, 57, 1149–1159.
Neilson, D. P., Pickering, J. A. & Vella, C. A. (1989). Technology and special needs: a survey of current UK
research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 20, 1, 57–60.
Nevile, L. & Treviranus, J. (2010). Interoperability for individual learner centred accessibility for Web-based
educational systems. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 4, 215–227.
Newell, A. F., Booth, L. & Beattie, W. (1991). Predictive text entry with PAL and children with learning
difficulties. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 1, 23–40.
Nicol, M. M. & Anderson, A. (2000). Computer-assisted vs. teacher-directed teaching of numeracy in adults.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 184–192.
Nicolson, R. N., Pickering, S. & Fawcett, A. J. (1991). A HyperCard TM spelling support environment for
dyslexic children. Computers & Education, 16, 2, 203–209.
Norwich, B. (2008). Dilemmas of difference, inclusion and disability. Abingdon: Routledge.
Ohene-Djan, J., Zimmer, R., Gorle, M. & Naqvi, S. (2003). A personalisable electronic book for video-based
sign language education. Educational Technology & Society, 6, 4, 86–99.
Opara, B. (2007). From apprehending to the inclusiveness paradigm. Šolsko Polje, 18, 3–4, 35–61.
Opara, B. (2009). Children with special needs in schools and kindergartens. The role and function of kindergartens
and schools in the education of children with special needs. Ljubljana: Centerkontura.
Ortega-Tudela, J. M. & Gómez-Ariza, C. J. (2006). Computer-assisted teaching and mathematical learning in
Down Syndrome children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 298–307.
Ozdemir, S. (2008). Using multimedia social stories to increase appropriate social engagement in young
children with autism. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7, 3, 80–88.
Parsons, S., Daniels, H., Porter, J. & Robertson, C. (2006a). The use of ICT by adults with learning disabilities
in day and residential services. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37, 1, 31–44.
Parsons, S., Leonard, A. & Mitchell, P. (2006b). Virtual environments for social skills training: comments
from two adolescents with autistic spectrum disorder. Computers & Education, 47, 2, 186–206.
Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. & Doig, B. (2009). Mathematical power of special-needs
pupils: an ICT-based dynamic assessment format to reveal weak pupils’ learning potential. British Journal

Rajendran, G. & Mitchell, P. (2000). Computer mediated interaction in Asperger’s syndrome: the Bubble
Dialogue program. Computers & Education, 35, 3, 189–207.
Ralph, S. (2006). Editorial. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 6, 1, 1–2.
Reis, M. G. A. D., Cabral, L., Peres, E., Bessa, M., Valente, A., Morais, R. et al (2010). Using informa-
tion technology based exercises in primary mathematics teaching of children with cerebral palsy
and mental retardation: a case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9, 3, 106–
118.
Richey, R. & Nelson, W. (1996). Development research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp 1213–1245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Strasser, K. & Csaszar, F. (1997). Computer assisted mediation for blind children.
Computer & Education, 28, 4, 229–235.
Ross, S. & Morrison, G. (1996). Experimental research methods. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research for educational communications and technology (pp 1170–1213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Rostron, A., Plant, R. & Hermann, C. (1994). Hypermedia for the learning disabled: expensive luxury or
useful tool? Computers & Education, 22, 3, 215–223.
Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). Time to end the bias towards inclusive education? British Journal of Special
Education, 38, 3, 112–119.
Sahin, Y. G. & Cimen, F. M. (2011). An interactive attention board: improving the attention of individuals
with autism and mental retardation. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 1, 24–35.
Sánchez, J. & Sáenz, M. (2010). Metro navigation for the blind. Computers & Education, 55, 970–981.
Schery, T. & O’Connor, L. (1997). Language intervention: computer training for young children with special
needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 4, 271–279.
Schloss, P. J. (1986). Sequence of direct instructional activities for handicapped learners. British Journal of
Seale, J. & Cooper, N. (2010). E-learning and accessibility: an exploration of the potential role of generic
pedagogical tools. Computers & Education, 54, 1107–1116.
Seale, J. K. (2001). The same but different: the use of the personal home page by adults with Down syndrome
as a tool for self-presentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 3, 343–352.
Selda, O. (2008). Using multimedia social stories to increase appropriate social engagement in young
children with autism. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7, 3, 80–88.
Seo, Y. & Bryant, D. P. (2009). Analysis of studies of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on the
mathematics performance of students with learning disabilities. Computers & Education, 53, 3, 913–928.
Seo, Y. & Woo, H. (2010). The identification, implementation, and evaluation of critical user interface design
features of computer-assisted instruction programs in mathematics for students with learning disabilities.
Sepehr, H. & Harris, D. (1995). Teachers’ use of software for pupils with specific learning difficulties. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 11, 2, 64–71.
Shamir, A. & Shlafer, I. (2011). E-books effectiveness in promoting phonological awareness and concept
about print: a comparison between children at risk for learning disabilities and typically developing
kindergarteners. Computers & Education, 57, 1989–1997.
Sheehy, K. (2005). Morphing images: a potential tool for teaching word recognition to children with severe
learning difficulties. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 2, 293–301.
Shih, M., Feng, J. & Tsai, T. (2008). Research and trends in the field of e-learning from 2001 to 2005: a
content analysis of cognitive studies in selected journals. Computers & Education, 51, 2, 955–967.
Silver, P., Bourke, A. & Strehorn, K. C. (1998). Universal instructional design in higher education: an
approach for inclusion. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31, 2, 47–51.
Singleton, C. & Simmons, F. (2001). An evaluation of Wordshark in the classroom. British Journal of Edu-
cational Technology, 32, 3, 317–330.
Snell, R. C., Dickson, B. C. & Ingram, J. C. L. (1984). Visible speech for the hearing impaired. Computers &
Education, 8, 4, 441–444.
Standen, P. J., Camm, C., Battersby, S., Brown, D. J. & Harrison, M. (2011). An evaluation of the Wii
Nunchuk as an alternative assistive device for people with intellectual and physical disabilities using
switch controlled software. Computers & Education, 56, 1, 2–10.
Straker, N. (1988). Interactive video: a cost-effective model for mathematics and science classrooms. British
Tan, T. S. & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Effects of computer collaborative group work on peer acceptance of a
junior pupil with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Computers & Education, 50, 3, 725–741.

Thorne, M. (1987). The legacy of the Microelectronics Education Programme. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 3, 18, 165–181.
Valenti, S., Fioretti, S., Maurizi, M., Panti, M. & Leo, T. (2002). Teaching motor disability assessment over the
Web: MODASPECTRA. Educational Technology & Society, 5, 1, 184–198.
Vincent, T. (1982). Computer assisted support for blind students: the use of a microcomputer linked voice
synthesizer. Computers & Education, 6, 1, 55–60.
Walker, J. & Rostron, A. (1999). CAL and acoustic environments for deaf children. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 15, 85–90.
Ward, R., Lindley, P., Rostron, A., Sewell, D. & Cubie, R. (1985). An evaluation of the Language and Thought
software. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1, 2, 66–72.
Wearmouth, J., Smith, A. P. & Soler, J. (2004). Computer conferencing with access to a “guest expert” in the
professional development of special educational needs coordinators. British Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 35, 1, 81–93.
Wilding, J. M. (1999). Use of IT with learning-disabled population: problems and challenges. Educational
Technology & Society, 2, 4, 130–133.
Williams, P., Hamid, R., Jamali, R. & Nicholas, D. (2006). Using ICT with people with special education
needs: what the literature tells us. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58, 4, 330–345.
Winter, E. C. & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2005). Using computer conferencing and case studies to enable
collaboration between expert and novice teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 2, 118–129.
Wisdom, J. P., White, N., Goldsmith, K., Bielavitz, S., Rees, A. & Davis, C. (2007). Systems limitations hamper
integration of accessible information technology in Northwest US K-12 schools. Educational Technology &
Society, 10, 3, 222–232.
Witt, N. & McDermott, A. (2004). Web site accessibility: what logo will we use today? British Journal of
Wood, D. L. (1986). Designing microcomputer programs for disabled students. Computers & Education, 10, 1,
35–42.
Woodfine, B. P., Baptista Nunes, M. & Wright, D. J. (2008). Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia:
not necessarily the perfect match! Computers & Education, 50, 3, 703–717.
Wright, A. & Anderson, M. (1987). Does a computer system help to teach a sight vocabulary to children with
severe learning difficulties? British Journal of Educational Technology, 1, 18, 52–60.
Wright, A., Read, P. & Anderson, M. (1992). Contrasting computer input devices for teaching children with
severe learning difficulties to read. British Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 2, 106–112.
Yang, H. & Lay, Y. (2005). Implementation and evaluation of computer-aided Mandarin phonemes training
system for hearing-impaired students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 3, 537–551.
Yang, H. Y., Lay, Y.-L., Liou, Y.-C., Tsao, W.-T. & Lin, C.-K. (2007). Development and evaluation of computer-
aided music-learning system for the hearing impaired. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 466–
476.

ICT-supported Learning For Inclusion of People With Special Needs: Review of Seven Educational Technology Journals, 1970-2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICT-supported Learning For Inclusion of People With Special Needs: Review of Seven Educational Technology Journals, 1970-2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 2 2014 202–230

ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special

Andreja Istenic Starcic and Spela Bagon

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Instruments and data collection

Content analysis of the research topics

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

Pedagogical 2 (2.70) 16 (21.62) 8 (10.81) 16 (21.62) 32 (43.24) 74 (100) 62.71

Special needs 1970–1985: MacKenzie, Jones and Payne (1970)

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

difficulties, speech impairment

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Disabled (receptive language and reading comprehension) 2006–2011: Mavrou et al (2010)

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Mobility impairment/wheelchair user, ADD/ADHD, 2006–2011: Fichten et al (2009)

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

Learners 2 (3.57) 12 (21.43) 4 (7.14) 8 (14.29) 30 (53.57) 56 (100) 47.46

*Physical, communicational, emotional intellectual, learning and cognitive, vision, orthopaedic/mobility,

Table 4: Number of papers published by publication year according to school level

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

Preprimary 0 (0.00) 1 (14.28) 2 (28.57) 0 (0.00) 4 (57.15) 7 (100) 5.93

Table 5: Number of papers published by publication year according to research design

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

Descriptive 2 (3.45) 14 (24.14) 4 (6.90) 10 (17.24) 28 (48.28) 58 (100) 49.15

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Table 6: Number of papers published by publication year according to sample size

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

1–10 0 (0.00) 2 (7.41) 3 (11.11) 9 (33.33) 13 (48.15) 27 (100) 22.88

Table 7: Number of papers published by publication year according to educational context

1970– 1986– 1996– 2001– 2006– Percentage

Special school 1 (2.78) 9 (25.00) 3 (8.33) 11 (30.56) 12 (33.33) 36 (100) 30.51

Authors, year of Number and description Educational level

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

Table 8: Studies on inclusion

Authors, year of Number and description Educational level

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

n/a, not applicable.

• Reviews (for example: Neilson et al, 1989)

Groups of study participants

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

© 2013 British Educational Research Association

You might also like