Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs  Volume 
doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12411
Attitudes of special education teachers towards
using technology in inclusive classrooms:
a mixed-methods study
Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed1,2
1
Sultan Qaboos University, College of Education; 2Assiut University, College of Education
Key words: Attitudes, technology, inclusive education, intellectual disability, hard of hearing, learning disabilities.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to
explore special education teachers’ attitudes
towards using technology in inclusive classrooms
in Oman. The sample consisted of 428 special
education teachers working in Omani public
schools (250 teachers of students with learning
disabilities (LD), 90 teachers of students with intel-
lectual disability and 88 teachers of students with
hearing impairment). Participants responded to the
attitudes towards computers questionnaire. For the
qualitative section of this study, three semi-struc-
tured group interviews were conducted with a
group of special education teachers: 15 teachers
of students with hearing impairment, 15 teachers
of students with intellectual disabilities and 15
teachers of students with LD). Also, the teachers
responded to a survey of educational technology
which encompassed seven questions about com-
puter technology. Results of the study indicated
that the special education teachers’ attitudes
towards using computers were generally positive.
The most notable positive attitudes were in the fol-
lowing subscales: special education considera-
tions, staff development considerations, computers
use in society, and computers and quality of
instruction issues. The analysis of variance results
showed that experience and type of disability did
not have a significant effect on teachers’ attitudes
towards technology.
Introduction
The work in the field of special education technology can
be summarised in searching, trialing, choosing, imple-
menting and evaluating technologies that increase, bypass
or compensate for a disability (Edyburn, 2013). Computer
technology has become an integral component in the edu-
cation of students with disabilities. Using computers in
classrooms helps teachers to individualise instruction and
introduce materials in more adaptive ways. The use of
information and communication technology (ICT)
enhances the independence of students with learning
ª 2018 NASEN
 Number   2018 –
disabilities (LD) and provides them with appropriate skills
that allow them to continue their study and move to nor-
mal work environment (Adam and Tatnall, 2017). Com-
puters can be advantageous not only in the presentation
of instructional content but also promote students’ interac-
tion to the computer (Lewandowski, Wood and Miller,
2016). However, reports indicate that a low percentage of
individuals of disabilities receive computer technology
services in developing countries (World Health Organisa-
tion, 2015). When blended with teaching, technology pro-
motes educators’ educational process and supports the
learning of students with disabilities. Computers are
advantageous for integrating visual and auditory stimuli
and encouraging students’ self-pacing (Belson, 2003). For
example, students may use word processors to accomplish
their assignments and manage linguistic errors (Mont-
gomery and Marks, 2006). Using technology with stu-
dents with disabilities is advantageous in their educational
outcomes (Michaels and McDermott, 2003; Schlosser and
Wendt, 2008).
Despite the use of computers in tasks such as preparation
of materials, entry of grades or searching for information
(Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, et al., 2003), teachers rarely
use computers and technology for instructional purposes
(Lambert, Gong and Cuper, 2008; Ma, Lai, Williams,
et al., 2008). Computer technology can provide students
with reading interventions and literacy skills (Lange,
McPhillips, Mulhern, et al., 2006), help teachers access
general curriculum which motivates and encourages stu-
dents in reading (Elder-Hinshaw, Manset-Williamson,
Nelson, et al., 2006), encourage the use of digital texts
and supported text in reading comprehension for students
with dyslexia (Stetter and Hughes, 2010), and increase
students’ writing productivity (Puckett, 2004). Computer
technology has an important role in improving students’
skills and motivation towards learning and providing
unbiased way of obtaining knowledge (Gulbahar, 2007).
Several educational models were developed to use tech-
nology for students with disabilities. The Matching Per-
son and Technology Model (MPT; Scherer, 2005)
1
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
considers students’ preferences, abilities and needs within
their contexts and relates these factors with characteristics
inherent in computer technology solutions. The MPT
model includes personal characteristics that might have
an impact on using technology such as age, gender and
goals, cultural and economic factors, and the availability
and cost of chosen technology. Technology is linked to
learning theories such as Vygotsky (1962) where it can
scaffold students in several ways such as writing support,
behavioural sequences, mathematical procedures and elec-
tronic books. Students may use these tools to create,
explore and reflect on their learning (Engestrom, 2009).
The success of inclusion is dependent on many factors
such as the teachers’ attitudes and their quality of instruc-
tion (Damore and Murray, 2009). Three factors have an
impact on teacher perceptions towards students with dis-
abilities. The first factor is the stereotypes that teachers
have about students with disabilities. The second factor
relates to the educators who have stereotypes about those
who are successful, which has an impact on students’ out-
comes. Third, the expectations and performance of stu-
dents with disabilities are often low, causing teachers to
believe that students with disabilities are neither confident
nor capable of achieving high standards (Dupoux, Wol-
man and Estrada, 2005). Although this study was con-
ducted over 10 years ago, many of these stereotypes
continue to exist in schools.
Teachers’ use of technology in schools can be affected by
some factors such as teacher’s acceptance of disability (Par-
ette, Huer and Scherer, 2004). Likewise, teachers show
rejection and low social attachment towards students with
disabilities. General and special education teachers’ feelings
of preparedness predicated their computer-based technol-
ogy when working with students with disabilities (Connor,
20052008). Also, some school-level obstacles regarding
attitudes towards computers are notable. Research indicated
that there is a lack of support, time and resources from the
school leadership, which in turn leads to lack of technology
use (Schoepp, 2005). Other factors such as lack of planning
and computer time were major barriers to computer use in
the schools (Beggs, 2000). Sicilia (2005) indicated that
teacher had a difficulty in gaining access to computers or
computer labs in the schools either because these labs
should have been reserved in advance or teachers were not
allowed to use these labs in certain points of time. Teachers
pointed out that the apparent barrier to use technology in
education was the lack of technical assistance (Pelgrum,
2001). These problems included slow Internet connections,
malfunctioning computers and working with old computers
(Sicilia, 2005). Copley and Ziviani (2004) posited that the
most prominent barriers to use technology in schools are
‘lack of appropriate staff training and support, negative staff
attitudes, inadequate assessment and planning processes,
insufficient funding, difficulties procuring and managing
equipment, and time constraints’ (p. 229).
2 ª 2018 NASEN
An advantage of computer technology is the improvement
of teaching and learning in inclusive environments. There
is a need to understand the barriers to technology faced
by teachers as this might be helpful in technology inte-
gration (Schoepp, 2005). Among these barriers are access
issues, professional experience and family involvement
(Dissinger, 2003; Michaels and McDermott, 2003; Smith
and Allsopp, 2005). Financial restraints such as purchase,
maintenance and replacement of equipment on both fami-
lies and schools may hinder technological interventions
(Edyburn, 2006). Also, research studies indicated that
graduates from education majors lack appropriate skills in
selecting and implementing technology (Puckett, 2004).
Teachers of students with emotional and behavioural dis-
orders reported that they are not prepared to integrate
technology in their teaching (Billingsley, Fall and Wil-
liams, 2006). Teacher preparation programmes rarely pro-
vide adequate training for prospective teachers (Bausch
and Hasselbring, 2004).
Special education in Oman
The field of special education has witnessed tremendous
changes in Oman in the last two decades. The Ministry
of Education started to provide services for hard of hear-
ing students (HH) via special classes in 1977/1978. Spe-
cial schools were established to serve students with
intellectual disabilities (ID) and visual impairment. Oman
started to implement the inclusion programme for stu-
dents with LD in the school year 2000/2001. This pro-
gramme offers appropriate educational programmes for
students with LD in public schools instead of referring
them to special education schools. Expansion of this pro-
gramme reached in the meantime to 592 schools serving
about 13266 students all over the Sultanate (Ministry of
Education, 2016). The LD programme aims at: (1) reduc-
ing the drop-out rates from schools due to low academic
achievement, (2) providing interventions for some psy-
chological, social and educational problems of students
with LD, and (3) providing the inclusion of students with
LD in regular education classrooms. Also, the ministry
started to implement the inclusion of students with ID
and HH in the school year 2005/2006 for the following
reasons. First, most of the special education schools affili-
ated to the ministry were located only in Muscat, the cap-
ital of Oman. Second, special education services needed
for students with special needs in different educational
directories did not exist. Third, inclusion aimed to avoid
the exclusion of students away from the least restrictive
environment. This programme consists of special class-
rooms attached to public schools. Several academic ser-
vices are provided to students with HH and ID inside
these classrooms through trained personnel in special edu-
cation. Students with disabilities are included with their
normal peers during periods of activities such as music,
arts education and social activities. In 2016, the number
of schools providing special education services for HH
was 54 and 164 for students with ID. A total of 1704

students of HH and ID are offered special education
services (Ministry of Education, 2016).
The topic of ICT for individuals with disabilities has not
had considerable attention in the literature (Istenic Starcic
and Bagon, 2014). Research related to special education
teachers’ perceptions or attitudes towards using technol-
ogy, or even special education teachers’ use of technol-
ogy, in Oman is scarce. Few studies have explored the
perceptions of Arabic language teachers’ use of technol-
ogy. There is a recognised need to increase the use of
educational devices during the lesson activities and pre-
pare well-designed software to teach Arabic language (Al
Musawi, Al Hashmi, Kazem, et al., 2016).
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore
the attitudes of special education teachers towards the use
of computer technology in inclusive classrooms in Oman.
A related purpose was to explore the differences between
teachers’ attitudes according to experience and type of
disability. The following questions guided the study:
1. What are the special education teachers’ attitudes
towards technology in inclusive classrooms?
2. Are there any significant differences in teachers’ atti-
tudes towards using technology in inclusive class-
rooms due to experience and disability type?
Method
Participants
The sample of the study consisted of 428 special educa-
tion teachers who teach students with LD (n = 250), ID
(n = 90) and HH (n = 88) in inclusive classrooms in the
Omani public schools. The sample was randomly selected
from a pool of special education teachers across different
schools in Oman. The population of the study was 1147
for teachers of LD and 624 for both teachers of HH and
ID. The teachers’ ages ranged from 23 to 44 years
(M = 33.2, SD = 5.2). These teachers were originally
teaching subjects such as language arts, mathematics and
science. Then, they received either special education
bachelor degrees or several professional development
opportunities in the field of special education to teach stu-
dents with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Teachers
of students with LD taught at resource rooms in public
schools where LD students come to receive special edu-
cation services. Teachers of students with HH and ID
taught in special classrooms in public schools. Sample
characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Instrument
The attitude towards computers scale. The participants
were asked to complete the attitudes survey which
consisted of 55 items in a Likert-type scale (1–5 format).
The scale comprised five subscales: computer impact on
society and the quality of life, understanding the role of
ª 2018 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
Table 1: Characteristics of the study sample
Type of disability Experience N
Learning disabilities 1–5 years 115
6–10 years 135
Total 250
Intellectual disabilities 1–5 years 55
6–10 years 35
Total 90
Hard of hearing 1–5 years 40
6–10 years 48
Total 88
computers, understanding of computers in general, special
education considerations, quality of instruction, staff
development issues and motivational factors. This scale is a
modification of a survey used by Karl (1990) and originally
developed by Ahl (1979). For the purpose of this study, the
scale was modified and several negative items were
identified and coded accordingly. The scale was first
translated to Arabic and then was back-translated to
English to maintain the correctness of translation. The scale
was shown to language experts to judge the translated
version. The scale was then shown to a group of experts in
psychology and instructional psychology for the purpose of
face validity. Some recommendations regarding wording of
the items were taken into consideration. Reliability using
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81 for the scale. The subscales
reliability were computer impact (0.62), computer in
society (0.76), understanding the role of computers (0.80),
understanding the role of computers (0.82), special
education considerations (0.74), computers and quality of
instruction issues (0.79), staff development issues (0.83)
and motivational factors (0.85). To explore the factorial
validity of the test, a confirmatory factor analysis was used.
Fit indices generated by the Amos programme showed that
the model fitted the data well (goodness of fit
index = 0.93, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.93,
normed fit index = 0.94, comparative fit index = 0.92, root
mean square error of approximation = 0.071).
Survey for educational technology. This survey was
adapted from the original survey developed by the
National Center of Educational Statistics in the United
States (Gray, Thomas and Lewis, 2010). This survey was
originally used to assess the US teachers’ of educational
technology. The questionnaire consisted of 16 questions
which covered three domains: demographic information,
accessibility and available equipment. For the purpose of
the qualitative section in this study, the original survey
questions were adapted and seven questions were
developed.
Procedure
Approvals for using the attitudes scale and survey instru-
ment for data collection were obtained from the
3
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –

Department of Research and Development at the Ministry of the results, a member check was conducted through
of Education. Then, teachers were consented to partici- giving a list of themes and quotes (Brantlinger, Jimenez,
pate in the study. The percentage of teachers who agreed Klingner, et al., 2005) to other special education teachers
to participate in the study was 85% of the entire teachers (according to each type of disability) which rendered an
who received consent letters. For the qualitative part of accurate interpretation of the data.
the study, the author led and moderated three focus
groups for each type of disability. Participants were asked Results
seven open-ended: (1) How often do students with dis- The first question was: What are the attitudes of special
abilities use the computer in the instructional activities in education teachers towards the use of computers in inclu-
the classroom? (2) Does the school have equipment such sive classrooms? Means and standard deviations of the
as LDC projectors, video conferencing, smart board, digi- attitudes subscales of are shown in Table 2. One-sample
tal cameras, media players or iPods, tablets, iPads and t-test was run to determine if a statistically significant dif-
etc.? (3) Are the teachers using technology in the class- ference existed between subscales scores and the virtual
room preparation, teaching or administrative work? (4), mean. A virtual mean score of 3 was obtained by divid-
How do you describe students’ performance in class- ing the sum of the Likert scale (1 through 5) by 5 (Likert
rooms where you teach in some activities using informa- categories). For teachers of LD, the t-values of the sub-
tion technology such as written texts, creating visual scales were all significant and positive with computers in
presentations, learning or practice of math and reading society, t (249) = 8.03, P = 0.001; special education con-
skills, communication with others, subscribing in blogs or siderations, t (249) = 14.8, P = 0.001; computers and
Wikipedia, using social media, problem solving, data
analysis, conducting experiments, preparation of multime-
dia presentations and developing products using computer Table 2: Means, standard deviations and t-test values
software? (5) How often do you use email, websites, of the attitudes towards technology scale
blogging and chat programmes in communicating with Subscale M SD t
parents? (6) How did training and professional activities Learning disabilities (N = 250)
participate in the teachers’ preparation of using technol-
Computer impact 3.47 0.74 3.77**
ogy in teaching? and (7) Did the professional develop-
Computers in society 3.72 0.53 8.03**
ment opportunities meet the teachers’ expectations
regarding information technology? The researcher used Understanding the role of computer 3.41 0.56 4.28*
probes to collect further information on teachers’ thoughts Understanding the computer itself 3.21 0.61 2.06**
and clarify any unclear questions. Each focus-group ses- Special education considerations 4.18 0.47 14.8**
sion lasted about 40 minutes. Computers and quality of instruction issues 3.80 0.52 9.15**
Staff development issues 3.92 0.52 10.43**
For the qualitative part of the study, three semi-structured
Motivational factors 3.73 0.59 7.24**
focus-group interviews were conducted with special edu-
cation teachers (LD, HH and ID). The focus-group tech- Hard of hearing (N = 88)
nique encompasses in-depth group interviews in which Computer impact 3.78 0.76 6.10**
participants are purposefully chosen as they are the focus Computers in society 3.90 0.53 10.04**
of a certain topic. Focus-group interviews are charac- Understanding the role of computer 3.48 0.59 4.84**
terised by the depth of data obtained based on the social
Understanding the computer itself 3.20 0.80 1.48
interaction among the participants (Rabiee, 2004). The
Special education considerations 4.22 0.56 12.85**
duration of the interview session was about one hour and
a half. Before starting the interviews, teachers were con- Computers and quality of instruction issues 3.84 0.45 11.15**
sented. Teachers who approved their participation were Staff development issues 3.95 0.54 10.39**
included in the interviews. The interviews took place in a Motivational factors 3.80 0.64 7.44**
technology lab where teachers had professional develop- Intellectual disabilities (N = 90)
ment training at this time. Teachers’ qualifications are
Computer impact 3.66 0.70 5.20**
mostly science education, mathematics education or Ara-
Computers in society 3.91 0.49 10.47**
bic language. The interviews were audio recorded and lit-
erally transcribed (Roulston, 2014). The Survey for Intellectual disabilities (N = 250)
Educational Technology questions (Gray, Thomas, and Understanding the role of computer 3.31 0.57 3.03**
Lewis, 2010) were reworded to serve the qualitative data Understanding the computer itself 3.51 0.68 4.15**
collection. Data were analysed using the constant-com- Special education considerations 4.39 0.33 23.56**
parative method to decide on the recurrent themes and
Computers and quality of instruction issues 3.69 0.38 10.06**
pinpoint common patters while keeping the individual
Staff development issues 4.26 0.67 10.47**
contextual information (Ely, Vinz, Anzul, et al., 1997).
The author reached a consensus about the quotes that fit- Motivational factors 3.74 0.49 8.47**
ted the themes of the questions. To assure the reliability Note. *Significant at the 0.05 level, **significant at the 0.01.

4 ª 2018 NASEN

quality of instruction issues, t (249) = 9.15, P = 0.001;
and staff development issues, t (249) = 10.43, P = 0.001
as the highest values. For teachers of HH students, the t
values of the subscales were all significant and positive
with computers in society, t (87) = 10.04, P = 0.001;
special education considerations, t (87) = 12.85,
P = 0.001; computers and quality of instruction issues, t
(87) = 11.15, P = 0.001; and staff development issues, t
(87) = 10.39, P = 0.001 as the highest values. Only one
subscale (understanding the computer itself) was not sta-
tistically significant. For teachers of students with ID, the
t-values of the subscales were all significant and positive
with computers in society, t (89) = 10.47, P = 0.001;
special education considerations, t (89) = 12.85,
P = 0.001; computers and quality of instruction issues, t
(89) = 10.06, P = 0.001; and staff development issues, t
(89) = 10.47, P = 0.001 as the highest values.
The second question: Are there any differences between
the three categories of special education teachers due to
experience and type of disability? To answer this ques-
tion, the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to detect the difference among groups of teach-
ers. The independent variables were experience and type
of disability and the dependent variables were the sub-
scales and total score. A two-way ANOVA results
showed no statistically significant effect of both experi-
ence and type of disability.
Students with disabilities use of computer in instructional
activities in the classroom
Several themes emerged in the discussion of students’ use
of computer in instructional strategies. Most of the special
education teachers agreed that their students need more
training on using computers. They agreed that students of
special needs will benefit to a great extent if they receive
regular training on using computers and Internet in doing
their assignments. Although students use computers, their
families still need to encourage them to use technology at
home. For instance, a teacher of HH said, ‘Sometimes, I
feel helpless because I want to have my students use
computers or technology, but either they do not have
access to technology in their homes or schools do not
have enough resources’. Teachers in inclusive classrooms
of HH reported that computer usage frequency in instruc-
tional activities is 68.57% in the classroom and 91.42%
in other places in the school. Teachers of LD reported
that computer usage frequency in instructional activities is
71.42% in the classroom and 80% in other places in the
school. Teachers of ID reported that computer usage fre-
quency in instructional activities is 51.61% in the class-
room and 90.32% in other places in the school.
Does the school have equipment such as LDC projectors,
video conferencing, smart board, digital cameras, media
players or iPods, tablets, iPads and etc.?
Teachers of HH reported the availability of the equipment
as following: LCD projectors (77.14%), videoconferencing
ª 2018 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
(25.71%), smart board (8.57%), digital cameras (28.57%),
media players or iPods (17.14%) and tablets (14.29%).
Teachers of ID students reported the availability of the
equipment as following: LCD projectors (64.51%), video-
conferencing (6.45%), smart board (22.58%), digital cam-
eras (19.35%), media players or iPods (29.03%) and tablets
(9.68%). Teachers of LD students reported the availability
of the equipment as following: LCD projectors (80%),
videoconferencing (20%), smart board (100%), digital
cameras (34.28%), media players or iPods (22.85%) and
tablets (6.06%).
The teachers agreed that they do not use most of the
state-of-art technology. Several reasons for this include
the insufficient experience in dealing with technology,
lack of time available to attend training workshops in
new trends of using technology in teaching, and lack of
time due to instructional burdens. Teachers reported that
their attitudes towards using technology are positive, but
these factors hinder them to make the best use of technol-
ogy in their instruction. For example, a teacher of stu-
dents with ID said, ‘I really like technology and feel
enthusiastic about integrating equipment, but my school
does not have the capability to support me’.
Are the teachers using technology in the classroom
preparation, teaching, or administrative work?
Several themes emerged from the discussion of different
technological applications used by teachers in classroom
preparation, teaching or administrative work. Teachers
agreed that more systematic plan is needed to help them
learn new technological applications. They believed that
technology is important, but some of them stated that
they do not have time to use technology either because
they do not have enough experience or training in using
available software. One of the teachers of students with
LD stated, ‘I do have a smart board in the resource room,
but all the instructions of running the board in is English.
I also do not have that much experience in using the soft-
ware. But, I really want to help my students make the
best use of it’. As seen from Table 3, the most frequent
technology applications used by teachers were word pro-
cessing software, spreadsheet and graphing programmes
(e.g., Excel), wikis, social networking websites and other
applications such as smart board. Examples of the less
frequently used technological applications in the class-
rooms include blogs, simulation programmes, software
for managing student records, software for desktop pub-
lishing and Internet. One of the teachers of HH students
said, ‘I have a little experience in teaching deaf students
and I have started my career with them. Sometimes, I feel
disappointed that I have to develop lessons on my own’.
How do you describe the students’ performance in
classrooms where you teach in some activities using
information technology such as written texts, creating
visual presentations, learning or practice of math and
reading skills, communication with others, subscribing
5
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –

Table 3: Percentages of teachers’ use of technology in Table 4: Percentages of students’ use of technology in
classroom preparation, instruction or administrative the classroom
task LD HH ID
LD HH ID Prepare written text 48.57 42.86 35.48
Word processing software 48.57 42.86 35.48 Create or use graphics or visual displays 28.57 60 48.39
Database management software 28.57 60 48.39 Learn or practice drill 37.14 42.86 54.84
Spreadsheets and graphing programmes 37.14 42.86 54.84 (e.g., reading or math)
Software for managing student records 14.29 8.571 19.35 Conduct research 14.29 8.571 19.35
Software for desktop publishing 14.29 14.29 41.94 Correspond with others 14.29 14.29 12.94
Graphics or image-processing software 8.571 11.43 19.35 Contribute to blogs and/or wikis 8.571 11.43 19.35
Software for making presentation 8.571 22.86 32.26 Use social networking websites 8.571 22.86 32.26
Software for administering test 5.714 14.29 22.58 Solve problems, analyse data 5.714 14.29 22.58
Simulation and visualisation programmes 5.714 20 25.81 Conduct experiments or perform 5.714 20 25.81
Drill/practice programmes 11.43 25.71 38.71 measurements
Subject-specific programmes 11.43 11.43 19.35 Develop and present multimedia 11.43 25.71 38.71
Internet 14.29 11.43 22.58 presentations
Blogs 11.43 8.571 19.35 Create art, music movies or webcast 11.43 11.43 19.35
Wikis 48.57 42.86 35.48 Develop or run demonstrations, 14.29 11.43 22.58
Social network websites 28.57 60 48.39 models or simulations
Other applications 37.14 42.86 54.84 Design and produce a product 11.43 8.571 19.35
Note. LD, learning disabilities; HH, hard of hearing; ID, intellectual dis- (e.g., computer-aided)
ability.
Note. LD, learning disabilities; HH, hard of hearing; ID, intellectual dis-
ability.
in blogs or Wikipedia, using social media, problem
solving, data analysis, conducting experiments, prepa-
Sometimes, I need to send or receive some important
ration of multimedia presentations, developing prod-
information about the student via email or other techno-
ucts using computer software?
logical applications, but this is not easy’. Few teachers
make use of other means of communication such as List-
Several themes emerged from the discussion of informa- serv, online bulletin boards or instant messaging. A tea-
tion technology applications that can be used inside or cher of the HH students posited, ‘I myself have an online
outside the classroom. Teachers agreed that there are dif- discussion forum but I do not have that much interaction
ferences among students’ use. They stated that students especially from parents’.
with LD and HH can use technology as they can deal
with computers while students with ID face some chal- Training and professional activities and teachers’
lenges in understanding steps of opening a certain soft- preparation of using technology in teaching
ware or application. However, students with ID managed All the teachers reported that undergraduate education
to use word processing software, graphics, learn or prac- programmes have been influenced by their preparation as
tice drill software, as seen in Table 4. A teacher of stu- shown in Table 5. They also mentioned that this technol-
dents with ID stated, ‘Sometimes, it is really challenging ogy training has decreased significantly in their graduate
for my students to use computers, but they like dealing study. Most of the teachers mentioned that professional
with technology based on their cognitive ability. For development activities do exist; however, they are not
example, they can use drawing and word processing soft- offered regularly. Moreover, professional development
ware, but it is hard for them to go beyond those steps that workshops take place in places that are far from where
require more complicated thinking and depend on reason- they live. Teachers of LD and HH students stated that
ing and problem solving’. their training is provided by staff in charge of technology
support at schools while teachers of ID students did not
Teachers’ use of email, websites, blogging and chat see this similarly. What is notable is that teachers consid-
programmes in communicating with parents ered independent learning as very important in their tech-
Generally, teachers used email as the primary means of nology preparation. Teachers of students with LD and
communication with parents. However, some teachers HH said that professional development met their goals
reported problems about communicating. A teacher of and needs and supported the goals and standards in their
students with LD stated, ‘The person whom I communi- school districts. Teachers of LD and ID students stated
cate with is the student’s mother. However, she does not that professional development was related to technology
have any source of communication except the phone. available in school.

6 ª 2018 NASEN
 Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –

Table 5: Percentages of teachers’ use of technology in study, students in inclusive classrooms generally used the
communicating with parents, contribution of prepara- following technological applications: preparing written texts,
tion and contribution of professional development in creating or using graphics or visual displays, and learning or
educational technology practicing drill (e.g., reading or math). However, students’
LD HH ID use of other applications was not satisfactory based on the
percentages. The limited use of technological applications
Communication with parents
might attract teachers’ and practitioners’ attention to get stu-
Email of Listserv to send out 11.43 8.571 22.58
dents with mild disabilities involved in making use of differ-
group updates ent technological tools that assist their learning (e.g., Baker,
Email to address individual concerns 5.714 11.43 25.81 Lang and O’Reilly, 2009; Cumming, Higgins, Pierce, et al.,
Online bulletin board for 11.43 20 16.13 2009; Gulchak, 2008; Sili
o and Barbetta, 2010). Another
class discussion suggestion is to implement e-learning tools and applications
which students with disabilities can apply in their learning.
Course or teacher web page 2.857 11.43 12.9
Course or teacher blog 2.857 17.14 12.9
Teachers are more likely to accept technology provided that
Instant messaging 8.571 31.43 22.58 they perceive it as connected to their routine teaching activi-
Contribution of preparation ties (Hu, Clark and Ma, 2003). Using technology is not
Undergraduate teacher education 60 51.43 64.52 embedded in teachers’ daily routines, which requires chang-
programme ing several personal, organisational and educational prac-
tices (Ertmer, 1999). Teachers articulated their concerns
Graduate teacher education programme 14.29 20 22.58
about the need for training. Providing training for teachers
Professional development activities 42.86 57.14 25.81
of students with disabilities may enhance their efforts in
Training provided by staff responsible 45.71 42.86 29.03 planning and implementing technology in their classrooms
for technology support at school (McLaren, Bausch and Jones Ault, 2007). Teachers’ percep-
Independent learning 80 65.71 61.29 tions of the inadequacy of training may be related to their
Contribution of professional development in educational technology lack of knowledge about the skills needed by students to use
technology in classrooms (Smith and Allsopp, 2005). Other
It met my goals and needs 74.29 60 35.48
factors that might be responsible for the insufficient applica-
It supported the goals and standards 57.14 57.14 64.52
tion of technology are lack of access to the technology tools,
of my district incongruity between technology applications and school cul-
It applied to technology available 54.29 37.14 61.29 ture, insufficient funding allocated for special education, and
in my school disharmony between home and school in relation to technol-
It was available at convenient 42.86 54.29 61.29 ogy use (Parette, Huer, and Scherer, 2004).
times and places
Public school systems can jeopardise adapting technology
Note. LD, learning disabilities; HH, hard of hearing; ID, intellectual dis- and may make teachers think carefully before they strive to
ability.
prepare appropriate tools for students (Smith and Allsopp,
2005). Two types of school barriers can be challenging to
Discussion integrate technology (Ertmer, 1999). First-order barriers
The purpose of this study was to explore the attitudes of include technology access, knowledge, support and time.
special education teachers towards the use of computers in Second-order barriers are teacher related and include teach-
their classrooms. A related purpose was to explore the ers’ beliefs about teaching and computers, practices and
effect of both experience and type of disabilities (LD, HH tendency to change. In this study, the two types of barriers
and ID) on teachers’ attitudes towards technology. Results exist. Accordingly, to address technology issues in special
of the study indicated that special education teachers’ atti- education, attention should be paid to such barriers. Past
tudes towards technology were generally positive. The research explored several factors related to the use of tech-
most notable positive attitudes were in the following sub- nology in schools. Nevertheless, these factors are usually
scales, respectively: special education considerations, staff explored apart from each other (Zhao and Frank, 2003).
development considerations, computer use in society, and This result is in parallel with Lawless and Pellegrino
computers and quality of instruction issues. These findings (2007) who suggested that professional development is
are supported by the literature. Bauer and Kenton (2005) important to secure teachers’ adoption of change in school
concluded that teachers had positive attitudes in technology environments and growing needs of students with disabili-
and were able to overcome barriers of using technology. ties. This study is important as research in special education
technology on students with mild disabilities or inclusive
The results of this study corroborate findings from other classrooms is scarce (Edyburn, 2009).
studies which posited that the percentage of special educa-
tion teachers who use technology was over 26% (Quinn, Nordin, Yunus, Zaharudin, et al. (2015) concluded that
Behrmann, Mastropieri, et al., 2009; Wahl, 2004). In this teachers posited that ICT courses were not offered at

ª 2018 NASEN 7
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
schools of hearing-impaired students due to inadequate
computer equipment and busy time tables although stu-
dents had skills and knowledge. In a content analysis of all
papers published from 1970 to 2011, Istenic Starcic and
Bagon (2014) concluded that early research about inclusion
have focused on access to technological equipment and
web access at schools to promote inclusion. Schools facili-
tated the teachers’ use of information technology for class-
room preparation for students with special needs.
Zhao and Frank (2003) developed a three-phase ecological
perspective that can provide a solid analytical framework
for understanding technology in schools. The first phase
can overcome barriers related to differences in technology
use among schools. The remaining two related phases
include teachers’ characteristics in relation to technology
adaptation in schools. Some factors have an impact on
teachers’ successful use of technology in schools (Zhao,
Pugh, Sheldon, et al., 2002). These factors include teacher
technology competence, technology compatibility, teacher
social awareness, the gap between technology and available
resources, the gap between technology and teachers’ prac-
tices, school technology facilities, organisational culture of
the school and school technology support. Problems of
technology integration in schools are similar across cul-
tures. It is important to consider prepare teachers to use
technology for early literacy. Currently, more research is
needed to empower teacher to use technology to promote
early literacy. Reasons of not integrating such a paradigm
include that new technologies (e.g., tablets) are not used
frequently in schools. Moreover, teacher educators have
difficulty in using technology effectively in their own
courses (Voogt and McKenney, 2017).
The emerging themes in the qualitative analysis of this
study are teachers’ training needs, keeping up with recent
trends in educational technology for students with disabil-
ities, the need to have a more systematic plan to organise
training workshops, students’ use of technology and lack
of communication with parents. Professional development
opportunities should help teachers ‘think about instruction
and learning; to confront their actions and examine their
motives; to bring their beliefs to the surface; and to criti-
cally reflect on the consequences of their choices, deci-
sions and actions’ (Dwyer, Ringstaff and Sandholtz,
1991, p. 51). Teachers’ professional development depends
on the use of ICT-supported learning through providing
them with skills and competencies to use ICT for their
professional learning and teaching. Also, other tools such
as computer conferencing, curriculum-authoring tools and
learning management systems are useful in promoting
teachers’ use of ICT with students with special needs
(Istenic Starcic and Bagon, 2014). Research found that an
effective way for teachers to use computer technology is
to integrate technology in the curriculum. This helps stu-
dents with special needs gain lifelong skills and boost
their self-esteem and communication skills (Adam and
Tatnall, 2017).
8 ª 2018 NASEN
Teachers should pay attention to some important factors
when they select technology for students with disabilities
(King-Sears and Evmenova, 2007): (1) pinpointing stu-
dents’ needs and learning outcomes, (2) exploring techno-
logical options and making appropriate decisions on
usage, (3) creating opportunities to integrate technology
with other instructional activities and (4) controlling the
implementation of technology and monitoring impact on
students’ learning. To integrate technology in schools,
school principals ‘can motivate and guide teachers. If
school principals do not take initiatives, they cannot
expect progress from the teachers’ (Akbaba-Altun, 2004,
p. 263). If administrators and principals do not appreciate
how teachers use technology in many ways and evaluate
different uses, they may be a challenging force in tech-
nology integration (Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer, et al.,
2003).
A number of strategies can be employed to promote Inter-
net use among individuals with disabilities. These strate-
gies include e-mentoring through which students can
exchange practical information and facilitate an accepting
relationship, improving accessibility, increased use of vir-
tual reality environments used to teach skills that are
related with some level of danger, and increased educa-
tion of people to access the Internet (Chadwick and Wes-
son, 2016). Also, the role of iPAD applications can be
used to address students’ educational needs. For example,
it can help teachers and psychologists teach children with
emotional and behavioural problems through playing in
an interactive game-based approach (Chua, Goh, Nay,
et al., 2017).
Policy and practice
Special education technology research and development
have directly have an impact on public policy as mani-
fested in the influence of research on wireless technolo-
gies, high stakes-testing accommodations, assistive
technology and employment of individuals with disabili-
ties (Baker and Moon, 2008; Bolt and Thurlow, 2004;
Mendelsohn, Edyburn, Rust, et al., 2008). The Ministry
of Education strives to spread technology in schools.
However, more effort is required to overcome challenges
associated with technology acquisition, use and imple-
mentation in schools in Oman. Parents of students with
disabilities should be educated about the benefits of com-
puter technology, and they should advocate for their chil-
dren’s rights and access to technology. School
administrators should be aware of the challenges faced by
teachers of students with disabilities in the classrooms.
School principals and administrator should encourage pro-
fessional development opportunities for teachers. Recom-
mendations for improving technology access and use of
teachers of students with special include but are not lim-
ited to: (1) allocating financial resources either via public
or private sector to provide schools with required techno-
logical equipment and tools, (2) planning continuous pro-
fessional developments workshops for teachers of

students with special needs to keep up with the latest
developments in instructional technology, and (3) con-
ducting research that investigates the problems encoun-
tered by teachers, students, administrators and parents in
technology integration in teaching and learning.
Limitations
Number of limitations should be noted. First, differences in
the percentages using technology either by teachers or stu-
dents may be related to the ratio of teachers of LD com-
pared with teachers of HH and ID. The random sample was
based on the population of teachers in which the number of
teachers of LD was higher than the teachers of other types
of disabilities (ID and HH). Future research should include
more representative national sample from more areas in the
country. Second, the use of the self-report measure in this
study may have not included specific information about
using technology in inclusive classrooms. Future research
should consider factors related to using technology in
inclusive environments. The use of the survey instrument
consolidated the attitudes scale to some extent.
Conclusion
In this article, we have investigated teachers’ attitudes
towards using computer technology with students with
disabilities. Our research involved three groups of special
education teachers who work in inclusive classes. Gener-
ally, teachers’ attitudes towards using technology were
positive. Teachers’ experience and type of disability did
not have a significant effect on their attitudes. In the qual-
itative study, teachers reported that they need more train-
ing in using computer technology to serve students in
inclusive classrooms. Teachers reported that although they
might have equipment in classrooms but they do not have
enough experience in using them. They agree that a more
systematic plan is needed to make use of this equipment.
‘There is scope for much more research into this area to
better understand personal motivations, communication,
negotiation of support and access, and how creative and
positive risk-taking can be utilised with regard to digital
inclusion for people with disabilities’ (Chadwick and
Wesson, 2016, p. 16). Innovation is vital to understand
advances in the field of special education technology.
‘Innovation entails creative insight or the ability to solve
a technological challenge’ (Edyburn, 2013, p. 10).
Address for correspondence
Dr. Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed,
Psychology Dept.,
College of Education,
Sultan Qaboos University,
PO Box 32, PC 123,
Al-Khodh,
Oman.
Email: amohamed@squ.edu.om.
ª 2018 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
References
Adam, T. & Tatnall, A. (2017) ‘The value of using ICT
in the education of school students with learning
difficulties.’ Education and Information Technologies,
22 (6), pp. 2711–26.
Ahl, D. H. (1979) ‘Survey of public attitudes towards
computers in society.’ Creative Computing, 3 (1), pp.
77–9.
Akbaba-Altun, S. (2004) ‘Information technology
classrooms and elementary school principals’ roles:
Turkish experience.’ Education and Information
Technologies, 9 (3), pp. 255–70.
Al Musawi, A., Al Hashmi, A., Kazem, A. M., Al Busaidi,
F. & Al Khaifi, S. (2016) ‘Perceptions of Arabic
language teachers toward their use of technology at the
Omani basic education schools.’ Education and
Information Technologies, 21 (1), pp. 5–18.
Baker, S. D., Lang, R. & O’Reilly, M. (2009) ‘Review of
video modeling and students with emotional and
behavioral disorders.’ Education and Treatment of
Children, 32 (3), pp. 403–20.
Baker, P. M. & Moon, N. W. (2008) ‘Wireless
technologies and accessibility for people with
disabilities: findings from a policy research
instrument.’ Assistive Technology, 20 (3), pp. 149–56.
Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005) ‘Toward technology
integration in the schools: why it isn’t happening.’
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13
(4), pp. 519–46.
Bausch, M. E. & Hasselbring, T. S. (2004) ‘Assistive
technology: are the necessary skills and knowledge
being developed at the preservice and inservice
levels?’ Teacher Education and Special Education:
The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of
the Council for Exceptional Children, 27 (2), pp.
97–104.
Beggs, T. A. (2000) ‘Influences and barriers to the
adoption of instructional technology.’ Paper presented
at the Proceedings on the Mid-South Instructional
Technology Conference, Murfreeboro, TN.
Belson, S. I. (2003) Technology for Exceptional
Learners: Choosing Instructional Tools to Meet
Students’ Needs. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Billingsley, B. S., Fall, A. & Williams, T. O. (2006)
‘Who is teaching students with emotional and
behavioral disorders?: A profile and comparison to
other special educators.’ Behavioral Disorders, 31 (3),
pp. 252–64.
Bolt, S. A. & Thurlow, M. L. (2004) ‘Five of the most
frequently allowed testing accommodations in state
policy.’ Remedial and Special Education, 25 (3), pp.
141–52.
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M. &
Richardson, V. (2005) ‘Qualitative studies in special
education.’ Exceptional Children, 71 (2), pp. 195–
207.
Chadwick, D. & Wesson, C. (2016) ‘Digital inclusion
and disability.’ In A. Attril & C. Fullwood (eds),
9
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
Applied Cyberpsychology: Practical Applications of
Cyberpsychological Theory and Research, pp. 1–23.
Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chua, L., Goh, J., Nay, Z., Huang, L., Cai, Y. & Seah, S.
(2017) ‘ICT-enabled emotional learning for special
needs education.’ In Y. Cai, S. L. Goei & W.
Trooster (eds), Simulation and Serious Games for
Education, pp. 29–46. Singapore: Springer.
Connor, C. (2008) ‘Teachers’ integration of assistive
technology.’ (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3294807)
Copley, J. & Ziviani, J. (2004) ‘Barriers to the use of
assistive technology for children with multiple
disabilities.’ Occupational Therapy International, 11
(4), pp. 229–43.
Cumming, T. M., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Miller, S.,
Boone, R. & Tandy, R. (2009) ‘Social skills
instruction for adolescents with emotional
disabilities: a technology-based intervention.’ Journal
of Special Education Technology, 23 (1), pp. 19–33.
Damore, S. J. & Murray, C. (2009) ‘Urban elementary
school teachers’ perspectives regarding collaborative
teaching practices.’ Remedial & Special Education, 30
(4), pp. 234–44.
Dissinger, F. K. (2003) ‘Core curriculum in assistive
technology: in-service for special educators and
therapists.’ Journal of Special Education Technology,
18 (2), pp. 35–45.
Dupoux, E., Wolman, C. & Estrada, E. (2005) ‘Teachers’
attitudes toward integration of students with
disabilities in Ha€ıti and the United States.’
International Journal of Disability, Development &
Education, 52 (1), pp. 43–58.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C. & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991)
‘Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in
technology-rich classrooms.’ Educational Leadership,
48 (8), pp. 45–52.
Edyburn, D. L. (2006) ‘Assistive technology and mild
disabilities.’ Special Education Technology Practice, 8
(4), pp. 18–28.
Edyburn, D. L. (2009) ‘Using research to inform
practice.’ Special Education Technology Practice, 11
(5), pp. 21–8.
Edyburn, D. L. (2013) ‘Critical issues in advancing the
special education technology evidence base.’
Exceptional Children, 80 (1), pp. 7–24.
Elder-Hinshaw, R., Manset-Williamson, G., Nelson, J. M.
& Dunn, M. W. (2006) ‘Engaging older students with
reading disabilities: multimedia inquiry projects
supported by reading assistive technology.’ Teaching
Exceptional Children, 39 (1), pp. 6.
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Anzul, M. & Downing, M. (1997) On
Writing Qualitative Research: Living by Words.
London: Falmer Press.
Engestrom, Y. (2009) ‘Expansive learning: toward an
activity-theoretical reconceptualization.’ In K. Illeris
(ed), Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning
10
Theorists. . .in Their Own Words, pp. 53–73. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999) ‘Addressing first- and second-order
barriers to change: strategies for technology
integration.’ Educational Technology, Research, and
Development, 47 (4), pp. 47–61.
Gray, L., Thomas, N. & Lewis, L. (2010) Teachers’
Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public
Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
Gulbahar, Y. (2007) ‘Technology planning: a roadmap to
successful technology integration in schools.’
Computers & Education, 49 (4), pp. 943–56.
Gulchak, D. J. (2008) ‘Using a mobile handheld computer
to teach a student with an emotional and behavioral
disorder to self-monitor attention.’ Education and
Treatment of Children, 31 (4), pp. 567–81.
Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. & Ma, W. W. (2003)
‘Examining technology acceptance by school teachers:
a longitudinal study.’ Information & Management, 41
(2), pp. 227–41.
Istenic Starcic A, Bagon S. 2014. ‘ICT supported
learning for inclusion of people with special needs:
Review of seven educational technology journals,
1970–2011‘. British Journal of Educational
Technology 45(2): 202–230.
Karl, E. F. (1990) The relationship between familiarity
and involvement with personal computers and
computing and opinions about personal computers and
computing among New York City public school
teachers: a trend study 1983-1989. Unpublished
EdD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia
University.
King-Sears, M. & Evmenova, A. S. (2007) ‘Premises,
principles, and processes for integrating technology
into instruction.’ Teaching Exceptional Children, 40,
pp. 6–14.
Lambert, J., Gong, Y. & Cuper, P. (2008) ‘Technology,
transfer, and teaching: the impact of a single
technology course on preservice teachers’ computer
attitudes and ability.’ Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 16 (4), pp. 385–410.
Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G. & Wylie, J.
(2006) ‘Assistive software tools for secondary-level
students with literacy difficulties.’ Journal of Special
Education Technology, 21 (3), pp. 13–22.
Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007) ‘Professional
development in integrating technology into teaching
and learning: knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and answers.’ Review of Educational
Research, 77 (4), pp. 575–614.
Lewandowski, L., Wood, W. & Miller, L. A. (2016)
‘Technological applications for individuals
with learning disabilities and ADHD.’ In J. K.
Luiselli & A. J. Fischer (eds), Computer-Assisted and
Web-Based Innovations in Psychology, Special
ª 2018 NASEN

Education, and Health, pp. 61–93. Boston, MA:
Elsevier Inc.
Ma, Y., Lai, G., Williams, D., Prejean, L. & Ford, M. J.
(2008) ‘Exploring the effectiveness of a field
experience program in a pedagogical laboratory: the
experience of teacher candidates.’ Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (4),
pp. 411–32.
McLaren, E. M., Bausch, M. E. & Jones Ault, M. (2007)
‘Collaboration strategies reported by teachers
providing assistive technology services.’ Journal of
Special Education Technology, 22 (4), pp. 16–29.
Mendelsohn, S., Edyburn, D. L., Rust, K. L., Schwanke,
T. D. & Smith, R. O. (2008) ‘Using assistive
technology outcomes research to inform policy related
to the employment of individuals with disabilities.’
Assistive Technology, 20 (3), pp. 139–48.
Michaels, C. A. & McDermott, J. (2003) ‘Assistive
technology integration in special education teacher
preparation: program coordinators’ perceptions of
current attainment and importance.’ Journal of Special
Education Technology, 18, pp. 29–41.
Ministry of Education (2016) The Annual Statistics Book.
Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Education.
Montgomery, D. J. & Marks, L. J. (2006) ‘Using
technology to build independence in writing for
students with disabilities.’ Preventing School Failure,
50 (3), pp. 33–8.
Nordin, N., Yunus, M. M., Zaharudin, R., Salehi, H.,
Yasin, M. H. M. & Embi, M. A. (2015) ‘Identifying
the challenges and barriers hearing-impaired learners
face with using ICT education courses.’ Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 78
(3), pp. 327–35.
Parette, H. P., Huer, M. B. & Scherer, M. (2004) ‘Effects
of acculturation on assistive technology service
delivery.’ Journal of Special Education Technology,
19 (2), pp. 31–41.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001) ‘Obstacles to the integration of
ICT in education: results from a worldwide
educational assessment.’ Computers & Education, 37,
pp. 163–78.
Puckett, K. S. (2004) ‘Project ACCESS: field testing an
assistive technology toolkit for students with mild
disabilities.’ Journal of Special Education Technology,
19 (2), pp. 5–17.
Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Bausch,
M. E., Ault, M. J. & Chung, Y. (2009) ‘Who is using
assistive technology in schools?’ Journal of Special
Education Technology, 24 (1), pp. 1–13.
Rabiee, F. (2004) ‘Focus-group interview and data
analysis.’ Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63 (4),
pp. 655–60.
Roulston, K. (2014) ‘Analysing interviews.’ In U. Flick
(ed), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data
Analysis, pp. 297–312. London: Sage.
Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L. & O’Connor, K.
(2003) ‘Examining teacher technology use:
ª 2018 NASEN
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,  –
implications for preservice and inservice teacher
preparation.’ Journal of Teacher Education, 54, pp.
297–310.
Scherer, M. J. (2005) Living in the State of Stuck: How
Assistive Technology Impacts the Lives of People with
Disabilities (4th edn). Brookline, MA: Brookline
Books.
Schlosser, R. W. & Wendt, O. (2008) ‘Effects of
augmentative and alternate communication
intervention on speech production in children with
autism: a systematic review.’ American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 17 (3), pp. 212–29.
Schoepp, K. (2005) ‘Barriers to technology integration in
a technology-rich environment.’ Learning and
teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2
(1), pp. 1–24.
Sicilia, C. (2005) ‘The Challenges and Benefits to
Teachers’ Practices in Constructivist Learning
Environments Supported by Technology.’ Unpublished
master’s thesis, McGill University, Montreal.
o, M. C. & Barbetta, P. M. (2010) ‘The effects of
Sili

word prediction and text-to-speech technologies on
the narrative writing skills of Hispanic students with
specific learning disabilities.’ Journal of Special
Education Technology, 25 (4), pp. 17–32.
Smith, S. J. & Allsopp, D. (2005) ‘Technology and
inservice professional development: integrating an
effective medium to bridge research to practice’.’ In
D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (eds), Handbook
of Special Education Technology Research and
Practice, pp. 777–9. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge
by Design Inc.
Stetter, M. E. & Hughes, M. T. (2010) ‘Computer-
assisted instruction to enhance the reading
comprehension of struggling readers: a review of the
literature.’ Journal of Special Education Technology,
25 (4), pp. 1–16.
Voogt, J. & McKenney, S. (2017) ‘TPACK in teacher
education: are we preparing teachers to use
technology for early literacy?’.’ Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 26 (1), pp. 69–83.
Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge,
MA: The M.I.T. Press.
Wahl, L. (2004) ‘Surveying special education staff on AT
awareness, use, and training.’ Journal of Special
Education Technology, 19 (2), pp. 57–9.
World Health Organisation. (2015) Assistive devices/
technologies. <http://www.who.int/disabilities/tec
hnology/en/> (accessed May, 12, 2016.).
Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. A. (2003) ‘Factors affecting
technology uses in schools: an ecological perspective.’
American Educational Research Journal, 40 (4), pp.
807–40.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L. (2002)
‘Conditions for classroom technology Innovations.’
Teachers College Record, 104 (3), pp. 482–515.
11