Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Education Open

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computers-and-education-open

Digital technology and increasing engagement among students with

disabilities: Interaction rituals and digital capital
Jessica Rizk a, Cathlene Hillier b, *
a
Sociology and Legal Studies Department, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
b
Crandall University, Faculty of Education, 333 Gorge Road, Moncton, NB, E1G 3H9, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As the number of students identified with disabilities grows, schools moving towards inclusive classrooms are
Students with disabilities concerned with ensuring engagement of all students. Research has shown that digital technology provides
Technology support for students with disabilities so that they can participate in classroom activities. This research has been
Cultural capital
largely quantitative with a focus on student participation and improving academic outcomes. Moreover, the
Interaction ritual chains
Student engagement
qualitative research has defined engagement as increasing attention on learning tasks. However, we do not know
how and whether digital technology can generate interactions among these students and their peers or their
teachers. This paper uses qualitative data from six Ontario, Canada school boards, including 27 classroom ob­
servations and interviews with teachers, to explore the role that digital technologies (i.e. robotics, smartboards,
iPads) play in facilitating greater engagement among students with disabilities. Drawing on Randall Collins’
interaction ritual chains theory, and Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, we posit that digital technol­
ogies can alter classroom routines and rituals that can lead to greater engagement. In particular, this study
confirms that digital technologies can play a major role in boosting engagement through support and greater
access to classroom content and learning processes. We add to the literature by postulating that digital tech­
nologies enhance classroom rituals and interactions by giving students a literal and figurative voice, and through
changes in interactions among students with disabilities, their peers, and teachers. Additionally, students with
disabilities who are adept at using digital technology can generate a form of capital that displays a type of
credibility with their teachers and peers.

1. Introduction or short-term health conditions [5]. Traditional literature has often

Over the last ten years, there has been a significant increase in the
number of students within Canada and the United States accessing
special education resources [1,2,3]. These students –often referred to
collectively as students with disabilities (SWD) or “exceptional”1 make
up a diverse group [4]. These exceptionalities may include, but are not
limited to: cognitive impairments (e.g., learning disabilities, speech
impairment, language delays), problems in attending to classroom les­
sons or tasks (e.g., attention deficit disorder), physical impairments (e.
g., prosthetic limbs, deaf/hard of hearing, blind/visually impaired),
mental disorders (e.g., trauma, depression, anxiety), and/or other long-
categorized students with various learning disabilities as “inactive
learners”, largely remaining on the periphery of academic and social
involvement in elementary classrooms [6]. More recent research has
documented the many stigmas SWD have faced—often labelled as
“different”—leading some students to develop a negative self-concept as
being less than or not measuring up to other students [7,3]. Students
with disabilities have also historically been segregated from many
schoolwide practices, as well as social activities [8], isolated from their
peers in “regular” or “mainstream” education, and excluded from more
conventional classroom rituals [9,10]. However, more recently, school
districts in North America aim toward an inclusive education framework

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Jessica.rizk@uwaterloo.ca (J. Rizk), cathlene.hillier@crandallu.ca (C. Hillier).
1
The term exceptional can also refer to students identified as gifted, and it is possible to be dually exceptional. That is, a student may be gifted but also be
recognized as having a disability (e.g., gifted and diagnosed with attention deficit disorder) [4].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100099
Received 30 June 2021; Received in revised form 16 July 2022; Accepted 17 July 2022
Available online 18 July 2022
2666-5573/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
where SWD are included in the regular classroom and provided ac­
commodations to support their learning [11,12].2
In moves toward creating inclusive classrooms and schools, the goal
is to reduce the unintended, or perhaps unanticipated, negative conse­
quences of classification, separation, or traditional segregation,
“emphasizing that all learners have needs to be met and contributions to
make” ([51], p.1). With the intention to include SWD in general class­
rooms, digital technologies are thought of as one way to support SWD in
their learning (e.g., [13,14]) by providing more learner-centered ap­
proaches to education to focus on the individual needs of SWD (e.g.,
differentiation in teaching, visual/audio preferences, etc.; see [15]).
This is true, when used effectively to assist students in their learning (e.
g., closed-caption for videos for students with auditory impairment), or
promote specific learnings (e.g., writing collaboration among students)
[16,17].
This points to the usefulness of digital technology in assisting stu­
dents in the classroom so that they can engage with classroom material.
However, understanding more about how digital technology can
enhance classroom social interactions is important for two reasons. First,
current research suggests that student engagement is related to student’s
participation and performance in the classroom [18]. In fact, many
studies focused on digital technology in schools are quantitative in na­
ture, and have measured student engagement by looking at engagement
via greater participation and increasing academic outcomes (e.g., [19,
20,21]). Other studies have focused on teachers’ motivations and per­
spectives in using technology in the classroom, and have viewed
engagement as increasing on-task behavior and decreasing disruptions
in the learning process (e.g., [22,23]). Our study by contrast is consid­
ering student engagement in terms of interaction rituals; in particular,
exploring how these interactions could be beneficial for SWD. With this
in mind, it remains important for researchers to understand how SWD
can leverage technology, but also how educators can use it in classrooms
to create more integration [24]. Second, Olitsky [25] has argued that if
teachers want to facilitate social cohesiveness in the classroom, it re­
quires teachers to be mindful of the quality of interactions that occur
among students and whether these exchanges encourage cohesion and a
sense of belonging among classmates.
As such, this paper will explore how modern-day classroom tech­
nologies can shape these students’ experiences in schools, and how those
experiences can perhaps alleviate existing patterns of inequality. An
obvious advantage to having new forms of digital technology, like as­
sistive technology, available for SWD is that it can facilitate greater in­
clusivity in learning. That is, technology has the potential to assist SWD
so that they can learn similar material alongside their peers and engage
in classroom routines. However, it is unclear whether technology can
actually change the nature of how such students interact with their
fellow peers and teachers. Within this perspective, this study is unique in
that it attempts to theorize student engagement with digital technology
in a broader sense considering classroom interactions, and from a new
lens: cultural capital and interaction ritual theory.
1.1. Theoretical framework: interaction ritual chains and cultural capital
theory
Both Collins’ interaction ritual chain theory and Bourdieu’s’ cultural
capital theory offer interesting points of analysis for studying technology
and engagement among SWD. Previous research suggests that digital
technology, among SWD, has been shown to provide greater opportu­
nities for engagement and achievement in classrooms [26,27,28,29].
Yet, this research has yet to understand the role of technology in facil­
itating new interactions between SWD and their peers and teachers as an
2
We should note that while many provinces in Canada have full inclusion in
classrooms, Ontario still has separate special education classrooms for some
students (e.g., gifted students; students with profound disabilities) [11, 4].
2
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
essential part of classroom engagement. We propose that this can best be
examined through the two prominent sociological theories outlined
here.
Building on Durkheim’s [30] observation of religion and the building
of social solidarity in groups, Collins’ [31] interaction ritual chain the­
ory claims that emotions generated in face-to-face interactions have the
potential to drive feelings of social solidarity, and at the same time, can
bind individuals together. Such interactions can be charged-up with
what Collins calls emotional energy, because they have gone through
chains of previous encounters. Everyday rituals—from going to the gym
[32], to opera fanatics [33,34] —can create new kinds of interaction
rituals through shared symbols or emblems that can represent groups
and generate a strong sense of collectivity among members [31]. In this
paper, we suggest that new digital technologies and related features are
emerging as new types of “symbols” that can promote more engaged
students, and can bind SWD to schooling more so than during the
print-text era, which largely rested on textbooks and print material to
engage students (see Rizk & Davies [35]). Thus, from a classroom
perspective, interaction rituals are characterized by high levels of
emotional energy (e.g., increased enthusiasm, confidence, or initiative),
feelings of group membership, and sustained interest in the topic at
hand– like technology. Emotional energy can be generated by teachers
with students through daily routines, and it can be generated among
students through group solidarity and bonding over shared interests. For
example, Olitsky [25,36] finds in her study of grade 8 science classes
that science language and materials can generate interaction rituals
among students as shared symbols and group cohesion. Following this, a
series of successful interaction rituals would facilitate greater emotional
energy. In Collins’ [31] view, these rituals consist of everyday in­
teractions between people.
A novel way of thinking about student engagement with digital
technology comes from understanding new technologies as a rising form
of “cultural capital”. Thus, new kinds of rituals that utilize digital
technology can facilitate more emotional energy and bonding because
they are becoming a new type of valued cultural capital for SWD to draw
on and connect to school experiences. Bourdieu [37] initially conceived
of cultural capital as a type of resource limited largely to the middle-and
upper-class families—a resource that equipped individuals with
knowledge and skills that seemed to be both recognized and rewarded
by institutional gatekeepers like schools [38]. In this traditional
framework, the unequal achievement of children from different social
classes was related to the distribution of such capital. In short, schools
reinforced particular types of knowledge that only a handful of students
were exposed to in the home (e.g., [39]). What this research attempts to
do is broaden Bourdieu’s initial theory to consider digital technologies.
In this view, perhaps new digital technologies add to cultural capital,
and the ways in which it is attained. With the ease and accessibility of
technology, perhaps more SWD are able to use this to their advantage to
participate in new rituals among peers (Identifying reference). These
new rituals would allow SWD to be further included in classroom ac­
tivities rather than participate on the sidelines as they might have with
print-text usage. This would also allow SWD to play a leading role in
navigating classroom routines.
Extending this even further, cultural capital can also be a direct
result of interaction rituals, in Collins’ [31] sense. Collins placed a
greater importance on the micro-level productions of cultural capital;
seeing rituals as social mechanisms that could transform cultural fields
[40]. Viewed in this way, activities that could align themselves with
school discourses could generate more successful rituals, and ultimately
at the same time, increase student engagement through their in­
teractions with each other. While traditionally, cultural capital has been
related to the kinds of exposure students had outside of schools—largely
because of family involvement, home-based resources, educational
background and so forth (e.g., [41]). Perhaps, with the increased use of
digital technologies in the classroom —a tool that children increasingly
seem to be mastering themselves—this has new implications for how
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
SWD are engaged in 21st century classrooms. In this study, we suggest
that SWD can build cultural capital through their use of new technolo­
gies and feelings of success and solidarity in the classroom, and that this
can provide opportunities for new classroom rituals to occur.
1.2. Special education and technology
While SWD are often identified with physical and mental disabilities,
special education is a broad umbrella term that may include students
who receive educational support even though they may not be formally
identified as “exceptional” [4]. A special education program is defined
in the Ontario Education Act [42] as a program that is modified to meet
students’ needs and is frequently assessed and evaluated to ensure
success. Also, it includes an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for the
student which outlines the educational needs of the student and the
services required to address those needs.
Schools play a central role in promoting a more inclusive environ­
ment, and the rise of new digital technologies can certainly provide a
greater learning advantage for students who fall under the category of
exceptional [22,43]. Scholars have largely documented the effects of
having modern day technologies in special and general education
classrooms for SWD (e.g., [44,45]). The continued use of digital tech­
nology among SWD has shown many benefits. These include: maxi­
mizing independence in academic tasks leading to greater student
achievement [27,28]; self-advocating [26]; aiding in work-based
learning experiences [46,29]; allowing for more differentiated instruc­
tion [47]; establishing class routines [48,29]; and fostering positive
classroom environments [49]. Technology, when leveraged in innova­
tive ways and in conjunction with other embedded supports, aids SWD
and allows them to thrive across multiple settings [50]. For instance,
SWD often struggle with slower processing speed and have on average,
poor working memory skills, which new technologies have been found
to help assist with [16]. Students have also perceived more supportive
classroom climates when assistive technologies, like tablets for instance,
have been used to provide instruction and activities in classrooms [51].
For children with poor fine-motor skills, an interactive touch-screen
design is also much more convenient than a desktop and mouse [52].
In relation to the present study, technology may also provide a way
for SWD to engage in new interaction rituals with their peers and
teachers. With the onset of new digital tools, it is imperative that
research examine how technology is being used [53], and the ways in
which new technologies have altered traditional interactions among
SWD.
1.3. Current study and research questions
Research on digital technology in the classroom has largely focused
on student engagement in relation to student’s participation, attention
to task, and academic performance (e.g., [22,19,23,20,18,21]). How­
ever, interactions among students and teachers are also an important
part of classroom processes. To explore the role of digital technology in
these classroom interactions, this study draws on 27 classroom obser­
vations and interviews with teachers across six Ontario, Canada school
boards. In particular, drawing on Collins’ [31] micro theory of inter­
action ritual chains, we examine the everyday interactions of SWD and
their use of technology considering the possibility that it can create new
interaction rituals that incite emotional energy that has potential to
reengage them in schooling processes. If digital technology can supply
SWD with a tool that can boost not only their engagement, but also their
interactions in schools, then it is likely that student empowerment will
also rise—which in other words, can translate into more successful rit­
uals with higher levels of emotional energy. Likewise, if digital tech­
nology is becoming integral to student interactions, then perhaps this is
simultaneously providing us with new meanings for Bourdieu’s [37]
cultural capital theory [54]. To explore these possibilities, we ask the
following questions:
3
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
RQ1: What role do digital technologies play in increasing engage­
ment among SWD with classroom materials, their teachers, and their
peers?
RQ2: Can technology assist SWD in both participating in classroom
rituals, and in creating new classroom rituals and advantages for
SWD?
2. Methods
This study combined classroom observations and interviews with
teachers to explore the role of digital technologies (e.g., smart boards,
robotics kits, laptops, tablets) on the interactions and engagement of
SWD in both general and special education classes [35,54]. Classroom
observations allowed us to observe and compare findings across multi­
ple classrooms to examine the type of digital resources used by students
and teachers to support SWD. Additionally, teacher interviews aided us
in gaining insight into other pertinent processes that occurred beyond
our observations. Data from this study comes from two research projects
on technology use in elementary classrooms (K-8) in public and Catholic
schools in Ontario. In Ontario, both public and Catholic schools receive
full government funding and are regulated by the Ministry of Education.
All teachers in these two school systems have a minimum of a Bachelor
of Education and certification from the Ontario College of Teachers.3
Teachers in each project who work in special education classrooms
designated for SWD and/or gifted students have additional qualifica­
tions in special education. The authors are certified teachers, now uni­
versity researchers. The first author was an occasional teacher with the
school board included in project two. The second author is a former
elementary school teacher with a school board not included in this
study. The researchers were non-participant observers in both studies.
2.1. Project 1: procedures, participants and data collection
The first project stems from a larger study examining the impact of
the Ontario Ministry of Education’s initiative to support learning in 21st
century classrooms by purchasing robotic kits and technology for all
school boards in the province [55]. In winter and spring 2017, five
school boards volunteered to participate in classroom observations and
teacher interviews.4 Using convenience sampling, the second author
contacted the principals who then sent out a scripted recruitment email
and teachers contacted the second author to indicate their interest in
participating. Classrooms recruited in this study consisted of students
with various abilities and included SWD. With the exception of two
self-contained gifted classrooms (some of which were identified as
dually exceptional: gifted and SWD), all classrooms in this study were
inclusive. That is, they contained SWD who had IEPs and were taught by
a regular classroom teacher with resource support.5 See Table 1 for
school and teacher information.6
This project consisted of two main parts. First, we conducted 11
classroom observations (grades 3–8) in eight schools. Here, we investi­
gated the links between robotics and other types of technology, and how
it engages all students and SWD in their attention to classroom assign­
ments and their development of competencies such as collaboration and
problem solving. While we were present for the observations (40–60 min
in length), they were also video recorded to enable us to examine the
lessons and classroom engagement after our in-person visits. Second, we
3
The Ontario College of Teachers certifies and governs teaching in Ontario.
4
The authors were involved in all stages of the research process and have
ethics clearance and permission from all stakeholders (schools, school boards,
university) to use all data from the outlined project.
5
We do not know the number of SWD in each classroom as the purpose of
this study was to examine the use of robotic kits and other types of technology
among all students.
6
All school and participant names are pseudonyms.
J. Rizk and C. Hillier Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099

Table 1
Project 1: Description of Schools and Teacher Participants.
School Schoola % low income % of SWD in Teacher Grade Number of years Students observedb (total Types of tech
board households school level teaching students in class) observed

1 Atanasoff 15 11.4 Rhonda 6 30 12 (21) Robotics

PS
Knight PS 34 9.3 Carly 4 19 15 (24) Robotics
Liz 6 10 20 (32) Robotics
2 Bell PS 21 5.5 Joanne 7 24 22 (22) Robotics
Poole PS 16.5 4.8 Gwen 4 gifted 10 17 (17) Robotics
Mary 5 gifted 12 22 (26) Chromebooks
3 Cailliau CS 7 10.2 Celine 4 15 23 (23) Robotics
4 Dolby PS 19 19.4 Sybil 5/6 18 24 (24) Robotics
5 Engelbart 22 9.2 Cora 3/4 15 19 (22) Robotics
CS
Mark 7/8 11 17 (24) Robotics
Wagner CS 32 14.2 Thomas 7/8 10 13 (27) Laptops

Note: Information about% of SWD and low-income households are from the following site: City-Data.com.
a
PS=Public School, CS=Catholic School.
b
Students who received parent/guardian permission to participate in the study. All teacher and school names are anonymized.

conducted 22 in-depth interviews with the 11 teachers whose class­
rooms were observed. The interviews were digitally recorded, and
ranged from 30 min to 1 hour. We had two stages of interviews with the
teachers. The first consisted of pre-observation semi-structured in­
terviews where we asked teachers about their implementation of ro­
botics and technology in the classroom in general, the benefits and
struggles of using technology, and specifically about the lesson that we
would be observing that day (see Appendix A for interview schedule).
The second set were open-ended post-observation interviews where we
watched clips of the recorded observation with the teacher and dis­
cussed what we were seeing in the video. Because this study investigated
21st Century skills and competencies we were interested in discussing
concepts such as collaboration, problem solving, analysis, creativity, etc.
Additionally, we informed teachers that they could discuss anything
they noticed during the lesson that they felt was important. Thus,
teachers often talked about individual students and how technology did
or did not engage them. Importantly, of interest to the present study,
teachers discussed the inclusion and engagement of SWD in relation to
technology in the classroom.
2.2. Project 2: procedures, participants and data collection
The second project was conducted in spring and fall 2017 with the
purpose of investigating the use of technology in classrooms specifically
focusing on classroom interactions and the possibility of technology
skills being a new form of capital [54]. In a school board located in the
Greater Toronto Area, observations and interviews were conducted in
two elementary schools —Summerville and St. Helena Catholic Schools.
The first author’s previous work experience as an occasional teacher
facilitated access to both of these school sites. Using convenience sam­
pling, teachers were approached by the researcher, and those that were
interested in participating were included in the study. Observations
were conducted in 16 classrooms consisting of three special education
classrooms, two English as a Second Language classes, and eleven gen­
eral education classes (which included SWD). See Table 2 for school and
teacher information for the teachers who were observed. Observations

Table 2
Project 2: Description of Schools and Teacher Participants .
School Schoola % from low income % of SWD in Teacher Grade level Number of years Students observedb Types of tech observed
board households school teaching (total SWD)

6 St. Helena 20% 11.5% Andrea English as a second 20 6 (2) Computer, iPads, Smart
language Boards, Smart phonesc
Kris Special education 12 10 (10)
classroom
Shelly 2 8 28 (2)
Greg 8 20 31 (3)
Hannah 6 19 29 (3)
Marcus 5/6 15 31 (1)
Glenn 2/3 40 31 (1)
Karen Special education 12 8 (8)
classroom
Kate 6 14 32 (1)
Charles 8 8 29 (1)
Summerville 20% 14.9% Jenny 1 13 29 (2)
Matteo Special education 25 10 (10)
room
Gloria English as a second 34 5 (5)
language
Matilda Junior and Senior 21 20 (2)
Kindergarten
Tanya 8 15 32 (2)
Peter 4 28 31 (2)

Note: Information about% of SWD and low-income households are from the following site: City-Data.com.
a
Both are Catholic schools.
b
All students in each class were observed.
c
This list is the same for all classes. All teacher and school names are anonymized.

4
J. Rizk and C. Hillier Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099

of technology use across classes lasted normally around 1–3 hours a day, this study. For reliability, one researcher coded the data with consistent
2–3 times a week, for a period of 5 months. During this time, anecdotal check-ins and discussion with the other researcher to reach consensus
observation notes were recorded by hand in a secure notebook by the and ensure results are an accurate presentation of the overall themes
first author to describe interactions in the classroom and the use of presented in our findings. Overall, for the purpose of triangulation, we
technology (see Appendix B for guiding observation protocol). After use multiple methods and sources of data, and two researchers collecting
observations were completed, the first author interviewed the 16 and analyzing data.
teachers about their experiences using technology and how it relates to
teaching SWD. Interviews ranged from 30 min to 2 h and were digitally 3. Results
recorded. Although we prepared guiding questions (e.g., Why and how
do you use technology?; see Appendix C for interview schedule), most In this section, we propose that new interaction rituals may be
occurred organically. another feature of technology use for SWD in special and general edu­
Both projects went through an ethics review process through the cation classrooms. While such students often receive modifications or
authors’ universities and each school board. The authors gained accommodations to their learning, technology can create a very
informed consent from all teachers interviewed in this study. Prior to different experience. In relation to RQ1, we explore how assistive and
classroom observations, informed consent was gained from teachers, other digital technologies have increased engagement among SWD.
parents and students. These technologies make it possible for students with communication
difficulties to engage with classroom content and materials, and
communicate with their peers and teachers. In relation to RQ2, we
2.3. Data analysis consider how such assistive technology and general digital resources
have the potential to create new kinds of interactions among SWD, their
In observation, we concentrated on the conversations and in­ classmates, and their teachers.
structions happening in the classroom but also the physical body lan­
guage (i.e., eye contact, gestures, nods, and probes) as students and 3.1. Engagement with classroom content and learning processes
teachers used technology. In this, we were particularly interested in
classroom dynamics: How do SWD interact with their teachers? with Assistive technologies have given many students a new way of
their classmates? What is said in these classroom conversations? What participating in school-based rituals. Several teachers who work with
are students placing value on as a form of cultural currency (capital) in SWD noted that certain features of digital tools are contributing to
the classroom? What kinds of technology are being used? How is it being greater student engagement—allowing these students to strengthen
used? Observational notes were typed out and entered into NVivo for their connection to school curriculum and processes. As one special
coding (300 pages). Interviews were transcribed using a voice to text education teacher from St. Helena, Karen, notes:
software, imported into NVivo, and then coded (780 pages). Our anal­
I have a girl with a visual processing impairment. If you give her a
ysis progressed in several stages using a thematic analysis approach (see
textbook to read, she can’t process that visual information at all, so
Braun and Clarke [56]). In the first stage of coding, observations and
it’s difficult for her to remember anything that she’s read. . . But
teacher interviews were coded deductively by emergent themes in
when I scan it to the computer using an app like kurzweil. So, when I
relation to the theoretical framework and goals of the projects such as
do that, it’s text to voice, it makes a difference for someone who has
interaction rituals, emotional energy, cultural capital, use of technology
severe processing difficulties. If she hears the information, she can
(robotics, assistive technology, other digital technologies). Next, in the
return it in a way that you couldn’t visually. This makes her more
inductive phase, codes were created as repeated patterns, differences, or
engaged and connected to schooling.
themes emerged (see Saldaña [57]). Finally, these codes were catego­
rized into four overall themes that best represented the data in relation For students who have significant difficulty with writing or reading,
to the research questions for this study. Table 3 presents the overall digital technology provides a medium to make learning more accessible.
themes and corresponding codes resulting from the coding process for In addition to the example above, all special education classrooms we
observed had SWD with various diagnoses using technology to access
Table 3 curriculum through reading or listening, and learning activities such as
Overall themes and codes. verbally responding or writing an answer. Of course, this use of assistive
RQ1 RQ2 technology is not new. However, teachers noted that the use of tech­
Student Voice Change Capital nology engaged students in an immediate interactive way that tradi­
engagement tional approaches might not. For example, as we observed in several
access to literal voice teacher-student status special education classrooms, an app that makes a noise when students
classroom (communication relationship (e.g., (recognition) get the answer correct is immediately gratifying and SWD expressed
content (e.g., through assistive change in roles) excitement when this happened.
curriculum, technology)
Additionally, digital technology can be used in other practical ways
learning
materials) to help students keep organized through reminder and calendar apps of
classroom figurative voice student-student knowledge activities and schedules. Mary (grade 5 gifted teacher, Poole) pointed
routines (e.g., (ability to present and/ relationship (e.g., (tech-savvy) out that these apps are very important for her dually exceptional stu­
rituals, or work in groups in bonding) dents (diagnosed with a learning disability and gifted). This allows these
schedules) alternative ways)
maintaining teacher-student Belonging
students to engage and be ready for class, knowing what to expect,
focus (attention interactions rather than feeling unprepared. Mary noted that her students also have
to task) perfectionist tendencies and socio-emotional issues that the organiza­
excitement about student-student feeling of tional element of digital technology helps to alleviate. For SWD in
topics interactions (e.g., achievement
general education classrooms, technology also seemed to be a
collaboration)
excitement about classroom problem resourceful tool. For instance, in a few cases where students had diffi­
school structure (e.g., solving culties focusing and being attentive to their work, we observed students
centrality of tech staying more “on task” or “captivated” as one teacher put it. For students
in the room) who have traditionally had challenges sitting still, technology allowed
tech language
them to focus on their tasks new ways:

5
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
I think it goes without saying that technology makes a difference for
kids with special education. I mean it makes a difference between a
failing grade in the subject and a C or D. I have one boy in the class, if
you put a laptop in front of him, he can become hyper-focused. So,
instead of like, completely focusing on different things, or getting
distracted by his peers, he puts the earbuds in, and he just focuses.
He’s got you know, a learning disability and attention issues. So, if
you have a piece of technology in front of him, he is able to stay
focused. (Kate, grade 6 teacher, St. Helena)
Overall, digital technology provides opportunities for students to
participate in classroom content and learning processes that might not
have been easily accessible before. Further, engaging in these processes
is a very important part of helping students feel a sense of belonging
with the group in that they are learning the same things. Moreover, as
the next section will explore, it is possible that such technology is also
opening up new avenues of interactions by giving SWD a “voice”.
3.2. Communication and engagement: giving students a “voice”
Digital technologies were able to give certain students “a voi­
ce”—both in the literal and figurative sense. In a literal sense, when
students had more severe learning needs, causing them to be nonverbal,
they were able to join the conversation by using assistive technology as
their method of speech. Teachers in this study who work with SWD often
highlighted that technology has really evolved as a tool for students to
interact with others:
There is a boy in my class, and he could just not function without
technology. Like his speech, his entire being, his voice, is on the
technology. That’s how he communicates with his peers, his family,
with me even. That’s how he can tell us he wants this or not that.
That’s how he can express how he is feeling, or if someone upsets
him. (Kris, special education teacher, St. Helena)
Many educators agreed that there have been huge strides in tech­
nology in terms of how SWD interact with their surroundings. In one
special education class, we were fascinated with a nonverbal student
who had a severe diagnosis of autism. Bobby, a nonverbal student in
Matteo’s special education classroom, is unable to speak and often be­
comes very frustrated when trying to communicate and will become
violent to himself and others. Before recently, his education resource
worker informed me that they mainly communicated through a limited
selection of pictures of activities throughout the day such as “wash­
room”, “snack”, “home”. In the last few years however, more technology
has made its way into the classroom, and Bobby has been given his own
iPad device, with a program titled Proloquo2Go,7 which enables him to
choose from a variety of expressions and pictures that can be custom­
ized, and that allow him to “speak” with a wider vocabulary.
In the figurative sense, one obvious advantage of digital technology
is that it offers even verbal SWD various ways to have a voice in the
classroom, especially those with high anxiety, who may feel shy or un­
comfortable speaking in front of a large group. In our observations, it
was quite common to see teachers allowing students to use multimedia
as a way to give presentations rather than orally in front of the class (e.
g., book report video recorded and presented “reporter style”). Tech­
nology also offers multiple ways that groups of students can communi­
cate and engage with each other. Our observations of robotics in the
classroom provides many examples of groups that had to find ways to
communicate, and this fostered a high sense of engagement and
collaboration between students as they problem solved. Celine, a grade 4
teacher at Cailliau, noted the trial and error and the immediate feedback
7
The description of the app is “a symbol-based communication app that gives
a voice to those who cannot speak” (see http://www.assistiveware.com/pr
oduct/proloquo4text).
6
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
or results that her students receive from the robot is a key piece of that
engagement and the communication that ensues. In the interview, Cel­
ine brought the robotics journal of one of her students to show us her
growth in written communication but also discussed her having a voice
within her robotics group:
This little student, at the beginning of September, couldn’t even
count to 100. So, grade four, can’t count to 100, can’t write. Lacked
any self-confidence. On the spectrum. It’s that ability to communi­
cate. I think, with the robotics, they’re doing something and they see
the outcome. Right. If the outcome isn’t what they’re expecting, they
can go back and make a change and instantly they see a new
outcome. That skill is so important in everything that we do. Espe­
cially with children, and particularly with this student. If you’re
asking them to do something and they have to wait a week to see the
outcome, right. Then they wait another week to correct it or see a
new outcome, well the learning is lost. With this, that sense of
collaboration. That getting of ideas – that learning from their peers.
There was no longer, “The teacher taught me or I learned this. My
peers taught this or we came up with this idea together.” That kind of
talk. That’s what’s going to take them through life. It’s not me as
their teacher or whoever they get next. It’s that they need to be able
to collaborate, work, and appreciate the voice of others.
This notion of giving students a “voice” was perhaps the most com­
mon advantage educators mentioned in relation to technology and SWD.
Our observations were filled with such instances that really showcased
how such students manipulated technology in classroom settings to
communicate with others, thereby shifting their role from being at the
periphery of rituals to the center.
3.3. Change in classroom interactions
Digital technologies also have provided new ways in which SWD can
interact—finding more commonalities and creating more contemporary
exchanges in classrooms. In many situations, they seemed to respond
better to a visual stimulus from a Smart Board than they did with a more
traditional teacher-led lesson. These tools seemed to facilitate interac­
tion between individual SWD and the class:
Gabby is amazing with technology. I call him my “tech support”.
When it is time to do our morning circle, he gets up, sets up the Smart
Board for me and leads the class in calendar and weather. It’s been
amazing to take a set up back and watch a student who has been
identified with autism and fetal alcohol syndrome to now lead the
classroom in ways that may not have been as easy before. I’ve given
him the job of tech support, and he responds well to it. (Matteo,
special education teacher, Summerville)
Many special education rooms focus their day on routine and repe­
tition. We quickly observed the extent to which digital technology was
integrated into many of their morning rituals. In doing so, we were also
able to witness the unique way students were able to interact with each
other. The following anecdote from our field notes highlights this. In a
special education class, the teacher announces that George will be the
“calendar helper” for the day. “I’ll set it up”, George says. He goes up to
the Smart Board and the teacher steps slightly to the side while he
watches George touch the screen to interactively drag the names of the
students and teacher who are present in the circle in the middle of the
board. He says good morning to each one of them. The two non-verbal
students in the classroom use their iPad to select the “good morning”
and “George” button to say, “Good morning George”. Afterwards, he
proceeds to use the technology to announce the day, greet each student,
present the weather forecast, and select an interactive story to be read to
the class. Throughout this process, his peers watch and encourage
George, offering to assist if he gets stuck at any point.
This seemingly simple morning routine is important for conversa­
tions regarding classroom routines and rituals. Consider the challenges
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
that such SWD might have faced trying to engage with their classmates.
With assistive technology, even the students who were non-verbal could
still recognize names and sounds and use the technology as a medium to
interact with peers. Many special education teachers also did not shy
away from saying that some of their students knew more than them at
times. They often used this to leverage more participation and interac­
tion among their students. This has certainly changed the nature of
classroom dynamics:
The allure of technology for special education is obvious. Hands-
down it helps build skills for SWD. Some of these kids know more
about technology than me . . . and when I put that responsibility on
them, they thrive. So sometimes I let my SWD set up technology, or
instead of me reading a book, I will put it on the Smart Board,
because they need those visuals, right? They pay more attention
when it comes from the screen, than from me. (Andrea, ESL teacher,
St. Helena)
Through the observations of special education rooms, we noticed the
centrality of technology in much of how the day unfolds. SWD’s
engagement with much of their classroom learning stemmed from the
use of digital tools such as Smart Boards and iPads. This is yet another
example of some of the changes in classroom dynamics and interactions
with technology present. Many times, the classroom teacher physically
sat in the back of the classroom alongside students while the technology
was in use, creating a mutual focus on the digital tool. Having tech­
nology in the room altered teacher-student interactions, and as Gwen
(grade 4 gifted, Poole) notes, enhanced their relationship with the
teacher:
Yeah. I think it’s kind of enhanced our relationship. I think the kids
really get that I want them to be successful . . . I’m not the expert,
they are. So, we’re kind of learning from each other, and I think that
has kind of enhanced my relationship with the kids because then
we’re more like team members or partners rather than like me at the
front of the room like this.
It should be noted that technology was not always the magic solution
for encouraging collaboration and classroom interactions. When con­
ducting the post-observation interview with Mary (grade 5 gifted,
Poole), we asked her about a student we noticed sitting on the floor away
from his group with a Chromebook even though groups were supposed
to be working together. Mary explained:
William is a unique little guy because he has a learning disability,
ADHD and he’s one of my most gifted kids. So it’s not that he doesn’t
want to work with others, I think it’s his learning disability that
really hinders him from working well in groups. So we have to be
careful with whom he’s with and he needs lists and tasks for him to
be able to do that. He has worked well with other children. So, the
robotics piece would probably engage him more with the group
because it’s hands-on and he does better with hands-on stuff.
Sometimes, SWD felt the need to work away from their group and
digital technology was also useful in keeping groups connected but
allowing a student to pull back if needed. It also may depend on the type
of technology that is being used for different lessons.
Finally, in classroom interactions, we noticed that digital technology
has a language that students learn–the use of apps and other technolo­
gies such as robotics require a certain language when students talk about
them and this creates solidarity among students as they use this lan­
guage. In relation to robotics and coding language, we found this
particularly true. Students who were in robotics clubs or had robotics
integrated in their classroom had a new shared language that bonded
them. As Gwen (grade 4 gifted, Poole) notes this bonded her students
together, but also gave them credibility in the school where they were
sometimes seen as the “weird gifted kids”. This adds a level of knowl­
edge and skill that can give SWD a form of status and capital among
peers.
7
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
3.4. Increasing engagement through digital capital
Digital capital has found its way among capital theories (e.g.,
Bourdieu [37]) as a form of capital that relates to one’s knowledge of the
language, skills, and competencies in using technology as another
advantage in schooling and other areas of life [58]. Along with the
ownership that students are taking in developing skills using digital
technology, we noticed that these skills provided students with a type of
capital to draw on as they worked with other students. Thus, SWD
desired to participate in such new rituals surrounding technology usage
because of the associated status that comes with it. These new rituals
included navigating digital technologies with their peers–providing
them a kind of classroom ritual that centered around the shared emblem
of technology. As we heard from teachers, this new value placed on
digital skills has given SWD a new way to be included in classroom
rituals:
…the positive part of technology is that it allows students with a
different skill set, that might not be the best, you know, at like
handwriting, or social life to be engaged. For example, certain high-
functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder students, if they have their
tech, they can communicate through technology in a variety of ways,
and their expertise with that technology gives them a lot of street
cred, right? It gives them a lot of status that they might not have had
otherwise. And then, you know, when it comes time to choosing
partners, it’s like “oh I want to be your partner next time we do an
assignment together because you’re so good with the tech”. . . It is
going to definitely bring up the self-confidence of these kinds of
students that maybe were outcast as “different” or as “nerdy”. (Greg,
grade 8 teacher, St. Helena)
This confidence may come from recognizing the inherent value of
having digital skills. In self-contained special education rooms with
higher functioning autistic students, students often voiced their confi­
dence when it came to using technology, by saying things like, “Mr. X,
let me help you with setting up the Smart Board. I am really good at it”.
Some special education teachers would pair up with general education
classes for activities. On some occasions, SWD students would be asked
to teach technological skills to other students such as a partnership we
viewed where Kris’ special education class taught a grade 3 class how to
use the BookCreator app for an upcoming project. These students are
now the experts and are tasked with showing their younger peers how to
use the app. There was an apparent sense of pride as they answered
questions and bonded over their own likes and dislikes for using this
app, and it opened up conversations about what kinds of apps they liked
to use in their leisure time. Afterwards, their teacher explained that such
opportunities for SWD to become the experts have largely been made
possible with the presence of technology. In fact, from observing his own
students, he found that many often have less difficulty, if any, in
mastering technology compared to reading a book or writing stories by
hand. The fact that many SWD are becoming extremely proficient at
using technology has given such students a new sense of purpose in the
classroom, and in turn, is providing new opportunities for interactions
and collaborations with peers and teachers.
Over the years, the popularity of technology has trickled down to
student culture to the point where many SWD have begun to acknowl­
edge the potential of using digital mediums to interact with their peers.
For instance, in an interview with Charles, a grade 8 teacher at Sum­
merville, he spoke about his student with Autism Spectrum Disorder
who was self-taught when it came to technology. This student in
particular often leveraged his skills in PowerPoint as a mechanism to
engage with his peers:
He created his own PowerPoint. He decided on his own that is what he
likes to do. It’s still a skill for him just to learn how to present in front
of the class. But he did it. He is self-taught. And he uses the Power­
Point as a way to relate to his grade 8 peers—like he will present the
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
winners of the Grammys or like he is obsessed with celebrities, so
sometimes he will make a Prezi about celebrity gossip, and he uses
the medium of technology to really engage with, and relate to, his
peers.
Having the option of technology also allowed SWD to become part of
a team. However, the collaborative effort in teamwork was not always
naturally established with the inclusion of technology in a lesson. And,
the technological abilities of some students were not immediately
recognized by their group. For example, Kelly a grade eight teacher at
Bell described her intervention and interaction with a group of students
who were trying to troubleshoot a problem they were having with their
robot, and one student felt they were not considering his ideas:
It’s interesting to me, too, because it humbles some children. There’s
some children that work with the robots. They’re the typical text­
book learner, right. They’re the ones that are good the way things are
taught to them a lot of times . . . But one of the students in my class
who’s got an IEP and is very slow to finish a lot of things. He was
really determined to build certain types of wheels and struggled with
the group in itself. Yesterday, they came to me and said, “This isn’t
working out. We’re going nowhere. We’ve tried on our own. We
tried. We really need your help.” I said, “That’s okay. That’s life,
right.” I said, “All I’m going to do is come in and listen, like, be a
mediator.” They said, “Well, he wants to do these types of wheels and
we tried and tried and tried and they didn’t work.” He said, “Well, I
never got a chance to try enough.” I’m thinking he needs extra time
to do things. All I said was, “Hey, listen, we’ve got 20 min left in the
period. Show them you can go somewhere with this.” I said to the
other people, “Keep your hands off the robot. Leave him alone. Give
him time. You’ve built this one side. Let him build the other. If he can
make his wheels work, awesome.” Twenty minutes later, he had
solved the problem – Here’s a kid who’s not led anything all year. It’s
like here’s one little glimpse of what he can prove to his peers.
Because it’s not pencil and paper. It’s not typing. It’s something
different.
It was also noted by teachers that digital technology can “level the
playing field” for SWD. As Carly (grade 4, Atanasoff) notes when asked
about implementing robotics in her classroom and what that has meant
for SWD:
When it comes to things like that, those robotics, it does change their
life because then it’s more of a level playing field, when they have it
in their hand they can program just like the child who may be beside
them, has a device at home, that they’re able to do it. So I would
really go back to that fair does not mean equal, and I shout that out
whenever I get the opportunity.” We found that because technology
is so wide-ranging, it not only provides SWD with a new medium to
participate in common youth rituals, but in many ways, it helps to
build their skills, and their confidence in curricular materials.
4. Discussion
In this study, we explored the possibility that integration of digital
technology in classrooms can create new kinds of ritual interactions and
valued types of capital for SWD. Undoubtedly, the rise of new assistive
technologies has discernible benefits for SWD, and has created huge
gains in terms of their academic potential (e.g., [26,47]). New kinds of
assistive technology have also been found to increase engagement
among SWD [59]. This paper contributes to the ongoing understanding
of student engagement: arguing that digital tools have provided students
with different ways to participate in classroom rituals (both in general
education and in contained classrooms) alongside their peers in ways
that are unique to 21st century schooling. Overall, we discuss four key
findings in relation to interaction rituals and cultural capital.
First, assistive technology allowed SWD to engage with curriculum
8
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
and classroom activities in ways that previously were more difficult to
do independently (see also [27,28]). As described in the observations
and interviews above, many SWD in the classrooms we attended were
able to immerse themselves in classroom routines and lessons with the
use of different kinds of new technologies. Perhaps it is seemingly
obvious that a huge benefit to assistive technology is that it can boost
SWD’s engagement with schooling in ways that extend beyond the
capability of print-text material. For many SWD, similar to their general
education counterparts [54], assistive technology is a tool that seems to
be easier to navigate than traditional print text—a new type of digital
capital that students are beginning to secure for themselves. In theory,
the same lesson and materials could be done without the aid of tech­
nology—a teacher to scribe the student voice for instance, and perhaps
manipulatives to help the student count. However, we observed that
SWD were noticeably more engaged when using technology compared
to instances when they were not in use. Thus, as an added learning tool,
technology is giving SWD another route to reintegrate themselves in
routines and rituals, boosting their class participation. Collins [31]
proposed that “successful rituals can focus attention on physical objects,
which can thereby become emblems of group membership, and re­
minders of the mood that the ritual practice had concentrated and
intensified” (p. 317). In this same way, digital technology can serve as
the sacred focus for SWD as well—allowing them to participate in rituals
that were not available to them prior, both individually and in a group
setting.
Second, assistive technology opens up new avenues to envision what
interaction rituals for SWD may look like in a digital, 21st century
classroom. Similar to our work, findings from Olitsky [25,36] support
the notion that engagement can be examined through interaction ritual
theories. For instance, in her research with grade 8 science classrooms in
Philadelphia. She observed that students could relate to science through
their micro-interactions with peers that invest symbols of science (i.e.
beakers) with emotional energy. These objects became “sacred” in that
they became common objects that fostered a sense of group membership
amongst peers. In doing so, it incentivized them to develop practices that
allowed them to meaningfully engage in science classes [25].
We use the example of giving students a “voice” in the classroom. As
outlined previously, the use of tablets with applications that provided
students in this study with voice-to-text and vice versa allowed many
students who were nonverbal to find ways to engage meaningfully with
their peers. This is an interesting finding to consider, for on the one
hand, assistive technology can be considered nothing more than a me­
chanical aid. But, on the other hand, it appears to really be transforming
traditional rituals, and making them much more participatory for stu­
dents who may have been more segregated in the past, thereby
strengthening feelings of group membership (see also [43,29]). Assistive
technology can facilitate new types of interaction rituals with higher
levels of emotional energy that can both provide positive interactions for
students with their peers, and at the same time, opportunities to be
engrossed in their own work. Technology can provide a new outlet for
students to become engaged in schooling in ways that perhaps were
more limited with print text [47,43].
Further, we note that technology allows students to have a “figura­
tive” voice as well providing avenues for participation for students who
have trouble interacting in groups. In Collins’ [31] sense, these tech­
nologies allow students who are marginalized, or apprehensive, to
participate in the “group emotion of collective solidarity” (p. 111),
permitting students to reintegrate themselves into classroom routines
and rituals in novel ways. Examples of students finding their voice using
technology illustrate how it has revitalized the communication of SWD,
which in turn, has restructured traditional interaction rituals in the
classroom. In essence, technology has given SWD the ability to move
from a passive, to a more active participatory role.
Third, interactions between students and teachers have begun to
change with technology, as teachers are decentered in rituals and, in
many cases, take a step back as the sole authority figure in the
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
classroom. This decentering of rituals has been documented in studies
such as Milner’s [60] which looked at social rituals in high school. In his
research, he suggested that the use of digital technology has changed the
ways in which teens interact, particularly as more peer authority and
status begins to drive social interactions, rather than traditional teacher
authority. We observed student-led interactions starting to become the
norm in classrooms (see also [29]). Similarly, the same can be said for
the interactions with SWD—both in the ways they communicate with
their peers and teachers. In our findings, we include the example of
morning routines of taking attendance or discussing the weather. Here,
teachers were able to use technology to facilitate greater engagement
and interaction between students. With assistive technology available,
students were able to use technology to create new types of classroom
rituals without much instruction from the teacher. Also, we found the
language of technology was an important aspect of creating solidarity
among students. Technical language can create another type of symbol
that can bond SWDs together, especially in the collective experience of
learning coding with robotics. This also resonated with Olitsky’s [25,36]
research on science classrooms and the language of science as another
symbol creating classroom solidarity.
Fourth, digital skills in many forms are becoming an extremely
valuable type of cultural capital for students to draw on [35]. As one
teacher noted, it gives SWD some “street cred” in their digital technology
skills as they work with other students. In theorizing interaction rituals,
Collins [31] writes that in situations where “symbols are charged up by
crowds, there emerges a unique type of group membership” (p. 83). The
same can be said of new digital tools that become charged up with
emotional energy and are enacted through interaction rituals. The
strength in technology lies in its ability to allow students to also become
experts and excel in securing digital skills which can make them feel
confident. This means that digital technology is permitting SWD to
really change their role in some rituals—from traditionally being at the
periphery and requiring assistance in work, to now being at the center
and offering assistance to their peers. This can certainly facilitate group
memberships, for knowledge of current and popular technology (i.e.
how to use an iPad), is becoming both a valued kind of capital, and, a
common symbol for youth, regardless of learning ability.
Ultimately, students who feel empowered and confident are likely to
become more engaged in school. In terms of theoretical implications, a
sense of empowerment can translate into more emotional energy in
rituals that utilize technology for SWD. Such students who may have
been traditionally marginalized from rituals—or in other words, have
been passive participants in interaction rituals thereby gaining little
emotional energy from them—can now begin to identify themselves as
members of a group. This can generate solidarity and greater levels of
emotional energy for SWD who can now feel more connected to their
peers, and to learning, through the development and use of their digital
skills. These skills have become a valued cultural capital that SWD are
increasingly being able to capitalize on. Thus, SWD who may have felt
disconnected in the past from school rituals involving their peers and
teachers, can now share in these moments of interaction rituals with
high levels of emotional energy around technology. Developing this
discussion of SWD and technology through the lens of interaction ritual
chain theory illustrates how seemingly minor changes in the classroom,
such as using new forms of digital technology in daily routines [29], can
be understood in the more macro sense; fostering new kinds of in­
teractions in a digital world. In addition, greater emphasis on prized
digital skills is also creating new prominence around cultural capital
theory, and the ability for SWD to independently secure such skills.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Limitations
As with all research, there are limitations to this study. This research
cannot claim with any certainty that digital technology can improve
9
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
academic achievement among this population of students—although
others have investigated this as we noted earlier, we think this is a
relationship that should be explored further. This offers possible opti­
mism, since high engagement is correlated with achievement and
attainment (e.g., [61,62,63]). Additionally, the way that technology is
used can vary from classroom to classroom. It is often used to differ­
entiate learning, but the depth and quality with which this is done–and
whether the intended objective is being accomplished–is something that
could be examined further (see [23]). In addition, this research has
considered SWD solely in the province of Ontario, and thus more
cross-national and longitudinal data on how SWD across the province
and country navigate and utilize new digital technologies that might
further their engagement with schooling is needed. Furthermore, we
know that successful implementation of new technologies requires a
certain level of comfort, knowledge, and proficiency on the part of the
teacher [64,65]. However, the slow adoption of technology suggests that
there remain several challenges that could hinder its continued usage
across classrooms, especially those that involve SWD [66]. Future
research needs to consider how different kinds of technologies, like
virtual reality for instance, could help provide fun and motivating pro­
grams for SWD [67].
6.2. Contributions
Despite such limitations, this study contributes to ongoing discussion
of SWD, engagement, and digital technology. Research has shown us
how profound the use of technology can be, and how important it is for
parents, teachers, and administrators to seriously consider how to
leverage this tool [66]. As our study has shown, it is also critical to
understand the value that these new tools can have for creating new
kinds of rituals for students who have traditionally been on the outskirts
of many class and peer based rituals. In short, considering how SWD
engage with technology can provide novel ways of conceiving interac­
tion rituals that can be facilitated with technology. In addition, it can
provide further evidence that new valuations are being placed on digital
skills. Thus, new technologies have provided an innovative mechanism
for considering who may participate in modern day interaction rituals,
and in what ways. Interviews and observations with educators in this
study have suggested that we must begin to consider the role of digital
technology in creating and sustaining group memberships that centers
around the acquisition of digital capital—especially among SWD.
As we have outlined, having some familiarity and background in
navigating digital resources, apps, websites, programs and the like—in
other words, a new type of digital capital—can create new sets of rituals
that go beyond learning ability. Instead, technology can allow for more
“role fluidity” in rituals that can allow students more flexibility to switch
roles—from student to teacher, to facilitator, and back. While many
aspects of schooling experiences continue to be segregated for SWD (i.e.
contained classroom, modified curriculum), technology offers a chance
for new ritual interactions to appear, that are centered around digital
skills and acquisition, and that allow students to play a different role in
traditional classroom settings.
Lastly, our research demonstrates the importance of new digital tools
in facilitating new kinds of rituals that arguably, cannot be translated
outside of schools. One implication for our research may be that in-
person or the live use of technology in the classroom using things like
robotics for instance, which allows students to gather and create new
kinds of rituals could produce new interactions that can spark lively
emotional entrainment among assembled kids through the sacred object
of technology that can further bind them to learning. An understanding
of how to facilitate successful interaction rituals, as Olitsky [36] has
argued, is important for teachers to consider, and our study contributes
to the advancement of this theory. Perhaps with the increase of tech­
nology use in the classroom, teachers can become more mindful of how
to create engaging classroom interactions with SWD that build upon
their knowledge of digital skills.
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported in part by funding from a Social Sci­
ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada grant.
Appendix A. Project 1. Pre-Observation Interview Schedule
*Note: Since this is part of a larger research project, only questions
pertinent to this study are included below.
1 Tell us about your teaching background and your use of technology
in the classroom.
2 Do you have any specific training in robotics or technology use in the
classroom? What is your comfort level in using technology in the
classroom?
3 How has the interaction been between student groups when working
with robotics? Has robotics and other forms of technology changed
the way that kids interact with each other or with you as their
teacher? (Follow up questions: If the teacher says students are more
engaged, ask: How do you know? What do you see them doing that
makes you think maybe they are more engaged? How do students
with special needs respond to the use of robotics?)
4 In terms of implementing robotics, what works really well? What do
you think are the benefits of robotics?
5 What are some challenges to integrating technology and/or robotics
in the classroom? (e.g., could include the community they live in,
resource concerns, not enough training)
6 Tell us about your class and the lesson we will be observing today.
Appendix B. Project 2. Observation Protocol
Focus: Technology in the Classroom
Date: School: Setting(s):
I. Classroom Observations - Room description
Consider the following:
• Description of the classroom [learning environment]
• Teaching aids/materials used
• Time devoted to using technology
• Classroom set-up [where children sit, where teacher stands etc.]
• Where is technology placed?
• What stands out? What do I notice?
II. Student Observations - Student Characteristics
Consider the following:
• Number of students
• Gender of students
• Students with disabilities
• Are students on task/off task?
• Do students interact with one another?
• What kinds of things to students say to one another?
• How do boys interact? Girls? Is there a difference in terms of the
interactions between genders?
• How do students with disabilities interact with all students in the
classroom? With the teacher?
• How are students grouped?
o Individual o Small groups o Student pairs o Whole class o other
III. Teacher/Instructor Observation - Teacher role
10
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
Consider the following:
• What is the role of the teacher? (i.e., facilitator, coach, lecturer, etc.)
• Where does the teacher spend most time?
• Do they facilitate classroom use?
• Are they the main source of knowledge in the class?
• How do they interact with their students?
• How do they respond in instances where students have questions?
IV. Technology Observations - Use of Technology
Consider the following:
• What kind(s) of technology are used?
• Does the teacher initiate technology use?
• Do students seek out technology on their own?
• How is it used?
• Is technology used for learning of for leisure/play or combination of
both?
• How long is the technology used for?
Appendix C. Project 2. Interview Schedule
1 What grade you are currently teaching? How long have you been
teaching for and what grades?
2 How do you organize/structure your classroom? What strategies
do you use?
3 As you may know, my interests are in technology and classroom
interactions. Could you tell me a little bit about your experience
with technology? When you began to use it? Why?
4 What are your thoughts about using technology in the classroom?
5 Can you give me an example of how you integrate technology?
What kinds do you use? How do you use it? Have you ever tried to
“gamify” the curriculum or your teachings?
6 In what ways, if any, have your teaching methods changed since
you began using technology?
7 Has technology changed classroom dynamics?
a Classroom interactions you may notice?
b Amongst student-student
c Teacher to student?
8 How have students in your class (or past classes) reacted to
technology? Can you think of times when technology you used
went really well? Can you think of times when technology failed?
9 What do you think are the benefits to using tech in the classroom?
The consequences?
10 In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about the “boy
problem” with technology seen as a tool to re-engage boys. How
do you feel about that? Do you notice any difference with regards
to gender and tech? (interest, enthusiasm?)
11 Has it impacted students from lower SES backgrounds? Students
who may not necessarily have access to technology at home?
12 What are the benefits of using technology with students who have
been diagnosed with a disability(ies)? (e.g., students who have an
Individual Education Plan)
13 In your experience using technology, do the initial effects fade?
September vs. June? Is the enthusiasm lost over time?
14 Would you agree that technology engages students? If so, does
that engagement translate into academic learning?
15 How would you characterize your teaching style? (i.e. relaxed,
strict, fair, fun etc.) Has it changed since using technology?
16 What do you think the future of schooling will look like? Will
technology continue to change the schooling process?
17 Is there anything else you would like to add?
J. Rizk and C. Hillier Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099

References [32] Collins R. Visual micro-sociology and the sociology of flesh and blood: comment on
Wacquant. Qual Sociol 2015;38(1):13–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-014-
9297-5.
[1] National Center for Education Statistics (2021). Students with disabilities. https://
[33] Benzecry C. The opera fanatic: ethnography of an obsession. University of Chicago
nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg.
Press; 2011.
[2] People for Education. (2017). People for education annual report: special education.
[34] Benzecry C, Collins R. The high of cultural experience: toward a microsociology of
Toronto, ON. http://peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/P
cultural consumption. Sociological Theory 2014;32(4):307–26. https://doi.org/
4E-Special-education-2017.pdf.
10.1177/0735275114558944.
[3] Richardson J, Powell J. Comparing special education origins to contemporar
[35] Rizk J, Davies S. Can digital technology bridge the classroom engagement gap?
paradoxes. Stanford University Press; 2011.
Findings from a qualitative study of K-8 classrooms in 10 Ontario school boards.
[4] Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017a). Special education in ontario schools:
Soc Sci 2021;10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10010012.
kindergarten to grade 12 policy and resource guide. Toronto, ON. http://www.edu.gov
[36] Olitsky S. Promoting student engagement in science: interaction rituals and the
.on.ca/eng/document/policy/os/onschools_2017e.pdf.
pursuit of a community of practice. J Res Sci Teach 2007;44(1):33–56. https://doi.
[5] Sec. 300.8 Child with a disability. (2018, May 25). Individuals with disabilities
org/10.1002/tea.20128.
education act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8.
[37] Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In: Richardson J, editor. Handbook of theory and
[6] McIntosh R, Vaughn S. Observations of students with learning disabilities in
research for the sociology of education. Greenwood Press; 1986. p. 241–58.
general education classrooms. Except Child 1993;60(3):249–61. https://doi.org/
[38] Jaeger MM. Does cultural capital really affect academic achievement? Sociol Educ
10.1177/001440299406000306.
2011;84(4):281–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040711417010.
[7] Ong-Dean. Distinguishing disability: parents, privilege and special education. The
[39] Calarco JM. Coached for the classroom: parents’ cultural transmission and
University of Chicago Press; 2009.
children’s reproduction of educational inequalities. Am Sociol Rev 2014;79(5):
[8] Atkinson D, Jackson M, Walmsley J. Forgotten lives: exploring the history of
1015–37.
learning disability. British Institute of Learning Disabilities; 1998.
[40] Davies S, Rizk J. The three generations of cultural capital research: A narrative
[9] Lalvani P. Disability, stigma and otherness: perspectives of parents and teachers.
review. Rev Edu Res 2018;83(3):331–65.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 2015;62(4):
[41] Lareau A. Unequal childhoods, with an update a decade later. University of
379–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1029877.
California Press; 2011.
[10] Pijl SJ, Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. SWD and the composition of their peer group. Irish
[42] Ontario Education Act. (1990). R.R.O, Reg. 306: Special education programs and
Educational Studies 2010;29(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/
services [C.E.2]. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90e02.
03323310903522693.
[43] Santarosa LMC, Conforto D. Educational and digital inclusion for subjects with
[11] Bunch G. An analysis of the move to inclusive education in Canada. What works.
autism spectrum disorders in 1:1 technological configuration. Comput Hum Behav
Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria De Formación Del Profesorado 2015;18(1):
2016;60:293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.021.
1–15. https://doi.org/10.6018/reifop.18.1.214311.
[44] Ok MW, Rao K. Digital tools for the inclusive classroom: google chrome as assistive
[12] Ontario Ministry of Education. (2017b). Ontario’s education equity action plan.
and instructional technology. J Special Educ Technol 2019;34(3):204–11.
Toronto, ON. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/about/education_equity_plan_en.
[45] Wallace T, Georgina D. Preparing special education teachers to use educational
pdf.
technology to enhance student learning. In: the 11th International Conference on
[13] Nieves K. Building inclusive learning environments with 1:1: devices. J Special
Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age; 2014. p. 165–71. http://files.
Educ Technol 2021;36(1):54–9.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557381.pdf.
[14] Shaheen NL, Lazar J. K–12 technology accessibility: the message from state
[46] Sider, S., & Maich, K. (2014). Assistive technology tools: supporting literacy learning
governments. J Special Educ Technol 2018;33(2):83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/
for all learners in the inclusive classroom. Toronto, ON. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/e
0162643417734557.
ng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_TechnologyTools.pdf.
[15] Good J. Serving students with special needs better: how digital technology can
[47] Meyer A, Rose D, Gordon D. Universal design for learning: theory and practice.
help. OECD digital education outlook 2021: publishing the frontiers with AI,
CAST; 2014.
blockchain, and robots. OECD Publishing; 2021.
[48] Johnson M, Spriggs AD, Shepley SB, Allan Allday R, Samudre M. Video activity
[16] Joyce R, Boyle J. Improving note-taking skills for students with disabilities through
schedules to increase independence for students with disabilities. Journal of
a smartpen intervention. J Special Educ Technol 2020;35(4):225–35.
Developmental & Physical Disabilities 2019;31(1):73–88. https://doi.org/
[17] Viner M, Singh A, Shaughnessy MF. Assistive technology to help students with
10.1007/s10882-018-9631-z.
disabilities. In: Singh A, Viner M, Jung Yeh C, editors. Special education design and
[49] Riden B, Markelz A, Randolph K. Creating positive classroom environments with
development tools for school rehabilitation professionals. IGI Global; 2020.
electronic behaviour management programs. J Special Educ Technol 2019;34(2):
p. 240–67.
131–41.
[18] Riden S, Kumm S, Jolivette K. Using technology to increase the use of evidence-
[50] Emerling C, Wilkenson S, Maggin DM. Educator knowledge and implementation of
based behaviour interventions with students with high-incidence disabilities.
assistive technology to support challenging behaviours: an exploratory inquiry.
J Special Educ Technol 2021;(3):36. https://doi.org/10.1177/
J Special Educ Technol 2021;36(3):162–74.
01626434211034811.
[51] Hammer M, Göllner R, Scheiter K, Fauth B. For whom do tablets make a difference?
[19] Bouck EC, Park J, Stenzel K. Virtual manipulatives as assistive technology to
Examining student profiles and perceptions of instruction. Comput Educ 2021;166
support students with disabilities with mathematics. Preventing School Failure
(8):104–47.
2020;64(4):281–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2020.1762157.
[52] Papadakis S. Advances in mobile learning educational research (AMLER): mobile
[20] Moon AL, Francom GM, Wold CM. Learning from versus learning with technology:
learning as an educational reform. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational
supporting constructionist reading comprehension learning with iPad applications.
Research 2021;1(1):1–4.
TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning 2021;65(1):79–89.
[53] Hasselbring TS, Glaser CHW. Use of computer technology to help SWD. Future
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00532-1.
Child 2000;10(2):102–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602691.
[21] Watson T, Berry B. Using classroom clickers to increase academic engagement for
[54] Rizk J. The 21st century classroom: Technology as a transformative tool in
elementary school–aged student with disabilities. J Special Educ Technol 2021.
educational routines, rules, and rituals. McMaster University; 2018.https://
https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211004455.
macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/23639/2/Rizk_Jessica_J_SEPT2018_
[22] Ahmed A. Perceptions of using assistive technology for students with disabilities in
DoctorofPhilosophy_Sociology.pdf
the classroom. Int J Spec Educ 2018;33(1):129–39.
[55] Aurini J, McLevey J, Stokes A, Gorbet R. Classroom robotics and acquisition of 21st
[23] Lauricella AR, Jacobson M. iPads in first grade classrooms: teachers’ intentions and
century competencies: An action research study of nine Ontario school boards.
the realities of use. Computers & Education Open 2022;3. https://doi.org/
Ontario Council of Education 2017. https://www.ontariodirectors.ca/CODE-rob
10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100077.
/Robotics_Final_Report_Sept_22_2017.pdf.
[24] Manganello J. Media use for children with disabilities in the United States during
[56] Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol 2017;12(3):297–8. https://
COVID-19. J Child Media 2020;15(1):29–32.
doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
[25] Olitsky S. Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in
[57] Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications Inc;
science classrooms: what can be learned from out-of-field teaching in an urban
2016.
school? Sci Educ 2007;91(1):201–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.
[58] Ragnedda M, Ruiu ML. Social capital and the three levels of digital divide. In:
[26] Burgstahler S. The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for
Ragnedda M, Muschert G, editors. Theorizing digital divides. Routledge; 2017.
postsecondary education and employment. J Special Educ Technol 2003;18(4):
p. 21–34.
7–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340301800401.
[59] Svensson I, et al. Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and
[27] Chen, B., Gallagher-Mackay, K., & Kidder, A. (2014). Digital learning in Ontario
writing >disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technol. 2021;16(2):
schools: the “new normal.” http://www.peopleforeducation.ca/wp-content/upload
196–208.
s/2014/03/digital-learning-2014-WEB.pdf.
[60] Milner M. Freaks, geeks and cool kids: american teenagers, schools and the culture
[28] Jenson J, Taylor N. Critical review and analysis of the issue of “skills, technology
of consumption. 2016. New York: Routledge; 2004.
and learning”: final report. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education; 2010.
[61] Fisher D, Frey N, Lapp D. Focusing on the participation and engagement gap: a case
http://www.opsba.org/index.php?q=advocacy_and_action/technology_in_
study on closing the achievement gap. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
teaching_and_learning
Risk 2011;16:56–64.
[29] White H, Robertson L. Implementing assistive technologies: a study on co-learning
[62] Joseph R. Closing the achievement gap with culturally relevant technology based
in the Canadian elementary school context. Comput Human Behav 2015;51:
learning environments. Educational Technology 2009;49:45–7.
1268–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.003.
[63] Robinson K, Mueller A. Behavioral engagement in learning and math achievement
[30] Durkheim E. The elementary forms of religious life. /1965. Free Press; 1912.
over kindergarten: a contextual analysis. Am J Educ 2014;120:325–49.
[31] Collins R. Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press; 2004.

11
J. Rizk and C. Hillier
[64] Atanga C, Jones BA, Krueger LE, Lu S. Teachers of students with learning
disabilities: assistive technology knowledge, perceptions, interests, and barriers.
J Special Educ Technol 2020;35(4):236–48.
[65] Chambers D, Jones P, Reese L, Wilcox C. Teachers’ perspectives of what works:
implementation of AT for students with disabilities. Assist Technol 2021. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2020.1826597.
12
Computers and Education Open 3 (2022) 100099
[66] Ghanouni P, Jarus T, Zwicker JG. The use of technologies among individuals with
autism spectrum disorders: barriers and challenges. J Special Educ Technol 2020;
35(4):286–94.
[67] Ip H, Wong S, Chan D, Byrne J, Li C, Yuan V, Lau K, Wong J. Enhance emotional
and social adaptation skills for children with autism spectrum disorder: a virtual
reality enabled approach. Comput Educ 2018;117:1–15.