Transcript ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR STUDENTS WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR STUDENTS WITH
VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS: IN-SERVICE TEACHER
TRAINING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENT
ACCESS AND USAGE ACROSS ACADEMIC
SUBJECT AREAS- A DISSERTATION-CAPELLA
UNIVERSITY 2014
By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI
Program Specialist -Accessible Instructional Materials
(AIMs)
Georgia Department of Education
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
It is not fully known the extent to which the level
of in-service teacher training in assistive
technology for the blind and visually impaired
and academic subject area affects the level
of student access to and usage of assistive
technology. Students who are blind and
visually impaired often lack equal access to
the same general curriculum as their sighted
peers. Access is achieved through the use of
assistive technology.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to examine
the relationship between the level of inservice teacher training in assistive
technology for the blind and visually
impaired and academic subject area, with
student access to and the level of usage
of assistive technology in order to access
the general education curriculum.
STUDY SUMMARY
Correlational Study
 To determine if there was a significant
correlation between
o teacher in-service training and academic
subject area
 Student levels of access to assistive
technology for the visually impaired
 Student levels of usage of assistive
technology for the visually impaired
DATA ANALYSIS
 Frequency Data
 Spearman’s correlation coefficient
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
 Research subjects were all students and
teachers at a state school for the Blind in
the academic program for students with
visual impairments only and students with
additional mild to moderate disabilities.
 Two surveys were utilized
 Teacher Survey
 Student Survey
Teacher Data
Table 2
Frequency Counts Teacher Demographics (n=13)
Variable
n
%
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
White
Black
Education
Bachelor’s
Graduate
2
11
15.4
84.6
12
1
92.3
7.7
5
8
38.5
61.5
TEACHER DATA CONTINUED
Variable
Age Group
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
Program
VI only
VI + additional
n
%
1
3
4
3
2
7.7
23.1
30.7
23.1
15.4
7
6
53.8
46.2
STUDENT DATA
Table 3
Frequency Counts
Student Demographics n = 45
Age Range = 13-21
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
White
Black
Native American
1
Asian
Mixed Race
n
%
18
27
40
60
21
21
46.7
46.7
2.2
1
1
2.2
2.2
Student Data Continued
Grade
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
n
%
4
3
8
4
10
8.9
6.7
17.8
8.9
22.2
5
11
11.1
24.4
Student Date Continued
Age
Age 13
Age 14
Age 15
Age 16
Age 17
Age 18
Age 19
Age 20
Age 21
n
6
3
7
4
5
6
7
4
3
%
13.3
6.7
15.6
8.9
11.1
13.3
15.6
8.9
6.7
Student Data Continued
n
%
Primary Learning
Medium
Regular Print
Large Print
4
15
8.9
33.3
Braille
Auditory
25
1
55.6
2.2
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 1
 H1: There is a significant relationship
between the level of in-service teacher
training in assistive technology for the
visually impaired and the level of
student access to assistive technology
for the visually impaired.
NULL HYPOTHESIS 1
H0: There is not a significant
relationship between the level of inservice teacher training in assistive
technology for the visually impaired
and the level of student access to
assistive technology for the visually
impaired.
Statistical Analysis
 Table 5
 Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient and p-Values for
Teacher In-service Training and Student levels of Access
for Assistive Technology for Students with Visual
Impairments (n=45) Students (n=13) Teachers
Assistive Technology Category
rs
Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision
 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers
-.324
p
.280
 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers
-.328
.275
 3. Electronic Telescopes
-.158
.606
 4. Screen Enlargement Software
-.530
 5. Large Display Calculators
 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators

.101
.063
.743
-.189
.537
Statistical Analysis
 Assistive Technology Category











rs
p
Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind
Auditory.
7. Screen Reading Software -.587 .035*
8. Scan and Read Software
-.371 .211
9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)
-.078 .801
10. Digital Book Reading Hardware -.291 .334
11. Digital Book Reading Software .077 .802
12. Desktop Audio Players
-.581 .037*
13. Portable Audio Players
.060 .845
14. Talking Dictionary
-.266 .380
Statistical Analysis
Assistive Technology Category
rs
pB
raille.Braille.
 15. Manual Braille Writer
-.237. .436
 16. Electronic Braille Writer
-.123
.689
 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools

.453 .120
 18. Braille Embossers
-.294 .330
 19. Braille Translation Software .060
.845


Statistical Analysis
 Tactile Graphics.












Assistive Technology Category
rs
20. Tactile Graphics Hardware .594
21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222
22. Tactile Graphics Kits
.092
Math Tools.
23. Talking Calculators
.055
.860
24. Cranmer Abacus
-.204
25. Math Concepts Software .279
.357
26. Miscellaneous Math Tools
-.488
*p < .05
p
.032*
.466
.765
.504
.091
HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS
120
Teacher Low Level
of Training
100
80
Percentages
Teacher High Levels
of Training
60
Student Low Level
of Access
40
Student High Level
of Access
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-20
Assistive Technology Categories
HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS
 Null hypothesis is retained.
 While there were a few areas that were
statistically significant, there was not enough
evidence to support the hypothesis.
 There were trends which indicate that further
research with a larger sample size might give
better results to support the research
hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS 2
 H2: There is a significant relationship
between the academic subject that the
teacher of the visually impaired is
teaching, and the level of student
access by students with visual
impairments to assistive technology for
the visually impaired.
Null Hypothesis 2
 H0: There is not a significant
relationship between the academic
subject that the teacher of the visually
impaired is teaching, and the level of
student access by students with visual
impairments to assistive technology for
the visually impaired.
Statistical Analysis
Table 6
Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient for Level of
Access and Academic Subject Area (n = 45)
Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision
ELA
rs
1. Desktop Video Magnifiers
.770**
2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers
.774**
3. Electronic Telescopes
.517**
4. Screen Enlargement Software
.722**
5. Large Display Calculators
.397**
6. Large Display Graphing Calculators
.500**
Math
SC
rs
rs
SS
rs
.695**
.626** .652**
.224
.517**
.650** .669**
.517* 0
.697**
.881**
.509** .722**
.720** .397**
.770**
.476**
.366*
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind
ELA
rs
Auditory.
7. Screen Reading Software
8. Scan and Read Software
Math
SC
rs
rs
.672**.499**.622**.722*
.829**.857**.664**.780**
9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)
.808**.786**.664**.767**
10. Digital Book Reading Hardware
786**.664**.767**.767**
11. Digital Book Reading Software
.825**.489**.550**.667**
12. Desktop Audio Players
.937**.426**.320* .548**
13. Portable Audio Players
.997**.863**.707**.730**
14. Talking Dictionary
.945**.261 .521**.642**
SS
rs
Statistical Analysis
ELA
rs
Math
rs
Sc
rs
SS
rs
Braille.
15. Manual Braille Writer .807**.895**.781**.709**
16. Electronic Braille Writer
.788**.617**.685**.727**
17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools
.808**.598**.596**.598**
18. Braille Embossers .699**.535**.535**.775**
19. Braille Translation Software
.744**.624** 0 .625
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
ELA
rs
Math
rs
Sc SS
rs
rs
Tactile Graphics.
20. Tactile Graphics Hardware .744** .624** 0 .625
21. Tactile Graphics Software .518* .707** 0 .518
22. Tactile Graphics Kits
.314* .869** 0 .314
Math Tools.
23. Talking Calculators
24. Cranmer Abacus
.224
.414**
25. Math Concepts Software
.793**.411**
.957** .398**.374**
.723**.723**.517**.500**
26. Miscellaneous Math Tools .271
* p < .05
** p < .01
.030
.875**.576** .327*
HYPOTHESIS 2 RESULTS
1.2
1
ELA
Math
0.8
Sci
SS
0.6
Linear (ELA)
Linear (Math)
0.4
Linear (SS)
0.2
Linear (SS)
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
HYPOTHESIS 2
 The research hypothesis was retained. 82% of
the possible 104 correlations combinations
were significant at the p<.01 level and 5.8%
were significant at the p<.05 level with a total
of 86% of the data being statistically
significant to support the research
hypothesis.
 All areas had some level of significances.
HYPOTHESIS 3
 H3: There is a significant relationship
between the level of in-service teacher
training in assistive technology for the
visually impaired and the level of usage
of assistive technology for the visually
impaired.
NULL HYPOTHESIS 3
 H0: There is not a significant
relationship between the level of inservice teacher training in assistive
technology for the visually impaired and
the level of usage of assistive
technology for the visually impaired by
students with visual impairments.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table 7
Spearman’s correlation coefficient for Teacher In-service Training and Student
Usage in Academic Subject Areas (n=45).
Assistive Technology Category
ELA
rs
Math
rs
SC
rs
SS
rs
Assistive Technology for Students
with Low Vision
1. Desktop Video Magnifiers
2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers
3. Electronic Telescopes
4. Screen Enlargement Software -.360
5. Large Display Calculators
6. Large Display Graphing Calculators
-.324
-.328
-.158
-.360
-.324
-.328
-.158
0
-.287
-.189
.083
-.189
0
0
0
-.360
.082
0
-.324
-.328
-.158
-.287
-.189
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind
ELA
Math SC
rs
rs
Auditory.
7. Screen Reading Software
8. Scan and Read Software
.283
.462
-.371 -.371
9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)-.193
.097
rs
rs
.613* .012
0
-.371
-.039
10. Digital Book Reading Hardware
-.198 0
11. Digital Book Reading Software
.145 .297
SS
.17
0
.495
0
.235
STATISICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind
ELA
Math SC
rs
rs
12. Desktop Audio Players
-.168
-.425
13. Portable Audio Players
-.431
-.431
14. Talking Dictionary
-.325
SS
rs
rs
Auditory.
-.287
-.425
-.293
-.028
-.287
.425
-.431
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
ELA
rs
Math
rs
SC
rs
SS
rs
-.258
-.041
-.118
.04
Braille.
15. Manual Braille Writer
16. Electronic Braille Writer
17. Miscellaneous Braille
Writing Tools
18. Braille Embossers
19. Braille Translation
Software
.233
.411
.152
.15
.453
.604*
.604*
.604*
-.294
.041
.041
0
0
-.294
0
-.294
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
ELA
rs
Tactile Graphics.
20. Tactile Graphics Hardware
Math
rs
0
21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222
.592*
-.222
SC
rs
.402
0
-.222
0
22. Tactile Graphics Kits
Math Tools.
-.290
.052
23. Talking Calculators
-.423
.125
24. Cranmer Abacus
-.265
-.076
.124
25. Math Concepts Software
.402
-.290
.355
-.279
-.280
-.189
-.355
26. Miscellaneous Math Tools -.538
-.538
-.287
-.422
*p < .05
SS
rs
-.126
-.122
HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
English
Math
Science
Social Studies
Miscellaneous Math Tools
Math Concept SW
Cranmer Abacus
Talking Calculator
Tactile Graphics Kits
Tactile Graphics SW
Tactile Graphics HW
Braille Translation SW
Braille Embosser
Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools
Electric Braille Writer
Maunual Braille Writer
Talking Dictionary
Portable Audio Players
Desktop Audio Players
Digital Book Reading SW
Digital Book Reading HW
Portable Notetakers PDA's
Scan and Read SW
Screen Reading SW
Large Display Graphing Calculators
Large Display Calculators
Screen Enlargement SW
Electronic Telescopes
Portable Video Magnifiers
Desktop Video Magnifiers
HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS
120
100
80
60
40
20
Teacher Low Level of Training
Teacher High Levels of Training
0
HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
ELA
100
Math
50
0
SC
SS
-50
Figure 5. Teacher in-service training compared to student usage of at
(n = 45 students) (n = 13 teachers).
HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS
 Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicates little
to no correlation between the level of teacher inservice training in AT for the visually impaired
and student usage of AT for the visually impaired
in each academic subject area.
 Although there are a few areas that are
statistically significant, there were not enough to
warrant accepting the research hypothesis so the
null hypothesis must be retained.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 4
 H4: There is a significant relationship
between the academic subject area that
the teacher of the visually impaired is
teaching and the level of student usage
of assistive technology for the visually
impaired.
NULL HYPOTHESIS 4
H0: There is not a significant
relationship between the
academic subject area that the
teacher of the visually impaired is
teaching and the level of usage of
assistive technology for the
visually impaired by students with
visual impairments.
STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
Table 8
Frequency of Student access to Assistive Technology in Academic
Subject Areas (n = 45)
Assistive Technology Category
%
English Math
Assistive Technology for Students
with Low Vision
1. Desktop Video Magnifiers
2.2
2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers
13.2
3. Electronic Telescopes
Sc
17.4 15.5
SS
15.5
11.0
4.4
11.1
2.2
2.2
0
2.2
24.4
13.3 15.5
24.4
4. Screen Enlargement Software
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology Category
%
English Math
Assistive Technology for Students
Sc
SS
with Low Vision
5. Large Display Calculators 4.4
31.1
13.3
4.4
6. Large Display Graphing Calculators
4.4
11.1
4.4
2.2
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology Category
%
English Math
Sc
SS
Assistive Technology for Students Who Are Blind
Auditory.
7. Screen Reading Software
60.0
33.4 26.7 38.9
8. Scan and Read Software
15.5
11.0
9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)
39.9
31.1
11.0 13.2
6.6
15.5
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology Category
%
English
Math
Sc
10. Digital Book Reading HW
46.6
15.5
13.3
26.7
11. Digital Book Reading SW
26.6
8.8
6.6
15.5
12. Desktop Audio Players
51.1
17.7
19.9
13. Portable Audio Players
8.8
6.6
14. Talking Dictionary
42.2
4.4
4.4
13.3
SS
33.3
8.8
20.0
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology Category
%
English
Math
Sc
15. Manual Braille Writer
42.2
64.4
37.8 35.6
16. Electronic Braille Writer
24.5
8.8
11.1 13.3
17.7
13.2
8.8 13.2
SS
Braille.
17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools
18. Braille Embossers
6.6
4.4
4.4
8.9
19. Braille Translation SW
6.6
4.4
0
4.4
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
%
English
Math
Sc
SS
Tactile Graphics.
20. Tactile Graphics Hardware
0.0
6.6
21. Tactile Graphics Software
2.2
4.4
22. Tactile Graphics Kits
13.3
0
2.2
13.4
11.1
28.8
7.0
.6
35.6
4.4
4.4
Math Tools.
23. Talking Calculators
24. Cranmer Abacus
2.2
2.2
0
2.2
2.2
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
%
English
Math Tools.
23. Talking Calculators
13.4
Math
Sc
11.1
28.8
7.0
.6 35.6
4.4
4.4
4.4 4.4
2.2
8.8
19.9
6.6
24. Cranmer Abacus
25. Math Concepts Software
26. Miscellaneous Math Tools
11.0
64.4
SS
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table 9
Spearman’s Coefficient of AT for the Visually Impaired Across Subject Areas
(n = 45)
Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision
E/M E/SC E/SS M/SC M/S SC/SS
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
1. Desktop Video Magnifiers .632**.654**.708**.595**.783**.803**
2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers
.688**.527**.880**.266.
3. Electronic Telescopes
1.000* 0
1.000** 0
788**.609**
1.000** 0
4. Screen Enlargement Software
.782**.610** .790** .752**.886**.748**
5. Large Display Calculators .321* .218 1.000** .591**.321*.218
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Assistive Technology for Students
Who are Blind
E/M
E/SC E/SS M/SC M/S SC/SS
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
6. Large Display Graphing Calculators
.602**.454**.715**.602**.447** -.033
Auditory
7. Screen Reading Software
.334* .508* .588**.336* .516** .515**
8. Scan and Read Software
.816**.818** .923**.795** .917**.882**
9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)
.772**.640**.690**.651** .894**.585**
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
E/M E/SC
E/SS
rs
rs
10. Digital Book Reading Hardware
.273
M/SC
M/S SC/SS
rs
rs
rs
rs
.354* .397** .549** .443** .550**
11. Digital Book Reading Software
.474**
.352 .557**
12. Desktop Audio Players
.290
.223 .292
13. Portable Audio Players
.840**
14. Talking Dictionary
.326*
.867** .760**
.638**
.669** .589*
.651**
.656**.714** .817** .854**
.505**.559** -.084
.471**
.665**
.618**
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Braille
E/M
rs
E/SC
rs
E /SS
rs
M/S
rs
M/S SC/SS
rs
rs
15. Manual Braille Writer
.673**.671**.717**.521**.545**.671**
16. Electronic Braille Writer
.609**.675**.717**.894**.826** .923**
17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools
.540**.513**.540**.816* 1.000** .816**
18. Braille Embossers
.365* .787**.528**.477**.690** .690**
19. Braille Translation Software
.374*
0
.384**
0
.465**
0
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
E/M
E/SC
E/SS
M/SC
M/S
rs
rs
rs
rs
rs
20. Tactile Graphics Hardware
.537** .537** 1.000**
0
0
0
21. Tactile Graphics Software
0
.715**
.715**
0
1.000** 0
0
1.000** 0
SC/SS
rs
Tactile Graphics.
22. Tactile Graphics Kits
.432** 0
.432**
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Math Tools.
E/M
rs
23. Talking Calculators
24. Cranmer Abacus
-.071
.243
.374*
25. Math Concepts Software
1.000**
26. Miscellaneous Math Tools
.128
E/SC
rs
.106
.826**
E /SS
M/S
rs
.304
.390** .360*
.715** .723**
.245
.261
.775**
M/S SC/SS
rs
rs
rs
-.027
.192
.465**
.699** .723** .517**
.537** .123
.375*
E/M=English Language Arts/Math, E/SC=English Language Arts/Science
E/SS=English Language Arts/Social Studies, M/SC =Math/Science, M/SS== Math/ Social
Studies, SC/SS= Science/Social Studies.
*
p < .05
** p<01
HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS
70
60
50
English
Math
Science
Social Studies
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 6. Comparison of student assistive technology access by subject area
n = 45.
HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS
 Based on the Spearman’s correlation coefficient,
there is a significant correlation between usage
of assistive technology for students with visual
impairments and subject areas. In fact, there are
numerous significant correlations between AT
usage as compared to usage in other academic
areas. Of the possible 156 correlational
possibilities, 12 (7.7 %) were significant at the p <
.05 level and 110 (71 %) were significant at the p <
.01 level. Only 34 (21.3%) were not statistically
significant.
HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS
 There were sufficient significant correlations
at the p < .05 and p < .01 level (78.7% ) to
determine that the research hypothesis was
retained. The null hypothesis was rejected.
STUDY CONCLUSIONS
 Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3- The null
hypotheses were accepted. However, there
were trends, though not statistically
significant, for hypothesis 1 that indicated
that further study might yield different
results with a larger sample size.
 Hypotheses 2 and 4- The research hypotheses
was retained.
RECOMMENDATIONSFURTHER RESEARCH
 Replication of the study with a larger
sample size.
 Include itinerant TVI’s.
 Expand study to examine TVI’s skill
level in each assistive technology level
and not just their number of hours of
training
RECOMMENDATIONS- PRACTICE
 Include peer coaching as a follow-up to in-
service training to improve TVI levels of
proficiency
 TVI’s should provide access to a variety of
assistive technology both high and low tech
in all subject areas
 Access to the curriculum is the key to positive
student achievement for students with visual
impairments. AT is the catalyst that makes
this possible.
CONCLUSION
 Access to and use of assistive technology is
not a luxury for students with visual
impairments. It is a necessity. The use of
assistive technology is the key that unlocks
the world of print and digital information to
students with low vision and blindness.
Further investigation is needed to strengthen
the body of research in this critical area.