CONTRIBUTION OF TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED LEARNING TO THE INCLUSION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATION NEEDS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2018vol1.3159Keywords:
Qualitative Content Analysis, Technology Enhanced Learning, Special Education Needs, Accessibility of EducationAbstract
Students with special educational needs (henceforth, SEN) are usually separated from traditional educational settings; thus, risk of being completely excluded from educational activities due to their physical or mental limitations is increased and access to education can be reduced significantly. Thus, a problem arises that students with SEN have restricted possibilities to participate in study process and to obtain desired qualifications together with non-disabled students; therefore, they may feel excluded from education system. The aim of the research is to evaluate how technology enhanced learning (henceforth, TEL) contributes to reducing exclusion of students with SEN. In order to achieve the aim, qualitative research methodology has been applied. Data has been selected during semi-structured interviews and analyzed by applying a qualitative content analysis. Research participants are graduate students with SEN who are currently engaging themselves in study process fostered by TEL at U.S. universities. The research has provided the following findings: TEL increases accessibility of education by eliminating social and physical barriers, enabling constant movement, and helping students with SEN cope with their impairments. TEL can be the only way for learners to complete their education. The research has not indicated that TEL can ensure inclusion. However, TEL enables students with SEN to receive qualifications and degrees in a much more convenient way.Downloads
References
Burton, D. (Ed) (2000). Research Training for Social Scientists. London: Sage.
Corbin, J. and Straus, A. (2008). Basic Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed). Boston: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell J.W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. (2nd ed.); Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
“Inductive and deductive approaches to research” (2017). Retrieved 31 October 2017, from http://deborahgabriel.com/2013/03/17/inductive-and-deductive-approaches-to-research/
Miles, M., and Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Priest, H., Roberts, P, and L. Woods (2003). “An Overview of Three Different Approaches to the Interpretation of Qualitative Data”. In: Nurse Researcher. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Sobel, D., & Knott, W. (2014). “Differentiation for SEN students: tips for boosting attainment”. Retrieved October 31, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2014/apr/09/special-educational-needs-tips-boosting-attainment
UN General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (26 A). Paris. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights
UNESCO (2005). Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access for All. France.
“What are the Disadvantages of Online Schooling for Higher Education”, (2003-2017).Retrieved November14th,2017fromhttp://study.com/articles/What_are_the_Disadvantages_of_Onlin e_Schooling_for_Highe_Education.html
