Advertisement

Legal and Ethical Considerations Regarding the Integration of Assistive and Educational Technology for Students with Disabilities: Perspectives from the United States of America

  • Joseph John MorganEmail author
  • Kristopher H. Yeager
  • Sarah J. Murphy
  • Tracy Griffin Spies
Chapter

Abstract

The availability of assistive and educational technology to support the academic, behavioural, and social-emotional outcomes of students with disabilities in United States public schools continues to increase. As such, educational professionals are seeking evidence-based methods for providing students with disabilities increased access to information and learning using these technologies. As the proliferation of these technologies continues, it is important that school leaders consider both the legal and ethical requirements for technology use with culturally and linguistically diverse students with disabilities. This chapter will review these legal and ethical principles as they apply to public education in the United States, and will discuss a conceptual framework for ensuring culturally relevant and appropriate assistive and educational technology integration. Implications for practice will be discussed.

Keywords

Assistive technology Students with disabilities Legal and ethical requirements CALD students 

References

  1. Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The software checklist: Evaluating educational software for use by students with disabilities. Technology in Action, 3(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. Bouck, E. C. (2016). A national snapshot of assistive technology for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 4–13.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416633330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bromberg, M., & Theokas, C. (2016). Meandering toward graduation: Transcript outcome of high school graduates. Washington, DC: Education Trust.Google Scholar
  4. Dalsen, J. (2017). Technology, disability, and law: Then and now. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32, 102–108.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417704438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darrow, A. A. (2016). The every student succeeds act (ESSA): What it means for students with disabilities and music educators. General Music Today, 30, 41–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10483713166658327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Etscheidt, S. L. (2016). Assistive technology for students with disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 183–194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434116673912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hwang, J., & Riccomini, P. J. (2014). Enhancing mathematical problem solving for secondary students with or at risk of learning disabilities: A literature review. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31, 169–181.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).Google Scholar
  9. Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Education ACT (IDEA). (2004). Available from http://idea.ed.gov
  10. Kennedy, M. J., Thomas, C. N., Meyer, P., Alves, K. D., & Lloyd, J. W. (2014). Using evidence-based multimedia to improve vocabulary performance of adolescents with LD: A UDL approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 71–85.  https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871350762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2010). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33, 6–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgan, J. J., Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2013). Integrating technology in content area classrooms to support reading comprehension. In R. T. Boon & V. G. Spencer (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Strategies for content comprehension in inclusive classrooms (pp. 157–169). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Morgan, J. J., Brown, N. B., Hsiao, Y. J., Howerter, C., Juniel, P., Sedano, L., & Castillo, W. L. (2014). Unwrapping academic standards to increase the achievement of students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213496156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murphy, P., & Warren, P. (2015, December 11). Good timing for new federal education law. Viewpoints: PPIC Blog. Retrieved from http://ppic.org/main/blog_detail.asp?i=1923
  16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2014). The nation’s report card 2014: Technology and engineering literacy. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/tel_2014/#
  17. Nelson, N. J., Fien, H., Doabler, C. T., & Clarke, B. (2016). Considerations for realizing the promise of educational gaming technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48, 293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916650639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Office of Educational Technology (OET, 2017). National education technology plan. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/netp/
  19. Okolo, C. M., & Diedrich, J. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341402900101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pazey, B. L., Schalock, R. L., Schaller, J., & Burkett, J. (2016). Incorporating quality of life concepts into educational reform: Creating real opportunities for students with disabilities in the 21st century. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(2), 96–105.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207315604364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2008). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 15–48). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Rothman, R. (2011). Something in common: The common core standards and the next chapter in American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  23. Skinner, R. R., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2015). Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act: Highlights of the every student succeeds act (Report no. R44297). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2005 and educational technology in U.S. public schools: Fall 2008. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_218.10.asp?current=yes
  26. Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39, 1–24.Google Scholar
  27. Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., McDuffie, K. A., & Mattocks, L. (2008). Twenty ways to ensure compliance with the individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 45–51.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208318875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph John Morgan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristopher H. Yeager
    • 1
  • Sarah J. Murphy
    • 1
  • Tracy Griffin Spies
    • 1
  1. 1.University of NevadaLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations