Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education pp 1025–1046Cite as

Learning Differences and Digital Equity in the Classroom

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

This chapter addresses digital equity in the classroom for students with learning differences, as well as the role of technology in the provision of equitable education for the full diversity of students. The chapter discusses the evolving opportunities and challenges that information technology in the classroom presents to students with learning differences and their teachers.

To meaningfully understand this topic requires an understanding of the complex context, the forces at play, and their relation to students with learning differences. Among the forces at play are policies, regulations, the accessibility movement, technical trends, instructional design strategies, educational publishing, open education resources, pedagogical trends, quality control approaches in education, and governance of formal education. The chapter highlights the benefits to all students of designing the classroom experience for students with learning differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   799.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achieve. (n.d.). Achieving the common core. Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.achieve.org/achieving-common-core.

  • Ainscow, M., & Cesar, M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting the agenda. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 231–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, J., Ford, K., Richards, J., & Spellman, J. (2010). User agent accessibility guidelines (uaag) 2.0. W3C Working Draft. WWW Consortium (W3C).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340602100204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. (2016). How disability helped change Microsoft’s design principles for Cortana and Bing. onMSFT. Retrieved from onMSFT website: https://www.onmsft.com/news/disability-helped-change-microsofts-design-principles-cortana-bing.

  • Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age : Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunet, T., & Ramachandran, P. (2016). Accessible and inclusive content and applications. In Mobile application development, usability, and security (Vol. 54). IGI Global, Hershey PA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buehler, E., Hurst, A., & Hofmann, M. (2014). Coming to grips: 3D printing for accessibility. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers & accessibility, Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. WWW Consortium (W3C).

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly January 2007. (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, S. (2005). Inclusion–Not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée éducative, 39(1), 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domingo, M. C. (2012). Review: An overview of the internet of things for people with disabilities. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(2), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2011.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epp, T. (2003). (Re) Claiming adulthood: Learning disabilities and social policy in Ontario. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(2), 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, S. (2014). Setting its sights on the Marrakesh Treaty: The US role in alleviating the book famine for persons with print disabilities. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 37, 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. S., & Cole, B. R. (2002). Quality management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance. The Quality Management Journal, 9(4), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackl, A., Treviranus, J., & Roberts, A. (2004). IMS access for all meta-data XML best practice and implementation guide v. 1.0, final specification. Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accmdv1p0/imsaccmd_bestv1p0.html.

  • Jacobs, S. (2002). The electronic curb-cut effect Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm.

  • Jacobs, I., Gunderson, J., Hansen, E., & Wc, I. J. (2000). User agent accessibility guidelines 1.0. WWW Consortium (W3C).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karam, M., Branje, C., Nespoli, G., Thompson, N., Russo, F. A., & Fels, D. I. (2010). The emoti-chair: An interactive tactile music exhibit. Paper presented at the CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khetarpal, A. (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) and disability. Review of Market Integration, 6(1), 96–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuang, C. (2016). Microsoft’s radical bet on a new type of design thinking. Fast Company. Retrieved from Fast Company website: https://www.fastcodesign.com/3054927/the-big-idea/microsofts-inspiring-bet-on-a-radical-new-type-of-design-thinking.

  • Lumen Learning. (2014). The 5 Rs of designing and OER course. eCampus News. Retrieved from eCampus News website: http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/oer-course-design-475/.

  • National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Pellegrino, J. W., Hilton, M. L., National Research Council (U.S.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council (U.S.), Board on Science Education, & National Research Council (U.S.), Center for Education, & Board on Testing and Assessment. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrides, L., Jimes, C., Middleton-Detzner, C., Walling, J., & Weiss, S. (2011). Open textbook adoption and use: Implications for teachers and learners. Open Learning, 26(1), 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ptolomey, J. (2011). Government information and services: Accessibility and the digital divide. In P. Garvin (Ed.), Government information management in the 21st century: International perspectives (pp. x, 232 p.). Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, J., Spellman, J., & Treviranus, J. (2015). Authoring tool accessibility guidelines 2.0 (ATAG). https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20. WWW Consortium (W3C).

  • Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (1st ed.). London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stienstra, D., Watzke, J., & Birch, G. E. (2007). A three-way dance: The global public good and accessibility in information technologies. The Information Society, 23(3), 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, R., Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., Budd, J., Asuncion, J. (2015). Blending universal design, e-learning, and information and communication technologies. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 275–284). Harvard Education Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviranus, J. (2000). Adding haptics and sound to spatial curriculum. Paper presented at the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2000 I.E. International Conference on.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviranus, J. (2014a). Leveraging the web as a platform for economic inclusion. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviranus, J. (2014b). The value of the statistically insignificant. Educause Review, 49, 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviranus, J. (2016). Life-long learning on the inclusive web. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviranus, J., & Hockema, S. (2009). The value of the unpopular: Counteracting the popularity echo-chamber on the Web. In Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009 IEEE Toronto International Conference (pp. 603–608). IEEE. Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: resolution/adopted by the general assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106. http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2018.

  • Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welles, B. F. (2014). On minorities and outliers: The case for making big data small. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–2, 2053951714540613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse, G. (2008). The blind reader’s right to read: Caught between publishers, the law and technology. Logos, 19(3), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.2959/logo.2008.19.3.120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University, Toronto, Canada

    Jutta Treviranus

Authors
  1. Jutta Treviranus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jutta Treviranus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Joke Voogt

  2. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Gerald Knezek

  3. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Rhonda Christensen

  4. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Kwok-Wing Lai

Section Editor information

  1. Université Laval, Quebec, Canada

    Therese Laferrière

  2. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA

    Paul Resta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Treviranus, J. (2018). Learning Differences and Digital Equity in the Classroom. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Lai, KW. (eds) Second Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education . Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71054-9_74

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation