Supporting Students With Disabilities in Online Courses

528330 research-article2014

TCXXXX10.1177/0040059914528330Council for Exceptional ChildrenTeaching Exceptional Children

Online Learning

Doing the Math: Supporting Students With Disabilities in Online Courses TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 102–109. Copyright 2014 The Author(s). DOI: 10.1177/0040059914528330

Barbara A. Serianni and Kimberly Coy Martin is a seventh grade student with an emotional/behavioral disorder and is fully included in classes with his same-age peers for the first time since third grade. In this setting, he is working to initiate and reciprocate appropriate peer communication and to stay engaged for the full school day. This is the first time that Martin is without full-time special education support, and he is struggling to endure the long academic day. Martin’s mother raised this concern at his annual individualized education program meeting and the team decided to modify the inclusion plan and shorten Martin’s school day by allowing him to take mathematics at home through the state virtual school in an inclusive online course. Martin’s mother would serve as his learning coach and assist his virtual online teacher in keeping Martin on task and engaged in mathematics. Liana is a sixth-grade student with a learning disability in mathematics. Liana has consistently failed to demonstrate proficiency on the statemandated mathematics assessments and remains more than a year behind her peers in grade-level competencies and basic arithmetic skills. As a result, Liana’s performance in sixth-grade mathematics is poor, and she is consistently unable to complete her 102

COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

work or obtain passing scores on assessments. After a discussion with Liana’s Student Study Team, the decision was made to place Liana in a sixth-grade online mathematics course that would allow her to practice and acquire missing mathematics competencies and progress on gradelevel standards at a pace that would challenge but not frustrate her. Liana will use a classroom computer to access her course during her regular mathematics time where her classroom teacher, Mrs. Linwood, would be available to serve as her learning coach. Opportunities for school choice in the United States continue to expand, and in many communities, school choice options include fully online and blending learning options. Both Liana and Martin are doing their online classes as part of a blended learning model; both students spend at least part of their day in a traditional brickand-mortar classroom. Blended and hybrid models of online learning are proliferating as virtual course providers, brick-and-mortar schools, teachers, and parents work to create customized and personalized learning environments to meet the needs of nontraditional learners (Horn & Staker, 2011). Virtual or online learning has grown rapidly over the last decade.

Forty-two states have state virtual school projects and enrollments in 2009–2010 topped 1.8 million (International Association for K-12 Online Learning, iNACOL, 2012). Keeping Pace 2012 reported an estimated 275,000 students enrolled in full-time online programs (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2012). Although it is unclear how many of those students are students with disabilities, the number is estimated to be significant but proportionately less than those enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools (Müller, 2010; Picciano & Seaman, 2007). Online learning began as a solution for students whose learning needs could not be met in the traditional brick-and-mortar classroom. What began with 2,000 students around the turn of the millennium grew to more than 4 million students by the end of the first decade (Staker, 2011) and continues to grow. In recent years, much of the growth in online learning has come in the form of blended learning. Hybrid or blended learning occurs “any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-andmortar location away from home and at least in part through online delivery with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace” (Staker, 2011, p. 5). Both Martin and

Figure 1. Seven Factors That Contribute to Success in Online Learning

Online success can be attributed to any or all of these seven factors (Figure 1): the course, teacher, technology, physical learning environment, facilitator, special education support, and learner characteristics (Liu & Cavanaugh, 2012; Roblyer, 2005; Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, & Pape, 2008; National Center for Learning Disabilities Editorial Team, n.d.). Not all of these factors can be fully controlled, but there are strategies and structures that can be put in place to prevent or mitigate any challenges that may arise. The Course

Liana are participating in blended learning because their support team determined that their educational needs may be better served by taking the mathematics courses online. Although much of the recent literature describes online learners as independent, motivated, self-directed, and above average readers and writers, this description is not accurate of many or perhaps even most of the students enrolled in virtual classes (Barbour, 2011), particularly students with mild and moderate disabilities. A recent iNACOL project revealed that almost half of virtual school programs characterized the large majority of their students as “at risk,” which in the definition included students with disabilities. Students whose academic needs are not being met by traditional brick-and-mortar classrooms are continuing to turn to online learning as an alternative (Staker, 2011). Online providers have recognized this growing interest in more personalized forms of learning. Many online programs advertise that their programs are flexible in time and place to attract new students (Watson et al., 2012). Flexibility and individualized learning are two major factors driving the increasing enrollment of students with mild and moderate disabilities in online programs. Parents of these

students often are frustrated by a lack of control over the brick-and-mortar learning environment and are drawn by the advertised time and space flexibility of virtual schools (Müller, 2010; Rhim & Kowal, 2008). As often seen with all developed curricula in general, some components of online learning are well suited for students with mild and moderate disabilities, whereas other components require intervention and additional support. The purpose of this article is to provide teachers and parents with a framework and practical ideas for supporting their students with disabilities in online mathematics. Through the fictional scenarios involving Martin and Liana, factors that may contribute to a successful online learning experience will be explored, highlighting the benefits and challenges of learning in this environment.

The purpose of this article is to provide teachers and parents with a framework and practical ideas for supporting their students with disabilities in online mathematics.

Many online courses creatively incorporate universal design for learning principles, a task made much easier as a result of the flexibility of digital technology to provide a framework for constructing and integrating learning components that allow access for a wide variety of students. Oftentimes, online curriculum is colorful, interactive, and engaging and provides students with multiple means of presentation, action and expression, and engagement with content (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Video presentations of real-world problems can set the stage for problem solving and interactive experiences. Courses often contain student-activated demonstrations that can be repeated as often as necessary so every student can “get it” before moving to the next task. Practice in the virtual mathematics environment is generally found in the form of a gizmo, a virtual manipulative designed to allow the student to practice the skill and receive instant feedback on his or her response. Content is often introduced or summarized in video story format, allowing students to replay the content as many times as necessary to ensure understanding. In addition to more flexible curriculum content, virtual courses typically incorporate a large number of help, reviews, direct teaching tools, as well as online tutoring to support struggling students (Cavanaugh, Repetto, Wayer, & Spitler, 2013).

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAY/JUNE 2014

103

Table 1. Questions for Identifying the Best Online Course

Is the course fully online or a hybrid or blended class? What kind of equipment, software, Internet access is necessary? What type of computer skills do the facilitator and student need? Is the length of the course constrained to the traditional school year? Is instruction live or recorded? Is text to speech or reading level adjustment available for low-level readers? Does the course provide English for speakers of other languages supports such as translation? Is course content accessible to built-in screen readers? Does course have a supplemental textbook? How are lessons and homework submitted? Can work be resubmitted for a higher grade? Can a student get more time to submit work or complete a class? Are there take-home labs or activities? Is tutoring available? How does that work? Are there field trips or other face-to-face gatherings? What is the best way to communicate with the online teacher? How are tests administered? Are individualized education program (IEP) or 504 Plan accommodations made? How? What types of opportunities are there to connect with other students? Virtual school students often have online access to (a) contact teachers, (b) live communication with a teacher, (c) online tutoring, (d) content reviews, (e) links to recorded help sessions on various topics, and (f) mathematics resources including links to animated or video supplemental instruction on a variety of mathematics topics. Martin’s attitude about school and overall behavior improved when he was allowed to leave school early. Mathematics was not his favorite subject and he seemed to get into trouble more often in that class. The transition to doing mathematics at home was a huge relief to him and he was excited about trying something new. Approaching his online course with enthusiasm, Martin quickly figured out how to sign on, move about his course, and access the course modules. He found the amount of reading 104


bothersome, but his online teacher showed him how to turn on the read-aloud feature, so the text would be read to him. He found the voice of the reader dull and the pace slow, so after one short attempt at having the text read aloud, he shut off the function. By the end of the first week, Martin was skimming though the content in order to hurry to the daily assessment and get his mathematics done. His falling grades were reflecting the impact of this hurried approach. Martin’s response to the text-heavy curriculum may typify what happens when struggling readers encounter difficult text online. It is also not uncommon for adolescents to hurry through mathematics practice to finish an assignment and move on to what they perceive is a more interesting activity. An effective learning coach can take note of these types of

ineffective study skills and provide support to help a student work toward appropriate accuracy goals. A support strategy that might help Martin could include having him write down and work out problems as he practices mathematics skills and takes assessments. Some courses have tools and scratchpads built in that the student can use to do computations, but often students prefer pencil and paper or small white boards to do that work. By staying aware of student progress and monitoring course assignments, learning coaches at home and in the classroom can make sure that the tools necessary to complete assigned activities are readily available and being utilized by the student. Selecting an Online Course

All online courses are not created equal, nor are online course providers. Teachers should carefully investigate the online options in their area to find the best fit of course presentation and content to meet their students’ needs. Many states and school districts have virtual schools of their own and an increasing number of national forprofit providers of online education are emerging that provide students with a choice of options. Like buying anything, parents and teachers should always investigate thoroughly and read the fine print. Important factors to consider include whether there is an initial trial or grace period, how long that period is, and how to withdraw without academic penalty during the first few weeks. Answering the questions in Table 1 may help identify the right course and best course provider for students with mild and moderate disabilities that have specific academic or behavioral needs. The Online Teacher

Although selection of an online teacher is typically outside the classroom teacher or student’s control, there is a way to ensure that the online teacher will be prepared for the special needs of a student with mild and moderate disabilities. A classroom teacher or parent is generally assigned to the

learning coach or facilitator role when a student enrolls in an online course. During the initial virtual meeting with the online teacher, both the learning coach and student have the opportunity to meet to understand program protocols. This time is often used to gather information about the course such as requirements, grading, tutoring, communication, time extensions, and submission of work and assessments. This is the time (not later when a student is struggling) to inform the online teacher about any disabilities and needed accommodations. Online teachers should be provided with a copy of student IEPs to make sure they are fully aware of student’ learning needs. Discussions should include class size, online tools, special instructional sessions, and the teacher’s willingness to support the student’s special needs. In addition, it is a good time to confirm that students understand their IEP goals and accommodations in order to effectively self-advocate for support and accommodations. Technology The right technology is important to student success (see Box). Oftentimes, course applications will provide information on necessary technology, but those requirements are often the minimum. The online teacher will be able to answer questions on what types of technology and software should be in the student’s toolbox to maximize the learning experience and confirm the accessibility of the online platform to accommodate specific screen readers if needed.

The right technology is important to student success. Oftentimes, course applications will provide information on necessary technology, but those requirements are often the minimum.

Box 1. Technology Considerations

Technology Considerations •• Infrastructure {{ Reliable high-speed Internet {{ Wireless capability if necessary {{ Telephone access to meet with virtual teacher {{ Schedule that meets student needs •• Basic hardware and software needs {{ Computer (or other device) capable of accessing course via Internet {{ Internet browser compatible with online course provider {{ Ensure all required programs and plug-ins are installed and working {{ Responsive tech support for hardware and software issues {{ Have backup computers •• Accessories {{ Headset for listening to content (must have) {{ Microphone for talking to virtual teacher (optional) {{ Webcam for audio/visual communication (optional) {{ Graphics tablet for writing on digital boards (optional) https://www .youtube.com/watch?v=YuXmf6MJnSA •• Training •• How the student can use his or her device to access the course via the Internet •• Provide training in how to use any necessary hardware accessories •• Learning coach and student should view online provider training modules to learn how to access course content, course help, submit assignments and assessments, and communicate with the online teacher

At home, the family often has control over the quality of technology and increasingly some for-profit virtual programs provide computers for home use. Basic requirements include an up-to-date computer with enough processing speed to handle the course requirements. Students should also have the ability to use microphones, headsets, and video cameras to allow participation in live sessions and virtual collaboration. A comfortable keyboard and mouse set up, and even a second monitor can be added to enhance the experience for the student. Liana was excited about learning online. Her teacher told her that she would be able to work at a pace that was comfortable for her and go back and learn the skills that she missed in earlier grades. She also liked the fact that she would have two teachers: her new online teacher as well as Mrs. Linwood. The first day of online mathematics was set to be a productive one. Liana and Mrs. Linwood had already spoken

to the online teacher to discuss how the class worked, how Liana’s learning needs could be accommodated, and how to access the remedial instruction that she needed to continue to move forward in sixth-grade mathematics. The bell rang and Liana took her place at one of the two classroom computers rather than her regular desk. She heard a few of her classmates commenting on her choice of seats, but Mrs. Linwood quickly took charge and took the focus off of Liana. Liana had practiced and understood how to sign on and access her course, but when she tried to open a browser window to get on the Internet, nothing happened. Liana’s experience typifies any number of technology malfunctions that can occur and interrupt a planned study session. The impact of these situations can be mitigated with strong technology support and a good contingency plan. A backup computer or other device either in the teacher’s classroom or another area can keep a student online and on schedule.


105

Table 2. Strategies for Success

Strategy

Purpose/Use

Visual organizers

Break down tasks into steps

Time keepers

Schedulers, timers, or reminders with sound cues can help keep a student on pace

Duplicate directions

Reinforce oral instructions with written ones and vice versa

Transitions

Plan for changes in activities

Checklists

Use checklists including time estimates to keep track of tasks

Chunking

Chunk tasks and content into manageable pieces, include interim deadlines

Visual calendars

Keep track of long-term goals and deadlines

Workspace organization

Minimize clutter and distractions

Regular review

Review to-do list with online teacher

Note. Adapted with permission from “What Is Executive Function?,” by NCLD Editorial Team, n.d.. Copyright National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Other interruptions can interfere with online learning time. When a student is accessing an online course from the sidelines of a regular classroom, the class activities during that time can distract a student like Liana and keep her off task. Headphones, earplugs, computer placement, and partitions can help Liana stay focused and on task. Limiting access to classroom computers, regular maintenance, and good communication with the tech support staff can keep the equipment in good working order, limiting disruptions due to technology problems. Special Education Support Every student has a distinct learning style and unique learning needs, particularly students with mild and moderate disabilities. Factors to consider are the student’s prior content knowledge, comfort with technology, reading level, organizational skills, motivation, initiative, as well as specific abilities and disabilities (Cavanaugh et al., 2013). Although an online class is not the best option for all students, understanding a particular student’s strengths and weakness can help plan for needed supports if the educational choice is online learning. The National Center for Learning Disabilities Editorial Team (n.d.) listed 106


these challenges for students whose disability affects their executive functioning: planning, task and time management, activating background knowledge, evaluating and reflecting, change, asking for help, group dynamics, and impulsivity. The online environment mitigates some of these factors, whereas other factors require support for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Table 2 contains a list of evidence-based strategies adapted from NCLD that can help a student with mild and moderate disabilities find success in learning that may be adapted to the blended learning environment. It was Week 3, and without the help of specific learning strategies, Martin was no longer enthusiastic about learning mathematics at home or online. On the way home every day, he would dream up important things that needed to be done to avoid getting online and learning mathematics. Some days he could convince his mother that these things took priority, other days he could distract her, and sometimes she was so busy with his brothers and sisters that he could simply slip away into his room and she would forget he was supposed to do his mathematics. Most days he sat at the computer and looked at his assignment, but he often came across something he could not do easily and would quit. He knew if he

just sat at the computer his mother would think he was working and he could get by another day without completing his work. His monthly call with his online teacher was coming up; Martin knew he would be found out. Martin’s experience illustrates what can happen if a student does not quickly engage and find a measure of success in an online course. It also demonstrates the key role that the learning coach plays in keeping students with mild and moderate disabilities engaged, on task, and making learning progress as well as some of the innumerable ways that students try to avoid nonpreferred activities. The monthly call with the online teacher will bring the critical nature of Martin’s lack of progress to the attention of his mother, his learning coach, however learning coaches do not have to wait to be notified of a problem. Regular communication with the online teacher and watching Martin’s progress in the learning management system would have alerted the learning coach to the problem. In addition, while encouraging academic independence and not hovering over a student, the learning coach should maintain visibility and awareness of student academic behavior during the structured learning time. Apparent issues with off-task behavior, distractions, or technology issues can be addressed when they appear, before

they develop into serious academic problems. The learning coach often has one or more educators that can assist in providing support to the student. The special education teacher is a good resource for understanding and applying evidence-based strategies to maintain and reward academic behavior, support content instruction, and provide corrective feedback or intervention. Oftentimes, the online teacher will provide one-on-one tutoring in the mathematics content or a tutorial on how to utilize course tools and resources. It is important for the learning coach to be alert and aware of student progress and to assist the student in accessing help as soon as possible. To prevent a student from failure in an online course, the parent or learning coach and the online teacher should communicate more frequently at the beginning of a new course so that everyone understands how to handle special needs and to ensure that a strategy for keeping the student motivated and on task is in place. Students with high motivation are often driven by intrinsic factors. This level of motivation is often not the case for students with mild and moderate disabilities (LD Online, 2002). These students often need to develop intrinsic

motivation and benefit from extrinsic rewards to reinforce good on-task and academic behaviors. Good grades and parent approval are common extrinsic motivators for many students but often ineffective for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Many students with mild and moderate disabilities need to begin with tangible motivators like token rewards, privileges, or the ability to earn preferred activities as a short-term solution. Students who struggle with on-task behavior due to low motivation can often benefit from a system that provides rewards for achieving short-term and long-term goals and the development of intrinsic motivation (LD Online, 2002). A preference assessment can help the classroom teacher or learning coach to determine what types of rewards will best motivate individual students but keep in mind that the best rewards are generally tied to individual student interests. Liana really liked working on mathematics in the online course. Mrs. Linwood had her working for a few minutes in class every day perfecting skills she should have already mastered and using the rest of the period on the daily lesson. Because she was behind in mathematics, the course pace was extended, allowing her time to finish

the course over the summer if it was needed. Liana liked to go into the remedial modules and work on the skills that she needed to strengthen. That was easy to do at home, and she practiced 30 minutes at night whenever she could. Mrs. Linwood had told her that the more she practiced those skills, the easier the course would become. Liana thought she was doing pretty well, but she was worried that she was not doing enough. Mrs. Linwood was often busy with the other students during class time. Liana was concerned about her progress because she was not getting enough feedback from Mrs. Linwood. Her teacher, busy giving feedback to her other students, let Liana work quietly unless she raised her hand. This active multitasking environment required creativity to keep all students working towards their goals. One strategy for accomplishing that is to allow students to set their own goals and be responsible for tracking their own progress. Mrs. Linwood, in collaboration with the special education teacher, could teach Liana to set performance goals and self-monitor her progress. Once that skill is learned, Liana can be confident that she knows how she is doing at all times. The things that typically work well for the average student in online mathematics may not translate easily for students with mild and moderate disabilities without support from a teacher or learning coach. This lack of success using traditional techniques was Martin and Liana’s experience and a reality that classroom teachers should be aware of during this trendy shift to blended learning. Liana needed feedback from her teacher and learning coach to let her know she was on track, and Martin needed prompting to slow down and write out problems, or carefully interact with his mathematics material online. Oftentimes, students with mild and moderate disabilities may have trouble accessing the help that surrounds them or help that is available is not easily accessible. Despite the multiple levels of support that are often built into online courses, students with mild and moderate


107

disabilities often forget what supports to use, how to find them, or how to use the help tools effectively. The comprehensive orientation typically provided at the beginning of an online course occurs before a student starts the course and may be long forgotten by the time the he or she realizes the need for or choses to access the online help. As learning coaches plan to work with their students with mild and moderate disabilities in order to support online coursework, they should remember that students often need self-advocacy skills along with explicit instruction and practice with online supports before they will be successful. It often takes an intensive and intentional effort to teach and have the student practice online assessment skills so that students with disabilities routinely demonstrate active engagement in assessment tasks. Physical Learning Environment A critical component of creating a successful online learning experience, and something that is very much within the control of the classroom teacher or learning coach, is making sure that the place where the student comes into contact with the course content is conducive to learning. Not only does the student need to have the right tech tools, traditional school supplies such as notebooks, paper, pencils, pens, ruler, and calculator are also needed. On top of being well equipped, the work area should be organized, free from distractions, and as far as possible from attention stealers like the television or video games. Students with mild and moderate disabilities who struggle with attention often are not able to manage their time. Disruptions and distractions can easily interrupt study time and have a negative impact on learning. Learning time should be scheduled and the student’s physical learning environment protected from disruptions and distractions while online. Because students with mild and moderate disabilities are often not 108


effective self-managers, the classroom teacher or learning coach should be involved in creating and protecting the structure of the learning day. Learning Coach/Facilitator The learning coach has a critical role in establishing and maintaining the student’s physical learning environment. Many online programs require that an adult be identified as a course learning coach or facilitator. The job of the learning coach is to be the teacher’s eyes and ears in the “classroom.” Although students work virtually, they occupy a physical learning environment that may require monitoring and supports, depending on their age. Although students can access their online course from virtually anywhere, it is important to their success that they have a time and a place to log on that is conducive to learning. The learning coach may be a classroom teacher, a learning lab paraprofessional, a parent, or other adult. Students with mild and moderate disabilities taking one or more online courses as a part of their regular school day may require more support from the learning coach than other online students. Learning coaches should be prepared to provide that support without enabling dependent behaviors and be prepared to fade any acquired dependent behaviors over time. The special education teacher is a good resource for understanding the fine line between support and enablement. Ideally learning coaches should guide learning rather than provide solutions as students work toward course completion.

When students take a course online, they still require a physical learning environment. The physical learning environment is the place where the student comes into contact with the online course. The arrangement and management of the physical learning environment is necessary to support student learning.

Virtual schools sometimes measure student success by course completion, whereas educators more often define success as a measure of student learning gains. It is the combination of these two factors, successful completion and learning gains, that should characterize success for online students. Particularly for students with mild and moderate disabilities, a critical factor in success is the human element. Liana’s facilitator needed consultation in creating a good physical learning environment to support her learning. The online teacher coached the facilitator in establishing a work routine, eliminating distractions, providing positive reinforcement, and creating incentives to encourage Liana’s progress. In addition, the online teacher took the time to provide explicit instruction to Liana in the use of course tools and features so that she would be confident in using those things as she navigated her mathematics course. It took 3 months longer than average, but Liana successfully finished her mathematics course and moved on to the next level in mathematics.

Responsibilities of the Learning Coach/Facilitator •• Monitor student progress and assist student in staying on task and on pace •• Provide face-to-face support, feedback, and reinforcement •• Ensure that appropriate accommodations are used under the direction of the special education teacher •• Provide assistance in using learning and time management strategies •• Provide guidance related to content and technology when needed •• Create and maintain an appropriate physical learning environment

Martin’s mother needed help from the online teacher to understand how to interact with the learning management system and track Martin’s daily progress. As Martin’s mother learned how to follow his course progress, she began to see patterns that helped her recognize when and where he needed help. She was able to bring these needs to the attention of his online teacher, who solicited the advice of the special education teacher. The combined efforts of both teachers as well as Martin and his mother produced an academic and motivational support plan that allowed Martin to successfully complete his mathematics course.

The combined efforts of both teachers as well as Martin and his mother produced an academic and motivational support plan that allowed Martin to successfully complete his mathematics course. Summing It All Up The proliferation of online programs, providers, and enrollments is evidence that online learning is here to stay (Watson et al., 2012). As in traditional education settings, success in virtual environments depends on how key factors are addressed and managed. Once the decision is made to enroll in an online class, critical factors should be addressed to ensure positive outcomes for students with mild and moderate disabilities. Understanding and demystifying unique learning differences can empower learners and assist parents and teachers in optimizing strategies for online success (Rhim & Kowal, 2008). Student engagement, although different in the synchronous online environment, continues to be a critical component of learning for all students (Liu & Cavanaugh, 2012). Nurturing and

supporting the relationship and collaboration between online teacher, student, special educator, and learning coach can optimize the online experience for students with mild and moderate disabilities. References Barbour, M. (2011). Today’s student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the promise. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 13(1), 5–25. Cavanaugh, C., Repetto, J., Wayer, N., & Spitler, C. (2013). Online learning for students with disabilities: A framework for success. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(1), 1–8. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www .leadcommission.org/sites/default/ files/The%20Rise%20of%20K-12%20 Blended%20Learning_0.pdf International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2012). Fast facts about online learning. Vienna, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.inacol.org/press/docs/ nacol_fast_facts.pdf LD Online. (2002). Motivation: The key to academic success. Retrieved from http:// www.ldonline.org/article/5730/ Liu, F., & Cavanaugh, C. (2012). Factors influencing student academic performance in online high school algebra. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27(2), 149–167. Müller, E. (2010). Virtual K-12 public school programs and students with disabilities: Issues and recommendations. In Project Forum. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncset .org/publications/viewdesc.asp? id=1688 NCLD Editorial Team. (n.d.). What is executive function? Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/types-learningdisabilities/executive-function-disorders/ what-is-executive-function Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2007). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/ publications/survey/K-12_06

Rhim, L., & Kowal, J. (2008). Demystifying special education in virtual charter schools. Alexandria, VA: Special Education Technical Assistance for Charter Schools Project. Retrieved from http://184.168.115.17/17137/ files/17125/9107/special_report_rhim .pdf Roblyer, M. D. (2005). Who plays well in the virtual sandbox? Characteristics of successful online students and teachers. SIGTel Bulletin, 2. Retrieved from http:// web.archive.org/web/ 20060930130650/ http://www.iste.org/Content/ NavigationMenu/Membership/SIGs/ SIGTel_Telelearning_/SIGTel_Bulletin2/ Archive/2005_20067/2005_July_-_ Roblyer.htm Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040 Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning: Profiles of emerging models. Mountain View, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www .innosightinstitute.org/media-room/ publications/blended-learning/ Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2012). Keeping pace with K-12 online & blended learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Groups. Retrieved from http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/ uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf Barbara A. Serianni, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida; Kimberly Coy, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington. Address correspondence regarding this article to Barbara A. Serianni, University of Central Florida, College of Education and Human Performance, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL 32816 (email: barbara. [email protected]) TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 102–109. Copyright 2014 The Author(s).


109

JSET

Journal of Special Education Technology Volume 29 • Issue 1 • 2014

A PUBLICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND MEDIA DIVISION OF THE COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Journal of Special Education Technology

Table of Contents

Twenty-Five Years Later: How is Technology Used in the Education of Students with Disabilities? Results of a Statewide Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Cynthia M. Okolo and Jeff Diedrich

The Impact of Text-to-Speech on Expository Reading for Adolescents with LD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Nancy K. Meyer and Emily C. Bouck

Predicting Interventionists’ Intention to Use Video Self-Modeling: An Investigation of the Intervention Technology Acceptance Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Andrew R. Heckman, Jack A. Cummings, and Scott Bellini

Collaborative Robotics Projects for Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Timothy T. Yuen, Lee L. Mason, and Alvaro Gomez

Using Universal Design for Learning in Synchronous Online Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Kimberly Coy, Matthew T. Marino, and Barbara Serianni

Author Guidelines

JSET Author Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

JSET Technology in Action Author Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

JSET 2014 Volume 29, Number 1

Copyright © 2014 Technology and Media Division (TAM)

i


Using Universal Design for Learning in Synchronous Online Instruction Kimberly Coy Washington Virtual Academies Matthew T. Marino Barbara Serianni University of Central Florida Evidence suggests that students with disabilities increasingly choose to participate in online courses at higher rates then other student populations. Research examining factors that influence the success of these students is inconclusive. This article addresses a national need for additional research by identifying challenges faced by special education teachers and students with learning disabilities in online environments; describing extant literature related to online learning and students with disabilities; and summarizing findings from a recent study that examined Universal Design for Learning (UDL) during synchronous lessons. The article concludes with interviews with leaders in virtual schools who bring to light the challenges and concerns facing the industry. Implications for professional development activities also are discussed.

M

rs. Coe has been working with a small group of third through fifth grade students in a language arts class. Each of the students has goals in the individualized education program (IEP) for written language. Today Mrs. Coe has set up a classic lesson at the beginning of a unit on writing instructions. She brings peanut butter, jelly, bread, a knife, and a spoon to the front of the classroom where everyone can see. She asks the class, “How do I make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?” The lesson continues as each of the students gives directions for making the sandwich. Mrs. Coe does exactly what each student says with very funny results. The tension in the class grows as students figure out that using specific language, instructions, and demonstrations will help their teacher make the sandwich correctly and efficiently. The students begin working together to come up with a concise set of directions that Mrs. Coe can follow to produce an edible sandwich. At the end, the demonstration area is a sticky mess and the students know they must continue to work on “how to” JSET 2014 Volume 29, Number 1

paragraphs in future lessons. Everyone was so engaged in the learning experience that the class ran late. The average reader might assume this class was held in a traditional brick and mortar classroom. However, the entire lesson was completed in a virtual special education classroom.

Special Education in an Online Environment Sarah—a seventh grader with learning disabilities (LD) in reading, writing, and math—has been participating in an online virtual school since fifth grade. In addition to LD, Sarah has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). She receives direct instruction from a special education teacher there almost every day. Sarah’s learning coach is her grandmother. When she attended her former brick and mortar school, Sarah was often in trouble due to her hyperactive learning style and the high level of stimulus in the general education classroom setting.


63

Journal of Special Education Technology The combination of virtual schooling and online education has led to significant improvements in Sarah’s relationships with her learning coach, virtual teacher, and online classmates. Sarah has learned to communicate her immediate learning needs to her grandmother, and she uses the phone to communicate her goals and movement toward fulfilling them with her virtual teacher. She collaborates effectively with other students in the small-group virtual classes. Sarah and her grandmother have even developed some techniques that are helping other students in the online school. For example, Sarah uses dry erase markers to do work on the dining room picture window. Sarah’s grandmother explains that she is able to move, write, and think all at the same time. No one is in trouble, and Sarah finds it easy to organize her thoughts.

Online Learning is Changing the Educational Landscape Each year, virtual schools attract greater numbers of students, with the largest increases occurring for younger students and students with special learning needs (Queen & Lewis, 2011). Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp (2011) found that there were opportunities for online learning across all grade levels in each of the 50 states. In 2011, 55% of public school districts reported having students who accessed online learning, with nearly two million students in Grades K–12 enrolled in at least one online course (Queen & Lewis). Despite these statistics, online learning has just recently begun to receive the attention of researchers (Watson et al.). Online learning is defined as “teacher-led education that takes place over the Internet, with the teacher and student separated geographically” (Watson et al., 2011, p. 12). The Internet and other technologies can deliver online content using audio, live interactive video, and prerecorded video formats. Online course delivery can be synchronous or asynchronous. During synchronous instruction students and teachers are online at the same time, allowing real-time interaction between students and teachers. Asynchronous instruction allows the students to view recorded instruction at a time that is convenient, generally with established completion deadlines. For example, students may be presented with an online lesson that they must view and respond to electronically by a predetermined date. Asynchronous courses are the most common method for delivering online instruction (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). In addition to synchronous and asynchronous instruction,

64

there also are hybrid or blended learning programs that combine online instruction with face-to-face interactions among teachers and students. Online environments support many types of learners, including students who qualify for special education services, English language learners (ELL), students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, and students from diverse backgrounds. Students in rural areas, families who travel for work or have military obligations, families with ethnic or religious practices that interfere with the typical school day, and students who have failed in traditional schools often make the choice to participate in online schools (Watson et al., 2011). While the continued growth, availability, and convenience of online courses is leading to more participation by all groups of students (U. S. Department of Education, 2010c), there is new evidence that traditionally marginalized populations, such as students with disabilities, increasingly choose to participate in online courses at higher rates then other student populations (Thompson, Ferdig, & Black, 2012). Educators who serve this group must be able to use efficacious curricular materials and research-based practices to provide high-quality online experiences that address a variety of learning needs. Unfortunately, research examining factors that influence the success of students with special education needs in online schools is inconclusive (Queen & Lewis, 2011). As a result, the U. S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP, 2011) called for research to improve the content, accessibility, and learning outcomes for students with disabilities who participate in online environments.

Challenges During Online Instruction Effective online instruction relies on dynamic communication between the teacher and student. Unfortunately, online environments often limit the teacher’s ability to detect nuanced differences in students’ physical appearance, affect, or tone during responses to questions, especially in an asynchronous setting. The use of videoconferencing tools can remediate some of these difficulties in synchronous settings. However, infrastructure (e.g., bandwidth, switch speeds, network activity levels) and hardware (e.g., processing speed, graphics, sound card, etc.), limitations can have a negative impact on the quality of video and other simulation software (Capdeffero & Romero, 2012; Tempelaar, Niculescu, Reinties, Gijselaers, & Giesbers,



Journal of Special Education Technology 2012). Teachers and students can have meaningful conversations and interactions when responses are timely and the instructions and expectations are clear (Hodges & Cowan, 2012). When communication is viewed as positive, student and teacher satisfaction goes up and behavior improves, creating an authentic online community. Hawkins, Graham, and Barbour (2012) found that some online teachers experience a sense of disconnection from students, other virtual teachers, and traditional notions of teaching. Other studies identified similar dissatisfaction from teachers who attempted to transfer strategies from traditional brick and mortar to online environments (Vasquez, Forbush, Mason, Lockwood, & Gleed, 2011). Students with LD —the largest group served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—face specific challenges in online environments. For example, Grabinger, Alpin, and Ponnappa-Brenner (2008) noted that cognitive impairments in these students could affect language, executive functioning, problem-solving, reasoning, and social skills. In turn, these impairments can hinder students’ abilities to understand information, follow both printed and verbal instructions, and perform on traditional paper-and-pencil assessments in a manner that accurately reflects their true knowledge and skills (Marino, 2010). Students with LD often have difficulty demonstrating their learning during writing assignments and assessments. Disabilities in mathematics, such as the inability to interpret symbols or transfer learning from one context to another, also pose barriers (U. S. Department of Education, 2012c). Instructional strategies in online environments, particularly those in synchronous settings, continue to evolve as this relatively new mode of instruction matures. A literature review examining 59 articles, published from 2000–2012 and covering online learning in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education informs the themes within this article. The studies reviewed included far more adult learners and settings than secondary or elementary students (nine studies), and as a result the recommendations for instructional strategies are more appropriate for adolescent and adult learners. However, lessons learned from research in postsecondary virtual settings may provide a framework for examining online interface considerations and instructional design at the K–8 level. Tables 1 and 2 compare research on instructional strategies in online and traditional brick and mortar classrooms across secondary and elementary settings.


Instructors must explicitly teach students to effectively use the communication systems and technology-based tools that are a part of the online learning platforms. Capdeferro and Romero (2012) reported that frustration is common among participants, due in part to a lack of understanding about the who, what, and when of virtual communication. Raes, Schellens, De Wever, and Vanderhover (2012) noted that teachers should consider individual student differences in order to support learning adequately. UDL is a framework that aligns well with current research in best practices for online instruction.

UDL: Enhancing the Accessibility of Online Instruction The UDL framework focuses on addressing the needs of a variety of learners (CAST, 2011). UDL is “a scientifically

valid framework for guiding educational practice that (a) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (b) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient” (Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008). To plan for the differences in students, UDL offers three basic principles based on neuroscience research (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2005): providing multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement. Table 3 illustrates how online resources can support students with LD using the UDL framework.

Quantifying UDL in Online Synchronous Environments Until recently there was no way to quantify the level at which online instruction and the online environment (i.e., the user interface) aligned with UDL. This situation is problematic for preservice teacher preparation programs and inservice teacher and administrator professional development programs that wish to promote UDL integration in online environments. In the following section, research on three recently developed and piloted instruments to measure UDL in online synchronous environments is described. A more detailed description of the instrument development process, experimental design, and outcomes of the study is forthcoming.


65


Table 1 Secondary Research on Instructional Strategies in Online and Brick and Mortar Settings Online

Brick and Mortar

During synchronous instruction sessions, maximizing problem-centered interactional activity and reducing participating inequity during collaborative work is correlated to individual learning gains (Kapur & Kinzer, 2007).

Connected Mathematics Project uses an interactive problemsolving approach, where students use every situation to learn math concepts (U. S. Department of Education, 2010c).

Multiple modes of scaffolding (e.g., teacher enhanced, technology enhanced and both forms) should support individual differences between students to adequately support student diversity during Web-based inquiry (Raes et al., 2012).

Zone of proximal development, where by student knowledge is scaffold to provide just enough information so that the learner may make progress on his or her own (Vygotsky, 1962).

Peer tutors working virtually effectively deliver both reading and math instruction in synchronous formats (Tsuei, 2012; Vasquez & Slocum, 2012).

Great Explorations in Math and Science Space and Science Sequence utilizes peer-to-peer discussions, as well as hands-on investigations, reflection and informational student readings (U. S. Department of Education, 2012d)

The first instrument, called the virtual environment observation tool, was designed to quantify the level at which the online environment has the capacity to align with the UDL framework. The research question related to this instrument was, “To what degree does the user interface provide the ability to offer multiple means of representation, action, and expression or engagement?” The second instrument (teacher observation tool) measured the teachers’ abilities to include UDL principles during lesson planning and implementation. The research team was interested in knowing whether improving teachers’ knowledge of the

UDL features in the online platform lead to an increase in the practice of UDL. Last, the student observation

tool instrument was developed to measure students’ use of UDL tools and the learning outcomes associated with the use of those tools. Here, the team was focused on the relationship between teachers’ use of UDL principles and student actions and outcomes. The instruments were used to analyze the level of UDL alignment during online synchronous elementary school classes. Table 4 presents sample questions from each tool.

Table 2 Elementary Research on Instructional Strategies in Online and Brick and Mortar Settings Online Peer-assisted learning strategies can enhance academic outcomes for students in reading (Tsuei, 2011).

Brick and Mortar Peer-Assisted Learning/Literacy Strategies has been found to have potentially positive effects on literacy development with beginning readers (U. S. Department of Education, 2010a).

Under genuine learning conditions, such as a focus on climate Encouraging Girls in Math and Science: A recommendation change, synchronous communication supports collaborato embed mathematics and science activities in contexts that tive learning activities and strengthens social relationships are interesting to both boys and girls (Halpern et al., 2007). (Anastasiades et al., 2010). In asynchronous learning environments, in subjects for elementary students such as science, math, history and language arts, simplifying knowledge features and structures removes learning obstacles for students (Huang, Chiou, Chiang, Lai, & Huang, 2012).

66

Improving Mathematical Problem Solving in Grades 4 Through 8, Recommendation Number Three: Teach students how to use visual representations (Woodward et al., 2012).




Table 3 Online Resources for Students with Severe Learning Disabilities Online Resources That Can Help

Alignment with UDL Checkpoint

Kindle and iBooks, including the apps. These resources can • Provides options for perception adjust brightness, letter size, and different layouts. In addition the reader can ask for pronunciations and definitions of different words and phrases. • Howjsay pronunciation dictionary. This pronounces words correctly with more than 150,000 entries. The National Center for Learning Disabilities has an excellent website. Particularly for resources at school, there is a section on assistive technology. http://www.ncld.org/students-disabilities/ assistive-technology-education

• Learning Ally offers more than 100 books in the public domain to provide audiobooks. http://www.learningally.org • LD Online kids area. Allows students to see work from other students with disabilities. www.ldonline.org/kids

• Provides options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols • Provides options for language • Provides options for engagement • Provides options for physicals and fluency and physical action • Provides options for self-regulation, executive functions

• WhizKidGames provides real-world skills for students on the autism spectrum. www.whizkidgames.com • Do2Learn offers tools for fine motor skills, language and visual development, as well as social skills and communication. www.do2learn.com UDL Editions. Classic texts presented in flexible online interface. http://www.cast.org/learningtools/udl_editions/index.html

• Provides options for comprehension options for self-regulation

UDL Book Builder. Develop digital books to support reading • Provides options for physical action instruction. Educators develop supports built into the book. http://www.cast.org/learningtools/book_builder/index.html

UDL Curriculum Self Check. Build options and flexibility into curriculum.

• Provides options for expression and communication

Strategy Tour. Supports students doing research on the internet.

• Provides options for executive functions

Think Reader. Practice in reading strategies for middle school students.

• Provides options for recruiting interest

Wiggle Works. Interactive books for younger grades with technology to support successful readers and writers.

• Provides options for sustaining effort and persistence

A tool to assist students with disabilities who have trouble organizing. http://mywebspiration.com

• Provides options for executive functions

http://www.cast.org/learningtools/udl_self_check/index.html

http://www.cast.org/learningtools/strategy_tutor/index.html

http://www.tomsnyder.com/

http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/wiggleworks/index.htm

The study examined differences in the level of UDL alignment across the three instruments with a convenience sample of 51 teachers in inclusive classrooms, each of JSET 2014 Volume 29, Number 1

whom contributed one recorded synchronous lesson. The synchronous platform used by participants in the study offered voice, video, or webcam capability as well


67


Table 4 Sample Questions from Tools Observed in the Synchronous Lesson or Environment

UDL Checkpoint

Environmental Tool Sample

To what degree does the environment provide opportunities for students or teachers to use multiple tools for construction?

Uses multiple tools for construction and composition

To what degree are tools intuitively designed and easy to use?

Optimizes access to tools and assistive technologies

To what degree are multiple types of media included?

Uses multiple media for communication

Teacher Observation Tool

• Students are guided to set goals with the help of the teacher • Teacher does not guide or set goals • Teacher sets goals for students • Teacher invites students to set goals • Teacher invites students to set goals and incorporates those goals into the lesson • Teacher invites students to set goals, incorporates goals into the lesson, invites students to reflect on goals

Guides appropriate goal setting

Teacher uses multiple modalities when presenting information (e.g., orally, written, example, multimedia, kinesthetically, musically): 1 = 0 – 19% of the time information is presented; 2 = 20% – 39%; 3 = 40% – 59%; 4 = 60% – 79%; 5 = 80% – 100%; NA

Offers alternatives for visual information

Teacher checks for understanding to attempt to identify struggling students: 1 = Teacher does not check for understanding; 2 = One modality; 3 = Two modalities; 4 = Three modalities; 5 = Three modalities and asks for student input (e.g., emoticons, polling, chat box, written demonstration)

Provides options for sustaining effort and persistence

Student Observation Tool

• To what degree do students use multiple media (written, spoken, visual) to demonstrate lesson objectives? 1 = 0 – 19% of tools; 2 = 20% – 39%; 3 = 40% – 59%; 4 = 60% – 79%; 5 = 80% – 100%; NA = No Opportunity Given

Uses multiple media for communication

• To what extent do students demonstrate self-assessment and reflection when given the opportunity? • When asked by the teacher, or given the opportunity in the lesson to demonstrate selfassessment and reflection?

Develops self-assessment and reflection

1 = 0 – 19% of students respond; 2 = 20% – 39%; 3 = 40% – 59%; 4 = 60% – 79%; 5 = 80% – 100%; NA = No Opportunity Given To what degree do the students respond with multiple types of media to provide information to illustrate a topic or concept?

Illustrates through multiple media

1 = 0 – 19% of students; 2 = 20% – 39%; 3 = 40% – 59%; 4 = 60% – 79%; 5 = 80% – 100%; NA = No Opportunity Given

as chatting by typing. Students and instructors could use a whiteboard and participants could show videos or PowerPoint presentations. The platform allowed students

68

to access websites, as well as play previously downloaded pictures and videos. Both teachers and students could share their computer desktops.



Journal of Special Education Technology The method of analysis was descriptive, comparing mean scores across the three UDL measurement tools as well as comparing teacher behaviors as measured by the teacher tool in each guideline category: representation, action and expression, and engagement. Correlational analysis examined the relationship of teacher’s use of the UDL principles and student actions, and independent sample t-tests compared special education teachers and general education teachers mean scores. Table 5 presents the findings and implications for preservice preparation and professional development. These results illustrate how online environments benefit from a teacher’s focus on UDL guidelines and checkpoints. The relationships between teacher and student alignment with UDL guidelines show promise for robust interactions with learners and teachers.

Multiple Means of Representation Teachers’ online use of multiple means of representation was higher than all other aspects of UDL. Results of the study indicated that when teachers were not in a face-toface environment they tried more than one way to present information. Most often they used voice and text together to present new information. Live video and graphical representations often were the second type of content presentation method. Finally, teachers used multimedia by importing videos and music, playing musical instruments, and encouraging kinesthetic movement.

Multiple Means of Action and Expression Teachers who participated in this study often collected student data from synchronous sessions for later evaluation. When given an assignment, 80% of the students turned in work for evaluation, particularly those in the special education classes. Many teachers provided organizational guidance to students (tips for managing information)

Table 5 Implications for Preservice Preparation and Professional Development Study Finding

Implications for Preservice Preparation and Professional Development

The synchronous environment examined does Emphasis on UDL is important. Innovation, imagination and reflection have capacity for UDL. should be encouraged and fostered. The capacity for Action and Expression is greater than for Representation and Engagement within the synchronous platform.

Action and Expression can allow for project-based learning, which can provide opportunities previously not conceptualized with students with disabilities in online schools.

Teachers are engaging in lessons that are under the framework for UDL guidelines.

Innovation comes from practice, observing teaching, and continuing to encourage novelty among practitioners.

Representation receives the highest scores followed by Action and Expression using both the teacher and student observation tools.

Currently teachers may be relying too heavily on how to represent information. Shifting to student centered choice and more active participation can happen in virtual classrooms

Student actions tend to correlate with teacher actions or teacher opportunities for all three categories.

The often-symbiotic nature of interaction in online classrooms is unexplored. Practitioners being mindful will discover additional ways to keep all learners involved.

The strongest correlations occur between Action and Expression of teachers and students and Engagement.

Letting student actions influence teacher actions during the learning process could be an interesting dynamic that encourages all participants to act more empowered of their learning.

Lessons analyzed with special education teachers show heavier usage of UDL guidelines than general education teachers.

High expectations for students from attendance, participation, and work production creates a place of strong interaction and potentially high learning outcomes.



69

Journal of Special Education Technology during the live lessons, but some did not. Most teachers used two modalities, such as voice along with written or graphic representations, to organize content instruction and materials. No teachers in this study asked for the students’ thoughts on how to manage course information and resources.

Multiple Means of Engagement Engagement in the synchronous world is a new challenge. While there are theoretical foundations and new technologies (e.g., bookbuilder.cast.org), in practice there is a lack of student engagement. Consistent with best practices for face-to-face instruction, 80% of the teachers provided their students with measurable learning objectives during the lesson. Most teachers provided clear behavioral expectations using written and verbal modalities to minimize distractions and off-task behaviors. None of the teachers used more than two modalities to express behavioral expectations, nor did any teacher ask for student input about how to minimize behavior issues. Most teachers in the study encouraged collaboration and communication between students by allowing the use of communication tools for active collaboration 40–60% of the time. These tools included open chat that all students could see, chat that students could send privately to each other, use of the microphone for all students, use of whiteboards for written and graphic work, and the ability for students to freely move from slide to slide to see and comment on the work of their classmates.

Bringing UDL to the Virtual Classroom Several additional recommendations have emerged from this study, including the need for ongoing professional development for teachers as well as continuous opportunities for both teachers and students to explore the potential uses of the unique features and tools of the online platform. The ability to use the wide variety of tools and features of the synchronous environment facilitates the engagement of both teachers and students in the lessons and learning process. Additionally, a teacher’s efficacy with the online tools will promote creativity in the planning of online lessons.

UDL checkpoints provide guidance for inclusive classroom

practice (Hall, Meyer, & Rose, 2012) and address online classroom barriers, even if those barriers are only the limits

70

of imagination and practice. Using each of the nine UDL checkpoints, the study examined the use of UDL principles in the synchronous online classroom. Table 6 lists the nine checkpoints and describes how each may look in a synchronous classroom.

Future Directions in Online Learning: Implications for Special Education Online learning is a relatively new and complex phenomenon in elementary education. Virtual learning for this group of young students is difficult to describe to those outside the online learning world. This complexity is magnified because traditionally minded administrators, superintendents, and legislators are often not digital natives and may have never had a Web 2.0 experience. It can be enlightening for these educational leaders and policymakers to hear from virtual educators about learning online. The following section summarizes interviews with three leaders who are directly responsible for steering online education. This section provides insights into the diverse range of political factors and financial variables that influence the educational experiences of students with disabilities in online environments. The first interview is with a leader of a statewide virtual academy, and the second is with a superintendent responsible for traditional brick and mortar schools. The final interview is with a virtual K–12 school district leader who is responsible for developing curriculum and software for K–12 virtual schools. The purposeful sampling associated with each of these interviewees is designed to elicit three divergent perspectives on virtual schools. These qualitative interviews focus on the process, meaning, and understanding of the larger virtual school world. The first author conducted the data collection and inductive analysis. The goal of these informal interviews was to gain knowledge and contribute to formative questions for future studies.

Mike: A Leader in a Statewide Virtual School Mike is a leader in a for-profit company that provides the curriculum, technology, and infrastructure for a statewide virtual school serving K–12 students. The school operates as an educational contractor within a public school district. Mike is a former teacher and principal in a brick and mortar school.




Table 6 Bringing UDL to the Virtual Classroom UDL Guideline (Lapinski, Gravel, & Rose, 2012)

Synchronous Classroom Options

Provide options for perception

The whiteboard is used to present slides, often made with PowerPoint. Teacher and students can display images, write, and draw. Teachers can also conduct academic exercises, and offer learning games. Content can be added, moved, and edited by the moderator or learners with the permission of the moderator.

Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols

Teachers can use manipulatives to teach mathematical concepts. Example: let students know to have interlocking cubes – provided in the materials by the school – ready for the next lesson. During the lesson, teacher demonstrates on the webcam how to use the cubes. Students use their webcams to demonstrate how they use the cubes to understand mathematical concepts.

Provide options for comprehension

The whiteboard has features that can provide opportunities for teachers such as editing objects; grouping and sending objects to the background; and adding common image files such as png, jpg, or gif. Text can be written or drawn in any color and can include clickable links that are usable when the session recording is played back.

Provide options for physical action

Students can present and respond to information using the whiteboard and verbally with the microphone or video camera. Students can use text-to-speech software and alternative keyboards, and prepare video responses in advance to post during the class.

Provide options for expression and communication

Teachers and students can choose from a variety of interactive tools for expression and communication including chat (texting), formal writing on the whiteboard, or sharing a piece from a word document via desktop sharing. Students can share a prerecorded video or Prezi, use the microphone or video camera.

Provide options for executive functions Executive functions help students monitor their own progress

The created whiteboard space can be saved and reused in Web conferences or instant messaging sessions, or converted to formats such as a pdf to be shared or catalogued. Instant messaging can allow for any part of the session to be instantly recorded and made available to both teacher and student.

Provide options for recruiting interest

A tool for both students and teachers to demonstrate and explore authentic interests is instant video sharing via the chat box. Videos can be stripped of commercials with Safeshare.com. Students and teachers can also customize the clipart library for current and future use so that image will be accessible in future sessions. These stored images could include a collaborative set of classroom expectations for all participants.

Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence

Collaborating with peers often happens in the smaller group or one-on-one opportunities in breakout rooms during sessions. Teachers or students can select which rooms to go to, and practice scaffolding activities or create work in a smaller and more private setting. Teachers can use the page explorer feature to quickly monitor all pages in a glance and move in or out as necessary.

Provide options for self-regulation These pages can be saved and reloaded in future sessions so students and teachers can conference and track progress.

Mike began his interview by expressing his concerns about the legislative difficulties surrounding the virtual school. He said that the state’s educational leaders did not always understand the importance of the continued expansion of virtual learning or its importance to the future of education. He mentioned that India was investing in cell JSET 2014 Volume 29, Number 1

phone towers and educational technology such as tablets to provide education in remote areas in lieu of building brick and mortar schools. He wondered how India’s very different vision of education and its delivery might influence education in the United States.


71

Journal of Special Education Technology Mike promotes the use of Web 2.0 tools as collaborative workspaces for students and teachers and wants students to understand that they are both the authors and users of authentic information. He feels that the virtual classroom and Web 2.0 tools demonstrate the relevance of learning tasks and promote a focus on quality work. Mike was adamant that “this is the world we have to be trained for.” Key Finding: Lack of a central vision of what online educa-

tion should be.

Key Finding: Despite widespread adoption, there is strong,

high-level, opposition to online education in the United States.

Ted: An Online Curriculum Executive

Allan: A School Superintendent Allan is the superintendent of a school district that features traditional brick and mortar schools as well as a virtual K–12 school. The traditional school model is bounded along geographic lines, while the virtual school is a statewide program that is accessible to students across the state. Allan was a pioneer of virtual leaning in this state, seeing the need to serve students who lacked program choices because of geography or small school systems. Allan’s goal was to provide a better learning environment for hand-tooled social experiences and high-quality academic learning. Allan feels that his efforts are removing barriers to learning and satisfying parent desires for alternative public schooling. The first two years of online learning in Allan’s district drew 30–40 students at multiple grade levels. Third-year numbers increased to 1,800 students when statewide enrollment was permitted. This surprise explosion in enrollment convinced Allan that there was a large, unmet need for education alternatives. Families choosing the virtual program included traditional homeschooling families wanting a more robust curriculum, athletes in special training, families on long-term vacations or trips, and families of children with disabilities. As the first out of the gate to bring a virtual experience to the state, Allan experienced a large pushback from the educational community, including other superintendents and state education administrators. He expressed some confusion about the reasons why strong opposition to the virtual program continues. Allan mentioned a book written by a colleague who devoted a chapter to dismissing the type

72

of virtual program currently in place in his district. Allan shared his vision to continue improving the virtual school and its service to students with and without special needs along with his continuing effort to convince lawmakers of the value of online learning.

Ted is an executive with a for-profit provider of online curriculum and technology support for virtual schools. At the time of our interview Ted was relatively new to the education field, coming from an executive background in technology and communication. He emphasized that he was in the process of turning his focus to the importance of academic outcomes for all students in the virtual environment. As a for-profit provider of curricula in both the virtual and traditional educational worlds, Ted noted that it was always important to be clear and authentic in academic discussions. He stressed the importance of identifying conversations as either academic discussions or marketing conversations in order to prevent blurring their distinct missions. Ted explained that the innovators who paved the road for virtual learning originally imagined that virtual schools would serve academically advanced students who were seeking a more challenging curriculum. But as interest in virtual learning grows, it is apparent that students with disabilities are choosing online options in large numbers, making the needs of those students a major concern. As a curriculum and technology provider for this evolving model of virtual schooling, Ted stressed his role as what he described as a thought leader and expressed his need to understand the current research to effectively promote the benefits of company products. He expressed surprise and concern at the pushback against virtual schooling by traditional school proponents. Key Finding: Students with disabilities must be considered

during the design of online curricular materials.




Implications for Practice Three themes and corresponding implications for practitioners emerged as the evidence from this article was analyzed. First, there is clear evidence that students with disabilities are increasingly participating in online education, despite the potential barriers inherent in this medium. Future research should focus on how to improve both curricular materials and pedagogical practices in synchronous and asynchronous online environments. In addition, preservice and inservice professional development should prepare teachers for the challenges and opportunities in online environments. This includes helping teachers translate research-based face-to-face practices to the online classrooms. Educational advisors (i.e., those who help families make decisions about the most efficacious educational placements for students with disabilities) should view the education process as dynamic; they should analyze data from multiple placements and at multiple time periods when making educational decisions. This includes students in full-time online schools, full-time brick and mortar schools, and various combinations of both. Understanding the impact of those school environments, parental participation, and school support on student achievement is critical to interpreting those academic outcomes. Inevitably, these will change with time as students’ developmental levels, social skills, and academic achievement evolve. Therefore, each of these factors should be considered during annual evaluation meetings. A second theme involves the inclusion of UDL in online instruction. The three instruments summarized here provided clear evidence that UDL is achievable, practical, and quantifiable in online synchronous environments. Virtual learning with UDL is not a two-dimensional experience. Instead, learning is enhanced by options for multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement. UDL implementation in online environments is the responsibility of teachers, because they control the tools students can access during the lesson. In the UDL analysis described here, it was clear that teachers needed additional professional development to fully implement the UDL framework in online contexts. The final theme, which emerged during interviews with educational leaders, involved a decentralized vision of the merits on online education. Clearly, additional research is necessary to determine which aspects and elements of


online education lead to enhanced student outcomes. However, virtual schools appear to be here to stay. Student enrollments are increasing, and the numbers of students with disabilities choosing online instruction are growing. Based on conversations with educational leaders, it appears that disability advocacy groups should consider educating their local and national congressional representatives so that they understand how online education can enhance the accessibility of curricular materials for students with disabilities.

References Anastasiades, P. S., Filippousis, G., Karvunis, L., Siakas, S., Tomazinakis, A., Giza, P., et al. (2010). Interactive videoconferencing for collaborative learning at a distance in the school of 21st century: A case study in elementary schools in Greece. Computers & Education, 54, 321–339. Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26–44. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1127 Center for Applied Special Technology. (CAST, 2011). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Grabinger, R. S., Alpin, C., & Ponnappa-Brenner, G. (2008). Supporting learners with cognitive impairments in online environments. TechTrends, 52, 63–69. Halpern, D., Aronson, J., Reimer, N., Simpkins, S., Star, J., & Wentzel, K. (2007). Encouraging Girls in Math and Science (NCER 20072003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ncer.ed.gov Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (Eds.). (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom: Practical applications. New York, NY: Guilford. Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2012). “Everybody is their own island”: Teacher disconnection in a virtual school. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 124–144. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index. php/irrodl/article/view/967

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2007). Retrieved from http:// www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr4137

Hodges, C. B., & Cowan, S. F. (2012). Preservice teachers’ views of instructor presence in online courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28, 139–145. Huang, H. S., Chiou, C. C., Chiang, H. K., Lai, S. H., & Huang, C. Y. (2012). Effects of multidimensional concept maps on fourth graders’ learning in Web-based computer course. Computers & Education, 58, 863–873.


73

Journal of Special Education Technology Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2007). Examining the effect of problem type in a synchronous computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. Education Technology Research Development, 55, 439–459.

U. S. Department of Education. (2012a). Questions and Answers on the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards (NIMAS). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2

Lapinski, S., Gravel, J. W., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Tools for practice: The Universal Design for Learning guidelines. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer & D. H. Rose (Eds.), Universal Design for Learning in the classroom: Practical applications (Kindle version). Retrieved from

U. S. Department of Education. (2012b). Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from

http://www.amazon.com

Marino, M. T. (2010). Defining a technology research agenda for elementary and secondary students with learning and other high incidence disabilities in inclusive science classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology 25(1), 1–28. Office of Special Education Programs, U. S. Department of Education (2011). Applications for New Awards: Technology and Media services for Individuals with Disabilities – Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Queen, B., & Lewis, L. (2011). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2009–2010 (NCES 2012-008). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., & Vanderhover, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers & Education, 59, 82–94. Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (Eds.). (2005). The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Seltzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students: 2002–03 (NCES 2005010). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Tempelaar, D. T., Niculescu, A., Reinties, B, Gijselaers, W. H., & Giesbers, B. (2012). How achievement emotions impact students’ decisions for online learning, and what precedes those emotions. Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 161–169. Thompson, L. A., Ferdig, R., & Black, E. (2012). Online schools and children with special health and educational needs: Comparison with performance in traditional schools. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(3), 1–9. doi:10.2196/jmir.1947 Tsuei, M. (2011). Development of a peer-assisted learning strategy in computer-supported collaborative learning environments for elementary school students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 214–232.

Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C5%2C

http://www.k12.wa.us/ESEA/NCLB.aspx

U. S. Department of Education. (2012c). Science intervention report: Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) Space Science Sequence. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov U. S. Department of Education. (2010a). Beginning Reading intervention report: Peer-assisted learning/literacy strategies. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov

U. S. Department of Education. (2010b). Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov U. S. Department of Education. (2010c). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Vasques, E., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evaluation of synchronous online tutoring for students at risk of reading failure. Exceptional Children, 78, 221–235. Vasquez, E., Forbush, D. E., Mason, L. L., Lockwood, A. R., & Gleed, L. (2011). Delivery and evaluation of synchronous online reading tutoring to students at-risk of reading failure. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 16–26. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: An annual review of policy and practice. Mountain View CA: The Evergreen Group. Woodward, J., Beckmann, S., Driscoll, M., Franke, M., Herzig, P., Jitendra, A., et al. (2012). Improving mathematical problem solving in grades 4 through 8: A practice guide (NCEE 2012-4055). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch

Author Note

Tsuei, M. (2012). Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics. Computers & Education, 58, 1171–1182.

Kimberly Coy is an instructor at the Washington Virtual Academies, Spokane, Washington. Matthew T. Marino is an associate professor and Barbara Serianni is a graduate research assistant, both in the Department of Child, Family and Community Sciences, University of Central Florida–Orlando.

U. S. Department of Education. (2012). Higher Education Opportunity Act – 2008. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Coy, 611 W 21st Ave, Spokane, WA 99203. Email:

leg/hea08/index.html

74

[email protected]

