1 / 61

By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI

By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI Program Specialist -Accessible Instructional Materials (AIMs) Georgia Department of Education.

yves
Download Presentation

By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI Program Specialist -Accessible Instructional Materials (AIMs) Georgia Department of Education ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR STUDENTS WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS: IN-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO STUDENT ACCESS AND USAGE ACROSS ACADEMIC SUBJECT AREAS- A DISSERTATION-CAPELLA UNIVERSITY 2014

  2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is not fully known the extent to which the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the blind and visually impaired and academic subject area affects the level of student access to and usage of assistive technology. Students who are blind and visually impaired often lack equal access to the same general curriculum as their sighted peers. Access is achieved through the use of assistive technology.

  3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the blind and visually impaired and academic subject area, with student access to and the level of usage of assistive technology in order to access the general education curriculum.

  4. STUDY SUMMARY Correlational Study • To determine if there was a significant correlation between • teacher in-service training and academic subject area • Student levels of access to assistive technology for the visually impaired • Student levels of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired

  5. DATA ANALYSIS • Frequency Data • Spearman’s correlation coefficient

  6. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION • Research subjects were all students and teachers at a state school for the Blind in the academic program for students with visual impairments only and students with additional mild to moderate disabilities. • Two surveys were utilized • Teacher Survey • Student Survey

  7. Teacher Data Table 2 Frequency Counts Teacher Demographics (n=13) Variable n% Gender Male 2 15.4 Female1184.6 Ethnicity White 12 92.3 Black 17.7 Education Bachelor’s 5 38.5 Graduate 8 61.5

  8. TEACHER DATA CONTINUED Variable n % Age Group 21-29 1 7.7 30-39 3 23.1 40-49 4 30.7 50-59 3 23.1 60+ 2 15.4 Program VI only 7 53.8 VI + additional 6 46.2 

  9. STUDENT DATA Table 3 Frequency Counts Student Demographics n = 45 Age Range = 13-21 Variablen% GenderMale 18 40 Female2760 Ethnicity White 21 46.7 Black 21 46.7 Native American 12.2 Asian 1 2.2 Mixed Race 1 2.2

  10. Student Data Continued Grade n % Grade 6 4 8.9 Grade 7 3 6.7 Grade 8 8 17.8 Grade 9 4 8.9 Grade 10 10 22.2 Grade 11 5 11.1 Grade 12 11 24.4

  11. Student Date Continued Agen % Age 13 6 13.3 Age 14 3 6.7 Age 15 7 15.6 Age 16 4 8.9 Age 17 5 11.1 Age 18 6 13.3 Age 19 7 15.6 Age 20 4 8.9 Age 21 3 6.7

  12. Student Data Continued n % Primary Learning Medium Regular Print4 8.9 Large Print 15 33.3 Braille 25 55.6 Auditory 1 2.2

  13. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 1 • H1: There is a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of student access to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  14. NULL HYPOTHESIS 1 H0: There is not a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of student access to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  15. Statistical Analysis • Table 5 • Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient and p-Values for Teacher In-service Training and Student levels of Access for Assistive Technology for Students with Visual Impairments (n=45) Students (n=13) Teachers Assistive Technology CategoryrspAssistive Technology for Students with Low Vision • 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers -.324 .280 • 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers -.328 .275 • 3. Electronic Telescopes -.158 .606 • 4. Screen Enlargement Software -.530.063 • 5. Large Display Calculators .101 .743 • 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators -.189 .537

  16. Statistical Analysis • Assistive Technology Categoryrs p  • Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind • Auditory. • 7. Screen Reading Software -.587 .035* • 8. Scan and Read Software -.371 .211 • 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) -.078 .801 • 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware -.291 .334 • 11. Digital Book Reading Software .077 .802 • 12. Desktop Audio Players -.581 .037* • 13. Portable Audio Players .060 .845 • 14. Talking Dictionary -.266 .380

  17. Statistical Analysis Assistive Technology CategoryrspB raille.Braille. • 15. Manual Braille Writer -.237. .436 • 16. Electronic Braille Writer -.123 .689 • 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools • .453 .120 • 18. Braille Embossers -.294 .330 • 19. Braille Translation Software .060 .845

  18. Statistical Analysis • Tactile Graphics. • Assistive Technology Categoryrs p • 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware .594.032* • 21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222 .466 • 22. Tactile Graphics Kits .092 .765 • Math Tools. • 23. Talking Calculators .055 .860 • 24. Cranmer Abacus -.204 .504 • 25. Math Concepts Software .279 .357 • 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools -.488 .091 • *p < .05

  19. HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS

  20. HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS • Null hypothesis is retained. • While there were a few areas that were statistically significant, there was not enough evidence to support the hypothesis. • There were trends which indicate that further research with a larger sample size might give better results to support the research hypothesis.

  21. HYPOTHESIS 2 • H2: There is a significant relationship between the academic subject that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching, and the level of student access by students with visual impairments to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  22. Null Hypothesis 2 • H0: There is not a significant relationship between the academic subject that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching, and the level of student access by students with visual impairments to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  23. Statistical Analysis Table 6 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient for Level of Access and Academic Subject Area (n = 45) Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision ELA MathSC SS rsrsrsrs 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers .770** .695** .626**.652** 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers .774** .224.650**.669** 3. Electronic Telescopes.517** .517** .517* 0 4. Screen Enlargement Software .722** .697** .509**.722** 5. Large Display Calculators .397** .881** .720** .397** 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators .500** .770** .476**.366*

  24. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind ELA Math SC SS rsrsrsrs Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software .672**.499**.622**.722* 8. Scan and Read Software .829**.857**.664**.780** 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) .808**.786**.664**.767** 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware 786**.664**.767**.767** 11. Digital Book Reading Software .825**.489**.550**.667** 12. Desktop Audio Players .937**.426**.320* .548** 13. Portable Audio Players .997**.863**.707**.730** 14. Talking Dictionary .945**.261 .521**.642**

  25. Statistical Analysis ELAMathSc SS rsrsrsrs Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer.807**.895**.781**.709** 16. Electronic Braille Writer .788**.617**.685**.727** 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools .808**.598**.596**.598** 18. Braille Embossers.699**.535**.535**.775** 19. Braille Translation Software .744**.624** 0 .625

  26. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELA Math Sc SS rsrsrsrs Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware.744** .624** 0 .625 21. Tactile Graphics Software.518* .707** 0 .518 22. Tactile Graphics Kits.314* .869** 0 .314 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators .224 .793**.411** .030 24. Cranmer Abacus.414** .957** .398**.374** 25. Math Concepts Software .723**.723**.517**.500** 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools .271.875**.576** .327*  * p < .05 ** p < .01

  27. HYPOTHESIS 2 RESULTS

  28. HYPOTHESIS 2 • The research hypothesis was retained. 82% of the possible 104 correlations combinations were significant at the p<.01 level and 5.8% were significant at the p<.05 level with a total of 86% of the data being statistically significant to support the research hypothesis. • All areas had some level of significances.

  29. HYPOTHESIS 3 • H3: There is a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  30. NULL HYPOTHESIS 3 • H0: There is not a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired by students with visual impairments.

  31. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table 7 Spearman’s correlation coefficient for Teacher In-service Training and Student Usage in Academic Subject Areas (n=45). Assistive Technology CategoryELAMath SCSS rsrsrsrs Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers -.324 -.324 0 -.324 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers -.328 -.3280 -.328 3. Electronic Telescopes -.158 -.158 0 -.158 4. Screen Enlargement Software -.360 -.360 0 -.360 5. Large Display Calculators -.287 .083 .082 -.287 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators -.189 -.189 0 -.189

  32. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind ELA MathSCSS rsrsrsrs Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software .283.462.613* .012 8. Scan and Read Software -.371 -.3710 -.371 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)-.193.097-.039 .17 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware -.19800 0 11. Digital Book Reading Software .145 .297.495 .235

  33. STATISICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind  ELA Math SC SS rsrsrsrs Auditory. 12. Desktop Audio Players -.168 -.425 -.425 .425 13. Portable Audio Players -.431 -.431 -.293 -.431 14. Talking Dictionary -.287 -.325 -.028 -.287

  34. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELAMath SCSS rsrsrsrs Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer -.258 -.041 -.118 .04 16. Electronic Braille Writer .233 .411 .152 .15 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools .453 .604* .604* .604* 18. Braille Embossers -.294 0-.294 -.294 19. Braille Translation Software .041 .041 00

  35. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELA MathSCSS rsrsrsrs Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware 0.592*.402 .402 21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222 -.222 0 -.222 22. Tactile Graphics Kits -.290 .052 0 -.290 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators -.423.125.355 -.126 24. Cranmer Abacus -.265 -.076 .124 -.122 25. Math Concepts Software -.279 -.280 -.189 -.355 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools -.538 -.538 -.287 -.422 *p < .05

  36. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS

  37. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS

  38. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS Figure 5. Teacher in-service training compared to student usage of at (n = 45 students) (n = 13 teachers).

  39. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS • Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicates little to no correlation between the level of teacher in-service training in AT for the visually impaired and student usage of AT for the visually impaired in each academic subject area. • Although there are a few areas that are statistically significant, there were not enough to warrant accepting the research hypothesis so the null hypothesis must be retained.

  40. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 4 • H4: There is a significant relationship between the academic subject area that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching and the level of student usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired.

  41. NULL HYPOTHESIS 4 H0: There is not a significant relationship between the academic subject area that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired by students with visual impairments.

  42. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table 8 Frequency of Student access to Assistive Technology in Academic Subject Areas (n= 45) Assistive Technology Category % English Math ScSS Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision  1. Desktop Video Magnifiers 2.2 17.415.515.5 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers 13.211.04.411.1 3. Electronic Telescopes2.2 2.202.2 4. Screen Enlargement Software 24.4 13.315.5 24.4 5. Large Display Calculators 4.4 31.1 13.3 4.4 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators 4.4 11.1 4.4 2.2

  43. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math Sc SS Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision 5. Large Display Calculators 4.431.1 13.3 4.4 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators 4.4 11.1 4.4 2.2

  44. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math Sc SS Assistive Technology for Students Who Are Blind Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software 60.033.426.738.9 8. Scan and Read Software 15.511.011.013.2 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) 39.931.1 6.615.5

  45. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math Sc SS 10. Digital Book Reading HW 46.6 15.5 13.3 26.7 11. Digital Book Reading SW 26.6 8.8 6.6 15.5 12. Desktop Audio Players 51.1 17.7 19.9 33.3 13. Portable Audio Players 8.8 6.6 4.4 8.8 14. Talking Dictionary 42.24.4 13.3 20.0

  46. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math ScSS Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer 42.264.437.8 35.6 16. Electronic Braille Writer 24.5 8.811.113.3 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools 17.713.28.813.2 18. Braille Embossers 6.64.44.48.9 19. Braille Translation SW 6.64.404.4

  47. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS % English Math Sc SS Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware 0.0 6.6 2.2 2.2 21. Tactile Graphics Software 2.2 4.40 2.2 22. Tactile Graphics Kits2.2 13.3 0 2.2 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators 13.4 11.1 28.8 7.0 24. Cranmer Abacus .6 35.6 4.4 4.4 25. Math Concepts Software 4.4 4.4 2.2 8.8 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools 11.0 64.4 19.9 6.6

  48. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS % English Math ScSS Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators 13.411.1 28.87.0 24. Cranmer Abacus .6 35.6 4.44.4 25. Math Concepts Software 4.4 4.4 2.2 8.8 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools 11.064.4 19.9 6.6

  49. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table 9 Spearman’s Coefficient of AT for the Visually Impaired Across Subject Areas (n = 45) Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision E/ME/SCE/SSM/SCM/S SC/SS rsrsrsrsrsrs 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers .632**.654**.708**.595**.783**.803** 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers .688**.527**.880**.266. 788**.609** 3. Electronic Telescopes 1.000*01.000**01.000**0 4. Screen Enlargement Software .782**.610** .790** .752**.886**.748** 5. Large Display Calculators .321*.218 1.000** .591**.321*.218 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators .602** .454** .715** .602** .447** -.033

  50. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students Who are Blind E/M E/SCE/SSM/SCM/S SC/SS rsrsrsrsrsrs 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators .602**.454**.715**.602**.447** -.033 Auditory 7. Screen Reading Software .334*.508* .588**.336* .516**.515** 8. Scan and Read Software .816**.818** .923**.795** .917**.882** 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) .772**.640**.690**.651** .894**.585**

More Related