Phase Five: Summary Data/Documenting Project

Outcomes and Recommending Revisions

EDTC 670
Sharon Berry Brown

Special Education requires a variety of approaches to learning, teaching, and

making assessments. Students abilities both physical and cognitive make learning
and teaching them an intrinsic and individual experience. Teachers and
paraprofessionals who work with these students often use trial and error when it
comes to what works best to engage and motivate the students. And even with
that, the variation is wide. What works one day, might not work the next day or
week.
With consistency, modeling, and positive reinforcement glimpses of patterns
have the potential to evolve. In a sense that is learning. The iPad and Choiceboard
app serve to encourage interaction and to illicit responses. This ability to express a
choice is vital to the learning process.
This data collection might seem trivial for typical students, but that is what
makes teaching Special Education dynamic. Each student has an Individual
Education Plan. There is no one size fits all model for teaching. Like typical
students, ways of learning vary as well. Some students are visual. Some students
are auditory. Some students are tactile. What makes Special Education students

particularly Life Skills students who are non-verbal unique is that their methods of
self-expression are necessarily evident and can be quite subjective.

Over the course of the Plan, neither student A nor B exhibited a significant gain
in the objectives. This can be attributed to factors of boredom, frustration,
distraction, discomfort, or the inability to communicate a need such as an itch,
hunger pains, or pain during the duration of the Implementation. Both students
have significant to severe global developmental delays. Both are non-verbal and
non-signing. Student A is an 11 year-old male and Student B is a 12 year-old
female. They are part of a self-a contained Special Education classroom. They
represent a large fraction of the class and were a manageable pair for the time and
attention needed to complete the implementation of the plan.
Student A and Student B were both observed having to be prompted to engage
in the iPad activity and initially seemed attentive. Student A lacked the coordination
shown by Student B, which could account for the differences in the visual-motor
coordination aspect.
Student A was observed to have a negative reaction to the buzzer sound that
indicated an incorrect response given off by the Choicboard app. This student and
other students with auditory issues might benefit from a different indicator. The
Choiceboard offers a variety from which to choose.

Student A
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Week 1

Objective 4

Week 2

Student B
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Objective 1

Objective 2
Week 1

Objective 3
Week 2

Objective 4

The implications of these results suggest that the Choiceboard App coupled
with the iPad has the potential to be adapted to address the needs of various
Special Education students. Expressing choices is an issue with learning.
When determining Objectives and Assessments, care must be taken to
ensure that they align with the students IEP. This requires a one-on-one
interfacing with technology. The needs of the students are as varied as they
technology presently available.
Using a larger student population is no guarantee of more or less
achievement. The goal is to modify and adapt technology in a way that
brings out the learning potential in each and every student, regardless of

disability. From my standpoint as a future educator, these results are far from
discouraging. They challenge thinking outside-of-the-box. These results
emphasis the individual needs of the Special Education population. That is
beneficial to not only the student, but to anyone interacting with this
population. With this insight and preparation, the ability to integrate
technology in ALL classrooms has countless implications. As Special
Education students benefit from mainstream experiences, technology could
play a vital role in leveling their playing field.
My philosophy at the beginning of my Masters Program was All Children
Can Learn. With the ever-evolving technology available, this rings true
more than ever. I am honored to be a part.

References

Algozzine, B., Morsink, C. V., & Algozzine, K. M. (1988). What's Happening in SelfContained
Special Education Classrooms?.Exceptional Children, 55(3), 259-265.

http://www.apps4specialeducation.com/home
http://clipartpanda.com
Hu, H, & Garimella, U. (2014). iPads for STEM Teachers: A Case Study on Perceived
Usefulness,

Perceived Proficiency, Intention to Adopt, and Integration in K-12

Instruction. Journal Of
Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 7(1), 49-66.

Johnson, G. M. (2013). Using Tablet Computers with Elementary School Students

with Special
Needs: The Practices and Perceptions of Special Education Teachers and Teacher
Assistants. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology,39(4),

Lancioni, G., O'Reilly, M., Singh, N., Sigafoos, J., Oliva, D., Campodonico, F., & Lang,
R. (2012).
Persons with Multiple Disabilities Exercise Adaptive Head and Hand-Eye
Responses Using
Technology-Aided Programs: Two Single-Case Studies. Journal Of Developmental
& Physical
Disabilities, 24(4), 415-426 12p. doi:10.1007/s10882-012-9279-z

MCDONALD, R; et al. Elation or frustration? Outcomes following the provision of

equipment during the Communication Aids Project: data from one CAP partner
centre.Child: Care, Health & Development. 34, 2, 223-229, Mar. 2008. ISSN:
03051862.

http://otswithapps.com/
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/maryland/prince-georges-county/elementary
Powell, S. (2014). Choosing iPad Apps With a Purpose: Aligning Skills and
Standards. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 47(1), 20-26. doi:10.1177/0040059914542765

http://sites.rusd.org/special-education-school-to-work-programs/life-skillscurriculum-guide