Chavonne Anderson, Jamie Blank, Kassidi Dittrich, Melanie Hirahara, Jackie Perreira

This webpage will discuss technological tools that seek to increase accessibility to educational material for students with special needs, in particular students with ADHD, autism, and other learning disabilities. Students with special needs are defined as “students different enough from their peers that they require specially adapted instructional materials and practices to maximize their learning and achievement” (Ormrod, pg 132, 2014). More support has traditionally gone toward addressing low-incidence physical disabilities such as blindness or deafness (Boone & Higgins, 2007), rather than the higher-incidence cognitive disabilities that are the focus of this webpage. The introduction of digital formats and technology has allowed for persons with disabilities to access instructional content independently (Polya & Retova, 2012). More specifically, assistive technology (AT), such as computerized schoolwork and testing, may help to bridge this gap and improve performance and on-task behavior for students with cognitive disabilities such as ADHD (Shaw & Lewis, 2005). More broadly, AT consists of electronic devices and other equipment that can enhance students’ abilities and performance (Ormrod, 2014). Specialized tools have been created to allow students to become more engaged in learning tasks and allowing teachers to create an inclusive learning environment (Pitchford, Kamchedzera, Hubber, & Chigeda, 2018). These technological tools allow for skill building as well as higher predictability of finding paid employment (Polya & Retova, 2012). This website will highlight how accessibility has been defined, developed, and changed for students with special needs such as autism, ADHD, and other learning differences. This website will also consider concerns and recommendations as well as discuss research findings regarding AT.

Instructors and language therapists are trained individuals who teach and treat students who may have language disorders or other learning disabilities. It is the educational system’s intent to provide learning opportunities for all students despite their disability, background, socioeconomic status, or learning challenges. In spite of those intentions, instructors face opposition in creating learning opportunities for students with autism. Bosseler and Massaro (2003) explain that autism is a spectrum disorder which can be identified by various characteristics such as: cognitive, perceptual, and social differences. Among these characteristics, the most common factor leading to a diagnosis of autism is the limited ability to produce and understand language. The opposition that teachers’ face is due to the students’ lack of cooperation, aggression, low motivation to communicate, and other similar factors that can be challenging in a learning environment (Bosseler & Massaro, 2003). Because of these obstacles, computer assisted instruction (CAI) has begun to emerge as a way to help students with learning disabilities. Bosseler and Massaro (2003) state that presenting information or teaching a skill using a computer has the ability to reduce difficulties that some children with autism experience while interacting with a teacher.

Whalen et al. (2010) explains that studies have shown the promise of CAI for students with other disabilities, which is why the general use of CAI has increased in popularity. However, very few studies have solely focused upon students with autism, in regards to the efficiency of CAI. In contrast, although there has been less research revolving around autism, some studies (Bosseler & Massaro, 2003; Hetzroni & Tannous, 2004; Whalen et al., 2010) of CAI have demonstrated development in students’ vocabulary, grammar, communication skills, and/or social behaviors. Hetzroni and Tannous (2004) investigated how computer based intervention, in relation to daily life activities, would increase communication skills such as relevant speech, lessening the repetition of a sentence or parts of a sentence, and initiating communication and concluded that computers were a successful teaching tool for students with autism. Specifically, they found that all of the children spoke with fewer speech delays and they were able to apply it in a natural setting. Furthermore, Whalen et al.’s (2010) participants used a CAI program for 20 minutes a day along with supplementary activities. In conclusion students showed improvement in their overall language and cognitive measures. Even further, they showed growth in their behavior by decreasing the amount of tantrums and looking at their parents more. Similarly, when Bosseler and Massaro (2003) developed and evaluated using a computer animated tutor to teach vocabulary and grammar, all of the students made significant gains in new words and grammar. They even showed enjoyment in working with the computer animated tutor by making statements like “Good job” and laughing when a positive reinforcement, such as a happy face, was displayed.

The findings of these studies offer possibilities of a solution for remediating the deficits for children with autism. Knowing that students with autism tend to have difficulties responding to traditional teaching, computer assisted instruction gives students with autism a more probable opportunity to respond to intervention that involves visual supports, various multimedia, computers, and video modeling. Though further research needs to look more in depth at what parts of programs are most effective and which skills will carry over into a natural setting, the research that has been presented offers high hopes that CAI makes learning more accessible for students with autism (Whalen et al., 2010).

Using educational software in the classroom can be motivating and engaging for students with ADHD. Ormrod (2014) defines Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as a “disorder marked by inattention, hyperactivity, impulsive behavior, or some combination of these characteristics” (p. 137). Students with ADHD are often distracted during lessons, so it is important to find tasks that interest them and keep them engaged. Houghton et al. (2004) found using engaging software helps children with ADHD stay attentive. When children are better able to focus, they will be more successful academically. However, because students with ADHD can tend to be impulsive, they often click quickly and make more errors while using game based learning (Houghton et al., 2004). In spite of the impulsivity and frequent errors, students are still benefiting from their use of the software because they are engaged in learning, whereas it can be challenging to engage them with traditional learning methods (McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy, & Tate, 2012). Students with ADHD can benefit academically by using iPad and software. The devices allow the student to be in control of learning, and the ability to manipulate the screen can engage students’ visual and tactile modalities (McClanahan et al., 2012). Sometimes students with ADHD struggle with learning, but using software can help motivate and engage them in learning to keep them performing similar to their peers.

When implementing digital resources and software in the classroom, teachers should consider whether or not their students with ADHD will benefit academically from those resources. Shaw and Lewis (2005) found that students with ADHD performed best on computerized workbooks that did not have animations. The animations took time to listen to, which the students did not want to wait for. Additionally, these students reported that they were distracted by the animated features. In spite of the distraction, they still preferred using the computerized workbook compared to the traditional version. Similarly, Ke and Abras (2013) found that displays which were too busy or had complicated interfaces caused problems for students with disabilities. Therefore, software designers should keep screens simple and to the point to avoid distracting students from the learning goal. Remembering the issues and preferences of students with ADHD while implementing software can help them be more successful in school.

Educational software can be beneficial to students with other disabilities, helping them access content and material that otherwise would be more difficult or impossible for them to utilize. Special needs that may be present in the 21st century classroom include specific cognitive processing learning disabilities, speech and communication disorders, emotional and behavioral disorders, intellectual disabilities, physical and health impairments, visual impairments, and hearing loss (Ormrod, 2014). Ormrod continues on to note that these students may all have similar struggles in the classroom involving reading and writing difficulties, difficulty retaining things they’ve learned, concentration difficulties, low motivation for academics, difficulty with motor activities, and difficulty socializing (2014). Therefore, similar considerations can be made when selecting educational software for these students.

One consideration might be if the software will be able to substantially help students without frustration. Some software needs to be improved before children with disabilities start significantly benefitting from it. For example, Larson, Goldstone, Liu, Thurlow, and Lazarus (2019) report that Goodnotes is a program one visually impaired student uses, and although it is reported by the student as hard to use, overall he feels it helps him do his work better than if he didn’t have it. McCarthy, Schwarz, and Ashworth (2017) found that the software being used in core augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with communication disorders was missing critical words in its database. This leads to frustration because children are unable to communicate their ideas efficiently, and it also impedes their understanding in school (McCarthy et al., 2017). Saturno, Ramirez, Conte, Farhat, and Piucco (2015) also found that children with cerebral palsy were frustrated when their communication devices lacked the words or symbols they wanted to communicate. Once the children were able to successfully communicate their idea, however, their satisfaction with their communication device increased (Saturno, et al., 2015). There is room for improvement with accessibility implementation in software for students with learning disabilities, but the scaffolds and modifications that are available are generally making students feel successful.

Another consideration educators can think about when implementing classroom software is the students’ level of enjoyment. One student who is visually impaired has used a Visiobook for six years; he loves it, and it helps him see to do his work (Larson et al., 2019). Another student with an Individualized Education Plan regularly uses a vision software iPad program called Join Me, which allows him to see what the teacher projects onto the Smartboard (Larson et al., 2019). Yet, another student who has trouble writing and typing uses Google Read&Write, and his teacher reports that he does very well with this program (Larson et al., 2019). McKeown and McKeown (2019) suggest that engagement is higher for students with disabilities if you allow them choice in what they get to use. This is similar to what Larson et al. (2019) found because one student with a visual impairment uses different programs depending on which one is better suited for the task, and he likes using both programs. It is clear that these students like to use these programs because they easily help assist the students with the tasks that they need to complete.

Instructional software that provides access to learning for all students continues to be rare and the responsibility for making accessible software falls upon software developers (Golden, 2002). Educators have noticed the lack of accommodations in classroom software, while many instructional software companies wrongly assume the responsibility for making content accessible is that of independent third parties (Goldstone, Thurlow, Liu, & Lazarus, 2018; Golden, 2002). The key issue seems to be a need for greater accountability and standardized expectations (Golden, 2002). Most developers are unclear about their role in making their software accessible to all, and those few who are aware of the need for more accessible features are unsure about what they should be aiming for due to the lack of national standards (Golden, 2002).

An additional concern regarding accessibility is the uncertainty as to who is responsible for advocacy. Due to the shortage of instructional software with built-in accommodations, districts often have to purchase separate software for students with special considerations and needs (Larson et al., 2019). Too often this burden of fighting to procure accessible software falls upon classroom educators and school specialists (Larson et al., 2019). Without these advocates it can be hard or even impossible for students to have the resources they need. Similarly, many general education teachers often feel ill-equipped when it comes to the accommodations needed for their students. Teachers feel they do not have enough knowledge about the accessibility features of software to adequately help their students, and while they may receive professional development concerning accessibility during state testing, there is not sufficient professional development regarding everyday classroom accessibility (Goldstone et al., 2018).

When discussing accessibility, features within instructional software can aid or hinder students’ ability to access their learning. Goldstone et al. (2018) found that a mouse as a mode of control can be difficult for younger students with special needs to manipulate. Thus, when considering software for primary grades, those which include other options, such as voice command or touchscreen capabilities are more beneficial for students. Displays and layouts also need to be considered in making software more accessible. Ke and Abras (2013) found that while stimulating displays keep students invested in and engaged with the software, there is a fine line between stimulating and overstimulating. Software games that are busy and have complicated interfaces tend to distract learners, and therefore the best displays are ones that use succinct visual representations of options and are ordered sequentially as to reduce confusion (Ke & Abras, 2013). For students with visual impairments, the option to customize text and display colors, and have a built-in magnification element aids in reducing eye strain and improving readability (Larson et al., 2019). Closed-captioning and predictive text while writing are beneficial to students with hearing, learning, or language difficulties (Larson et al., 2019). Wade, Boon, & Spencer (2010) have found increases in reading comprehension for students with specific learning disabilities when using software with text-to-speech and spell checker capabilities.

The content and nature of instructional software can also affect accessibility. Ke and Abras (2013) found that timed challenges in software games do not provide enough time for students with special learning needs to process the information, but that built-in practice time for skill building within games helps students navigate the software. Directions that are lengthy are often difficult for students with special learning needs to comprehend, so it is suggested to keep directions concise (Ke & Abras, 2013). Ke and Abras (2013) also found that the most beneficial educational software games for students with special learning needs were those which reward the learner often and immediately to increase engagement, and those which scaffold information and skills so students can interact with the software successfully. Lastly, software games that involve a competition element must also be examined. Those that pit the learner against the computer with a skill level that is too high can end up being frustrating for students and can affect their motivation to continue using the software, while games that are viewed as too easy for students with special learning needs do not keep their attention (Ke & Abras, 2013). More effective software allows the student to compete against him/herself, with rewards that increase based on the level of skill the learner performs.

Finally, for instructional software to have the greatest chance of success for students with special considerations and needs, it must meaningfully align with the classroom environment it will be used in. Hetzroni and Banin (2017) found that educational software that ties into themes being discussed in class, as well as utilizing real-life scenarios relevant to students’ lives, produces an increase in skills for students with Intellectual and Developmental Disorders (IDD). Additionally, combining educational software with face-to-face classroom activities helps students with IDD learn new and complex skills (Hetzroni & Banin, 2017). Classroom teachers should also be trained to use the software accommodations their students will be utilizing, and should become familiar with the accessible components of the software in order to best help their students (Larson et al., 2019). By merging the accessible features and content of instructional software with classroom instruction and teacher training, students with special needs can finally have access to all learning.

Students with disabilities can struggle with engaging with class material. In particular, students with ADHD can become distracted and students with autism may feel overwhelmed by the material. There has been an evolution of studies, and developments dedicated to creating a more inclusive classroom for all learners. The challenge of teaching students of all cognitive and physical developments is an ever changing experience. Under the correct conditions, students with either autism or ADHD can benefit academically from the use of educational technology and/or software. (Hetzroni & Tannous, 2004 & Houghton et al., 2004) Technology can offer a variety of support and access to learning, but it is important to first train educators on how best to implement it. When teachers are not familiar with technology, they may feel unprepared to implement it. Research (Hohlfeld, T.N., Ritzhaupt A.D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K., 2008) has found that insecurities arise when teachers do not have the support, such as specialized personnel familiar with the hard/software, to resolve issues . This training should be considered for not only special education instructors but also general education teachers because of the current culture of general inclusion of disabled students. (Larson et al., 2019).

It is a legal requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that federally-funded programs ensure equal access, treatment, and services, and this includes making technology accessible, like websites and online coursework (McKeown & McKeown, 2019). It is up to the institution to decide who is responsible for making the material accessible to each student; sometimes the instructor of a course has to convert their lessons into accessible ones, and sometimes a design team working with the institution can do it through the use of captions, text labels, video transcripts, enlarged pictures, etc. (McKeown & McKeown, 2019). It is important to choose the program wisely and make sure it best fits the needs of the particular learner. For example,(Shaw and Lewis, 2005) showed that students with ADHD can benefit from technology but only so long as it is not over-stimulating and therefore distracting . Houghton et al. (2004), as well as McClanahan et. al (2017) agree that engaged learners are likely to be more successful learners. There is room for improvement in access to class materials through technology for students with learning differences and our continued efforts to explore and understand each students’ needs will continue to create student success.

Boone, R., & Higgins, K. (2007). The role of instructional design in assistive technology research and development. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 135-140.

Bosseler, A., & Massaro, D. (2003). Development and evaluation of a computer-animated tutor for vocabulary and language learning in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(6), 653-672.

Golden, D. C. (2002). Instructional software accessibility: A status report. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(1), 57-60.

Goldstone, L., Thurlow, M. L., Liu, K. K., & Lazarus, S. S. (2018). Educators’ thoughts on making decisions about accessibility for all students. National Center on Educational Outcomes, 1-89.

Hetzroni, O. E., & Banin, I. (2017). The effect of educational software, video modelling and group discussion on social-skill acquisition among students with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30, 757-773.

Hetzroni, O., & Tannous, E. (2004). Effects of a computer-based intervention program on the communicative functions of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 95-113.

Houghton, S., Milner, N., West, J., Douglas, G., Lawrence, V., Whiting, K., Tannock, R., & Durkin, K. (2004). Motor control and sequencing of boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during computer game play. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 21–34.

Hohlfeld, T.N., Ritzhaupt A.D., Barron, A. E., & Kemker, K. (2008) Examining the digital divide in K-12 public schools: Four-year trends for supporting ICT literacy in Florida. Computers & Education 51, 1648-1663.

Ke, F., & Abras, T. (2013). Games for engaged learning of middle school children with special learning needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 225-242.

Larson, E. D., Goldstone, L., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2019). Student demonstrations of their use of accessibility features and accommodations. National Center on Educational Outcomes.

McCarthy, J. H., Schwarz, I., & Ashworth, M. (2017). The availability and accessibility of basic concept vocabulary in AAC software: A preliminary study. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 33(3), 131–138.

McClanahan, B., Williams K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends 56(3) 20-28.

McKeown, C., McKeown, J. (2019). Accessibility in online courses: Understanding the deaf learner. TechTrends, 63, 506–513.

Ormrod, J. E. (2014). Educational psychology: Developing learners (8th edition). Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson.

Pitchford, N. J., Kamchedzera, E., Hubber, P. J., & Chigeda, A. L. (2018). Interactive apps promote learning of basic mathematics in children with special educational needs and disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1-14.

Polya, A., & Retova, J., (2012). The accessibility of e-learning systems for disabled. Studia Comercialia Bratislavensia, (5)17, 124-130.

Saturno, C. E., Ramirez, A. R. G., Conte, M. J., Farhat, M., & Piucco, E. C. (2015). An augmentative and alternative communication tool for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(6), 632–645.

Shaw, R., & Lewis, V. (2005). The impact of computer-mediated and traditional academic task presentation on the performance and behaviour of children with ADHD. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 5, 47–54.

Wade, E., Boon, R. T., & Spencer, V. G. (2010). Use of Kidspiration software to enhance the reading comprehension of story grammar components for elementary-age students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 8(2), 31-41.

Whalen, C., Moss, D., Ilan, A. B., Vaupel, M., Fielding, P., Macdonald, K., Cernich, S., & Symon, J. (2010). Efficacy of teachtown: Basics computer-assisted intervention for the intensive comprehensive autism program in Los Angeles Unified School District. Autism, 14(3), 179-197.

• https://online.alvernia.edu/articles/5-assistive-technology-tools-that-are-making-a-difference/

• https://www.additudemag.com/change-the-program/

• https://www.c8sciences.com/why-brain-training-software-is-the-future-of-adhd-education/

• https://www.naset.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Autism_Series/Assist_tech/AssistiveTech_for_Students_W_Autism.pdf

• https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=515793&p=3526329

• https://www.readingrockets.org/article/assistive-technology-kids-learning-disabilities-overview

• https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/03/using-assistive-technology-empower-students-disabilities-perfcon

• https://www.classcraft.com/blog/features/ways-to-incorporate-assistive-technology-into-the-classroom/

• https://www.teachthought.com/technology/15-assistive-technology-tools-resources-for-students-with-disabilities/

• https://www.iser.com/special-needs-software.html

• https://www.readingrockets.org/article/assistive-technology-kids-learning-disabilities-overview