Technological integration in schools

In most countries, technological integration in schools has become an important part of the education system, particularly now that computer systems and network connectivity are widely accessible. Technology has the ability to affect curriculum planning and policy changes in schools in a constructive way. It is not possible to incorporate technology partially in certain courses or classes; it must be completely incorporated through the curriculum. Technology can be seen as a strategic learning instrument in the curriculum. Essentially, technology is a set of technical instruments and services that are handled digitally, such as computers, intranet, and internet networks; computer-based features such as blog entries, hyperlinks, images, files, and multimedia among others.
The integration of technology in the curriculum allows educators to collect students work and enable them to critically examine their shortcomings and strengths with the aim of making the necessary improvements (Tomei, 2008). Teachers derive a number of benefits through the use of technology that include making a comprehensive assessment of students’ work and examining the data and information on e-portfolios to make the necessary plans towards the improvement of education outcomes for all students. Considering that the aim of technology is to enable students to make an assessment and reflection of their work in order to appreciate the direction of their learning, it is necessary to ensure its integration as a core component of the learning process.

The ideal integration of technology embraces the concepts of metacognition that aid in asserting the need for students to examine their progress and reflect on their learning achievements. Technology contributes towards the development of unique and personalized academic identities that can be used to make comprehensive evaluation and reflection on student performance. These are effective in reflecting on individual student’s progress and capabilities in designated learning subjects and topics (Szostak, 2000; Machnaik, 2000). In addition, technology makes it possible for the development integrated learning environment where students can interact and connect with educators and other learners across different courses and online learning platforms.

The application of Technology extend to the development of self-assessment among students where they can reliably determine the quality of their work using similar criterion as that used by educators or academic experts (Tomei, 2008). Hence, they are strategic tools that aid in enhancing a student’s learning outcomes through ensuring that individual academic pathways are adequately planned. These ensure that students can distinguish between what they already know and can apply in context, and what must be learned.

The development and implementation of technology based curriculum is critical since it provides students with the opportunity to identify the strengths and weakness of in their learned skills while monitoring progress. The examination of pathway outcomes is vital since they allow an educator to assess and quantify a student’s progress and aid in the development of a learning strategy aimed at the realization of individual goals. It is very easy for student to miss certain outcomes that may not be obvious; however, the development of technology based solutions ensures that learning experiences are analyzed to illustrate critical outcomes that if understood can have a significant impact in improving a student’s learning outcomes (Kopp, 2015).

Technology enhances a student’s technical skills that contribute to the development of their ability to express themselves and as a tool to measure individual progress. Essentially, they can be used in different areas and can transition as students move from one class or program to the next. Education should progressively strive to offer innovative ways to enhance learning outcomes (Bates, 2000).

Involvement of All Learners Including Special Needs Students

The integration of technology into the curriculum is critical towards bridging the gaps that exist among various students especially between social needs students and regular students (Kopp, 2015). The inclusion theory is premised on the assimilation of all students irrespective of disabilities into normal education systems and social environments; more so, the inclusion of special needs students in the regular learning environment. The primary objective of inclusion is to ensure students irrespective of the severity or natures of disability are educated in a regular class program or setting. Therefore, technology ensures that education facilities and systems have the necessary tools to deliver education programs equitably to serve the unique needs of all students (Beyersdorfer, 1998). This is critical since it enables disabled students to integrate, associate and socialize with normal children; hence given a chance to learn in a more interactive and stimulating setting. In this regard, students with disabilities are able to access real-world education and exposure that will enable their transition and integration with their respective societies; hence, enable them to function as productive members of society. Therefore, integration of technology in the curriculum ensures that the education system does not discriminate against students with special needs (Pohl et al., 2016; Ko 2015; Wilhelmsen et al., 2015); consequently, it mirrors the real world hence easing their transition into society and work environments in the future.

However, a significant number of education institutions continue to face challenges that inhibit comprehensive integration of special needs students. Consequently, most of them prefer the use of a restrictive learning environment or regular integration. Regular integration adopts a system of integrating students with disabilities on the basis of their skill levels. As such, specials needs education classes are combined with regular education programs or classes. Meanwhile, the least restrictive environment is based on the precept that “special needs students should be integrated into normal education programming as much as possible” while ensuring that they fully meet all the essential physical and learning necessitates (Moreira et al., 2015; Corrigan 2014; Petersen 2016). These can be met through comprehensive adoption of technology across education systems and curriculums.

The enactment of education reform laws and specifically the education for all policy asserts that “the state shall guarantee to provide for an individual with SN equal educational opportunities in all educational institutions. Special needs do not represent an obstacle preventing an individual from applying to or joining any government or private educational institution of any kind” (Russo & Osborne, 2008). While the law makes these provisions, numerous challenges persist in most mainstream schools such as the lack of the necessary infrastructure and technological capacity to accommodate students with specific needs.

These provisions of the law provide for the integration of special needs students in all educational institutions. In order to identify the provisions of services needed for disabled students who are studying in education institutions it is necessary to classify special needs into various categories. This approach does not aim to stigmatize those students but as Gaulin and Dunn (2005) asserted that individuals are not measured on the basis of whether they require special needs, but on their ability to function as an individual with equal education opportunity. Hence, the integration of technology in the curriculum will make it easier for institutions to develop and implement inclusive education programs.

Students with special needs may vary from those presenting physical disabilities to mental and psychosocial challenges. According to Mastropieri and Scruggs (1998) “there are enormous variations in these handicapping conditions, from mild and short- lived, to progressive, incapacitating, and life threatening.” Special needs cases may result from problems or impairments of the functional or structural body systems (e.g. the nervous system, the skeletal system) or a traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries (Baimenova, Bekova and Saule 2015), therefore, the needs of the individuals with special needs can vary from no limitation on basic physical activities to strenuous learning and working activities that may require medical intervention. Special needs can hamper a student’s coordination, mobility and communication such that educational objectives are not realized; however, such a situation can be averted through the development of a comroehensive education ppolicy that demands integration of various technolical systems especially those created to serve the special needs students.

Theoretical Framework for Integration

Research is guided through the application of the social model theory (BRAINHE 2006). The model is premised on promoting equal opportunities and rights for all individuals irrespective of their ability or disability. Hodkinson and Vickerman (2009) observed that disability is a phenomenon imposed on individuals’ impairments through their isolation and exclusion from participating in social matters fully. Students with special needs should not be treated differently in the processes of delivering higher education. It is no longer justified to perceive special needs as a static aspect of an individual, but it should be considered as a dynamic and evolving experience that is influenced by changes in the environment.

According to Hodkinson and Vickerman (2009), “the social model perspective averts the attention” of individuals with special needs from the identification of social barriers that inhibit their full participation in daily and routine activities in society. Therefore, the social model contributes towards the understanding of special needs as the relationship between individual disability and the corresponding environment or social dynamic that they belong. It is necessary to implement comprehensive social and policy changes in the education system to ensure that they integrate the necessary changes to accommodate all students equitably including special needs cases. Research integrates the social model approach to investigate the extent within which society in the context of higher education institutions isolate special needs students and inhibit their full inclusion and participation in education.

Special needs students are equal members of the society and should be treated as such. The higher education system should ensure that it has implemented comprehensive strategies for inclusion and integration of special needs students. Various studies seek to determine the extent within which current education systems have integrated the “education for all” policy and present viable solutions to current challenges. The education system has made significant progress so far (Beyersdorfer, 1998). Thus, the research aims further to promote the development of a conducive and equitable learning environment for all students irrespective of their disabilities. The study recognizes that various factors must be taken into consideration including the change in social culture, development of appropriate infrastructure to support physically disabled students, and an integrative curriculum. The study examines whether current systems, programs, and policies have sufficiently included students with special needs in higher education.

There should be concerted efforts that seek to bring together the efforts of policy makers, teachers, parents, and staff who work together in determining the optimal placement in the least restrictive setting. The extent within which a special needs student is involved in the integration process should be clearly defined in order to assess the impacts of inclusion effectively. It is evident that a significant number of special needs or disabled children have been integrated into the regular classrooms.

Technology integration in the least Restrictive Environment

Various studies have indicated that the assimilation of special needs students into mainstream class environment has positive impacts in their education development and achievements. Consequently, the least restrictive environment is that which allows special needs students to interact comfortably with regular students in the conventional learning environment (Crockett & Kauffman, 2013). The integration can be achieved through adoption of comprehensive technological systems that contribute toward bridging the gaps that exist between regular and special needs students. Special needs students are treated as part of the regular class even if they have access special learning tools and provisions that enhance their experience to become more regular-like. Placing special needs students in regular class setting enhances their experiences as they become “part of the regular education curriculum inclusion” and are considered as part of the regular education system (Crocket & Kauffman, 2013). The least restrictive environment encourages the special need students to enhance their developmental and cognitive skills; hence, they are able to function in normal education settings.

The involvement of parents or caregivers is critical towards the identification of factors that will contribute to the creation of an effective least restrictive environment for the students. Parents or guardians are involved to ensure that the design and delivery of education programs meet individual requirements of the special needs students. Consequently, an “Individualized Education Plan (IEP)” is created to ensure that educators develop and implement lessons that have attainable outcomes for special needs students (Crockett & Kauffman, 2013). Considering parents have a primary role in the creation and implementation of IEP, they can request various changes to ensure that the student is provided with optimal conditions for least restrictive learning (Power-deFur & Orelove, 1997). The least restrictive environment ensures that special needs students are adequately assimilated into the regular education system and are able to interact effortlessly within and outside the school environment. The involvement of parents is geared to ensure that the special needs student gain cognitive and social development towards their growth into productive and self-sufficient individuals.

The dev elopement of inclusive education programs supports the development and growth of special needs students; hence, conform to prevalent views on the impact and significance of least restrictive environment (Crockett & Kauffman, 2013; Guralnick, 1990). The “Education for All handicapped Children Act of 1975” provided that all children must be afforded the opportunity to participate in a normal learning environment through the establishment and implementation of least restrictive environment (Schirmer, Casbon, & Twiss, 1995). The legislation ensures that every child in the United States had the right and opportunity to access education services that support their individual needs as prescribed by the Individualized Learning Plan (Crockett & Kauffman, 2013). This ensures that students are included in education programs and enhances their learning abilities. Particularly, the education programs make the needed accommodations to ensure that special needs students are assisted in realizing their individual and academic potential. The laws supporting the inclusion of students in regular classrooms also prohibited their exclusion or removal from regular learning environments for placement in special needs classes unless it was deemed necessary for the well-being of the student (Schirmer, Casbon & Twiss, 1995).

Prior to the enactment of the law safeguarding the inclusion of special needs students in regular education classrooms, there was the rampant removal of such students from classrooms and schools. Their removal from regular class programs and schools was premised on the fact that it was easier to remove such students than making the necessary adjustments in teaching programs to accommodate them. The enactment of laws supporting the inclusion of special needs students changed the education dynamic and created opportunities for such students to be placed in standardized education programs and admission to normal schools. In addition, the situation can be further improved through integration of technology that augments existing teaching mechanisms and improving learning outcomes for students.

The primary objective of a least restrictive environment is to facilitate the provision of optimal education for special needs students in a setting that focus on development and cognitive growth. It ensures that special needs students are not isolated or treated as different from normal students; hence integration of technology into the curriculum offers them equal footing and a platform for learning at an equal pace while aiding in their growth towards comprehensive social development. Integration of special needs students in regular classes ensures that they learn to become active members of society and are capable of making vital contributions that can enhance their lives and the lives of all members of their community.

Cooperative Teaching as an Instructional Strategy promoting Inclusion of All Learners

One of the strategies that can be used in a curriculum that is integrated with technology is cooperative teaching (Kelly et al., 2000). It involves more than one teacher taking the responsibility of delivering a lesson to some students or all students in class. This is a process that involves the allocation of responsibilities among the teachers for assessment, planning and instruction of students. Essentially, cooperative teaching is the process within which two or more teachers deliver instruction in the same class at the same time to students (Sencibaugh & Sencibaugh, 2016). This approach can be ideal in situations where technology is newly integrated into the education system or an inclusive class environment that has both regular and special needs students who may need assistance in using learning technologies designed for their unique needs.

Models of Cooperative Teaching

Integration if technology in curriculum can be instrumental through cooperative teaching which can be delivered in various models that include;

One teach, one observe: This is a co-teaching model that involves the delivery of instruction by one teacher while the second teacher makes observations as the students are learning. The second teacher makes an assessment of how students have understood the lesson and their academic functioning in the process.

Parallel Teaching: The classroom is divided into two sections where the same instruction is delivered at the same time the teachers. This strategy reduces the teacher to student ratio and makes it possible for the teachers to delivered personalized instructions to students who may be facing challenges in the learning environment.

Alternative Teaching: This model involves one teacher taking some students and delivering instruction that is augmented or different from what the rest of the class is being taught. This approach is often used when there are special needs students in a normal classroom who may need special attention to ensure that the lesson is fully learned.

One Teach, One Assist: This is a situation where one tutor takes a lead position in the delivery of instruction as the second tutor moves around in the classroom assisting students especially special needs students who may be struggling to grasp the instruction.

Station Teaching: This model involves the teachers being actively involved in the delivery of instructions where work stations are set up, and students rotate through the stations where new learning content is taught (Sencibaugh & Sencibaugh, 2016).

The dynamics of co-teaching allow for teachers with different skills or training to work together in the same environment. For instance, in a regular classroom that includes both normal and special needs students, it may not be tenable for regular teachers to deliver instruction effectively. Therefore, cooperative teaching makes it possible for both regular and special educators to work hand in hand to ensure that all students are effectively accommodated. Cooperative teaching ensures that teams are developed towards the delivery of comprehensive and holistic instruction while taking into consideration the individual and educational needs of each student. Cooperative teaching may be designed to achieve long-term or short educational goals. For instance, teams can be created to ensure that a designated unit is delivered or a teaching program delivered in classes that adopt inclusion of special needs students.

Cooperative teaching teams often ensure the prevalence of coordination towards that attainment of common goals that have been “established for the purposes of delivering educational instruction to students with diverse needs” (Lindeman & Magiera, 2014). It is prudent that such teams share a common belief system premised on the need for each member’s unique skills and much-needed expertise. Cooperative teams are required to demonstrate parity where they “engage in the roles of educator and learner, giver and recipient or expert and novice. These strategies create a cohesive learning environment where students are comfortable and ready to learn” (Lindeman & Magiera, 2014).

In view of distributed functions theory, cooperative teaching shifts the workload from a single teacher and allocates it on the various members of the cooperative teaching team. Since the instruction is divided among the team members, it becomes possible to deliver individualized and special instruction to special needs students who are in regular classrooms. The concept of cooperative teaching conforms to the needs of developing a least restrictive environment for special needs students. Since the objective of inclusion is to ensure that all students receive instruction in a normal setting, cooperative teaching facilitates the delivery of standardized education since the workload is divided accordingly. A cooperative teaching model that integrates regular and special education teachers ensure that some students do no lag behind as a result of the teachers’ inability to effectively deliver instruction to both normal and special needs students.

Cooperative teaching involves various processes that include fostering positive interdependence, management of interpersonal skills, face-to-face interaction and encouraging accountability on an individual level. These factors ensure that instruction is designed and delivered towards the attainment of set curriculum goals where the needs of all students are considered and addressed equitably.

Conclusion

The integration of technology within curriculum can have significant impacts in improving the delivery of education to diverse students and particularly special needs students who face numerous challenges in learning. Education should progressively strive to offer innovative ways to enhance learning outcomes. The integration of technology allows new teaching methods and tools to be used in delivering equitable education to all and enabling students to access learning resources, communicate and get feedback from the educators. The integration of technology within the curriculum progressively inspires students to improve performance and eliminate the limitations such as disabilities or being physically present to get feedback from the teacher. More importantly, students can access resources, learning materials, assignments and advice from teachers online irrespective of their current location. Hence, learning can occur beyond the confines of conventional environments.

































References

Baimenova, B., Bekova, Z., and Saule, Z. (2015). Psychological readiness of future educational psychologists for the work with children in the conditions of inclusive education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205, 6th World Conference on Psychology, Counseling and Guidance (WCPCG-2015), 577-583.

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing Technological Change. San Francisco, California:  Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Beyersdorfer, J. M. (1997-98).  Scamper-CR - A Framework to Integrate Technology into the Curriculum. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25, 38 - 40.

BRAINHE. (2006). Best resource for achievement and intervention re neurodiversity in higher education. The Social Model of Disability. Retrieved from: http://www.brainhe.com/TheSocialModelofDisabilityText.html

Brown, C. A. (1998) Presentation Software and the Single Computer. Learning & Leading with Technology, 26, 18- 21.

Corrigan, E. (2014). Person centered planning “in action”: exploring the use of person centered planning in supporting young people’s transition and re-integration to regular education. British Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 268-288.

Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (2013). The Least Restrictive Environment: Its origins and interpretations in special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Downing, I. E. (2008). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

Gaulin, C., and Dunn, J., (2005). Making extra-curricular activities inclusive an accessibility guide for campus programmers. National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS). Carleton University. Retrieved from: http://www.neads.ca/en/about/projects/inclusion/guide/inclusion_reference_guide.pdf

Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Major accomplishments and future directions in early childhood regularing. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 1-17.

Hodkinson, A., and Vickerman, P. (2009). Key issues in special education needs and inclusion. London, UK: Sage publishers.

Kelly, M.G., Thomas, L., Knezek, D., & Bitter, G. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Students Connecting Curriculum and Technology. International Society for Technology in Education.

Lindeman, K. W., & Magiera, K. (2014). A Co-Teaching Model: Committed Professionals, High Expectations, and the Inclusive Classroom. Odyssey: New Directions In Deaf Education, 1540-45.

Machnaik, J. (2000). Don't Try Harder, Just Try Differently. Saskatchewan Association for Computers in Education Bulletin, Spring, 10 & 11.

Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & Mcduffie, K. (2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.

Moreira, P., Bilimória, H., Pedrosa, C., Pires, M., Cepa, M., Mestre, M., Ferreira, M., and Serra, N., (2015). Engagement with School in Students with Special Educational Needs. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 15(3), 361-375.

Petersen, A. (2016). Perspectives of Special Education Teachers on General Education Curriculum Access. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(1), 19-35.

Pohl, S., Südkamp, A., Hardt, K., Carstensen, C., and Weinert, S. (2016). Testing students with special educational needs in large-scale assessments -- Psychometric Properties of Test Scores and Associations with Test Taking Behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 1-14.

Power-deFur, L. A., & Orelove, F. P. (1997). Inclusive education: Practical implementation of the Least Restrictive Environment. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publishers.

Russo, C. J., & Osborne, A. G. (2008). Essential concepts and school-based cases in special education law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Schirmer, B. R., Casbon, J., & Twiss, L. L. (1995). Inclusion of children with disabilities in elementary school classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 49, 66-68.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392- 416.

Sencibaugh, J. M., & Sencibaugh, A. M. (2016). An analysis of cooperative learning approaches for students with learning disabilities. Education, 136(3), 356-364.

Szostak, J. (2000). Integrating Technology - Is Your View in Focus?  Saskatchewan Association for Computers in Education Bulletin, Spring, 8 & 9.

Wilhelmsen, G., Aanstad, M., and Leirvik, E. (2015). Implementing vision research in special needs education. Support for Learning, 30 (2), 134-149.