E-inclusion: Learning Difficulties and Digital Technologies

REPORT 15:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Chris Abbott, Kings College, London

Too often, discussions of the role of digitaltechnologies for learning skate over thewide variety of differences which existbetween different groups of learners. Often, ‘the learner’ is presented as a single,unitary figure defined solely by age; as‘children’, ‘teenagers’, ‘adults’ etc. And yet,there are clearly wide differences in theways in which different groups of childrenrespond to, benefit from, or are excluded by specific uses of digital technologies.

This review focuses specifically on the useof digital technologies to enable childrenwith learning difficulties to learn effectively.Its goal is to move beyond some of the hypeand marketing rhetoric that sometimescharacterises this field and to ask nuancedquestions about the evidence that exists ofthe role of digital technologies in this area.

The review moves away from a dominantmedical model of learning difficulties and,instead, asks us to pay detailed attention tolearning contexts. As such, it foregroundsthe learning practices and communitiesthat might be enabled with digitaltechnologies to create rich and empoweringlearning environments for children withlearning difficulties. It offers a newtaxonomy of the use of digital technologiesin this field, providing a historical and

philosophical overview of three keyapproaches to using technology either 1) to train or rehearse; 2) to assist learning;or 3) to enable learning. It concludes byoffering a set of challenges to industry andeducators to create more collaborative,holistic and inclusive learning communitiesthrough digital technologies.

We look forward to hearing your views onthis review and to receiving your commentsvia email (research@futurelab.org.uk) or our website.

Keri FacerResearch DirectorFuturelab

1

CONTENTS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SECTION 1INTRODUCTION 4

SECTION 2CURRENT AND HISTORICALUNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES 9

SECTION 3A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION 13

SECTION 4FUTURE DIRECTIONS,OPPORTUNITIES ANDCHALLENGES 22

GLOSSARY 26

REFERENCES 27

E-inclusion: Learning Difficulties and Digital Technologies

REPORT 15:

FUTURELAB SERIES

Chris Abbott, Kings College, London

FOREWORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Any examination of the education of all young people, including those whostruggle to learn, must first consider the words to be used. The adoption ofterms such as learning difficulties withineducation is not merely an example ofchanging fashions of terminology; it is anindication of a developing understanding of the extent to which these difficulties areproduced by the context in which learnersare placed. Learning difficulties has theadded advantage of being a term seen asacceptable by many of those to which ithas been applied. E-inclusion is the termused here to describe the use of digitaltechnologies to minimise or even removethose learning difficulties.

One major driver of the change ofunderstanding in this area has been thewidespread adoption of the social model of inclusion, rather than using the medicalmodel which sees learning difficulties asbiologically determined. Within the socialmodel, learning difficulties are seen to becreated by the context in which learningtakes place.

Writing about e-inclusion will always carry the risk of a slide into technologicaldeterminism. The aim throughout thisreport has been to recognise that the focusshould be not just on the pedagogicalapproach but also the context andconditions in which learning takes place.Most importantly, that focus will not be onthe technologies themselves, innovativethough they may be.

There is little longitudinal, large-scaleresearch into e-inclusion, such as the five-year study in the USA which showedchanging patterns of technology use by

students with autism (Mirenda, Wilk andCarson 2000). The vast majority of theresearch that does exist is small-scale and related to particular products. Only themost expensive and potentially profitableaspects of digital technology for learningdifficulties, such as Integrated LearningSystems, have been the focus of majorresearch. Too often, such research hasbeen damaged by the extent of theinvolvement of resource providers withpecuniary interest.

Our developing understanding of thenegative effects of labelling, and of theeffects of pathologising learners, has led to new challenges for producers ofdigital technologies aimed at assisting with e-inclusion. The mutually beneficialrelationship between producers andspecial schools of the past has beenreplaced by the need for much greaterawareness of e-inclusion among schoolsin general and across a wide range ofresource providers.

Approaches to using digital technologiesfor e-inclusion are presented in this reportunder three categories:

• using technology to train or rehearse

• using technology to assist learning

• using technology to enable learning.

By considering these categories, it ispossible to recognise the limitations of drill and practice software and thepotential of socially collaborative use ofdigital technologies. Although computershave been used to some effect to assistlearners to practise skills, it is only whenthey have been employed to enablelearning that the full potential of e-inclusion has begun to be revealed.

2

within the socialmodel, learning

difficulties areseen to becreated by

the context inwhich learning

takes place

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Developments in the 1980s that attemptedto make use of socially constructedlearning around computers were oftenmisunderstood or misrepresented.Expensive and profitable developmentssuch as Integrated Learning Systems orelectronic whiteboards have beenpresented as harbingers of change, in an unholy alliance between technologicaldeterminism and politically dogmaticinterference.

More recently, truly collaborative uses ofdigital technologies have often been linkedto access, through the internet, to othergroups of learners. This development,together with innovative technologicaladvances, is leading to a second wave of e-inclusion which is collaborative ratherthan individually supportive, holistic ratherthan skills-based and inclusive rather thanseparatist. E-inclusion has come of age.

3

REPORT 15E-INCLUSION: LEARNING DIFFICULTIES AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES

CHRIS ABBOTT, KINGS COLLEGE, LONDON

4

SECTION 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE REVIEW

This paper is concerned with reviewingresearch into the use of digital technologiesby people with learning difficulties ineducational settings. It deals specificallywith that group of people who have beenidentified as having learning difficulties orcognitive impairment. It does not deal withthe needs of those who may have sensoryimpairment, related to sight or hearing,and neither does it attempt to cover specificareas such as language impairment. It is learning difficulties, however, which isthe most commonly encountered need in the average classroom.

The aim of this paper is to provide a reviewof the research literature (where it exists)and to map out fruitful and productiveways forward for those concerned with the policy, practice and design of digitaltechnologies for use by teachers, parentsand learners with learning difficulties ineducation. The paper is intended for a wideaudience of readers, from specialists inthe areas of learning difficulties or digitaltechnologies to those only just entering the field. As such, concepts and terms,which may be taken for granted by some,are explained in order to ensure that allreaders are able to explore the arguments.

This introduction begins with a definition of the key terms to be used in the review,and a discussion of the limitations andstrengths of the research in this field.Section 2 maps the wider context ofcurrent and historical understandings oflearning difficulties, and explains why thesocial model of learning difficulties is usedas a framework for this review. Section 3provides an account of the different

paradigms of technology use in this field,identifying three key types of use: the useof technologies to train or rehearse; theuse of technologies to assist learning; andthe use of technologies to enable learning.Section 4 takes an overview of theresearch and identifies potential routesforward for developers, policy makers,researchers and practitioners.

1.2 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS

This literature review deals with theintersection between three complexconcepts: e-inclusion, learning difficultiesand digital technologies.

A focus on digital technologies bettersummarises the range of tools now in useby young people than would the use of aterm such as ICT. Digital technologies maybe hardware-based (such as computers,mobile phones, players of downloadableaudio or games consoles); or they may besoftware-based (as is the case with webapplications, social networking spaces,computer games or chat sites). In the caseof this review the term also encompassestechnologies such as virtual reality,Integrated Learning Systems andmultimedia. The term digital technologiesis used to emphasise the wide range oftools and resources that young peoplemight access both inside and outside the school.

It is relatively straightforward to definedigital technologies then; but a term suchas learning difficulties raises much morecomplex issues. Many semantic strategieshave been adopted to describe thosepeople who do not seem to learn asquickly or as easily as many of their peers,but the terms in use have often come to be

INTRODUCTION

seen as indicative of a phase ofunderstanding. As our awareness of thecomplexity of this issue develops, so doesour reluctance to accept previousterminology. Descriptive terms such ashandicapped or educationally subnormal,not seen as in any way judgemental orinappropriate in the 1970s, have nowbecome totally unacceptable. This review isalso written at a time of major shift in theway in which differences in learning areunderstood, with a term such as SpecialEducational Needs (SEN), once universallyaccepted, now seen by some as a productof an outdated medical model, of whichmore below. As an example of this trend,the term SEN has been superseded inScotland since 2004 by the use of ASN –Alternative Support Needs – a wider termwhich also covers areas such as languagesupport. This move has met somecriticism within Scotland by those who seesuch changes as part of a trend by whichdisability seems to progressively disappear(MacKay 2002), and in such a way that theneeds of those described as disabled areno longer fully met.

Learning difficulties and learningdisabilities, however, are terms widelyused at present within adult as well asyoung learner circles. The terms aresometimes, but not always, usedinterchangeably. Ofsted, for example, nowuses the term Learning Difficulties andDisabilities (LDD). However, many adultswho have been described in this way haveasked that the term learning difficulties beused in preference to learning disabilities,and for this reason it has been adopted inthis publication. It is not clear why thispreference has developed, but it seemsappropriate to follow the wishes of thepeople who will be labelled in this way,even if the reasons for their choice of

descriptor are not clear. The term learningdifficulties also acknowledges that suchdifficulties may be temporary or transitory;a person may have learning difficulties inone context but not in another, or at onestage of their life but not at a later one.

E-inclusion can be understood within thecontext of a wider set of debates aroundsocial inclusion and social justice.

Social inclusion is a basic principle ofhuman rights and is closely linked toconcepts of social justice. When inclusionwas first discussed within educationalsettings, it was largely as a result of theefforts of the disability rights movement,with an initial link in particular to theneeds of those with physical disabilities. It is for this reason that inclusion oftencame to be seen as being linked to puttingramps at building entrances and installinglifts, so that wheelchair users could accessupper floors. More recently, manycommentators have begun to talk ofinclusion in a much wider sense to coverwhat is sometimes described as socialinclusion: inclusion regardless of gender,race, age, sexuality, disability or class.

Social justice in education is a contestedand complex area (Barry 2005), but twoattempts to summarise the area,published by the same author but eightyears apart, give an overview of thedeveloping concepts (Gewirtz 1998, 2006).In her recent paper, Gewirtz argues thatsocial justice cannot be reduced to a singleaccount or set of measures, but isintimately tied up with practice:

"…judgement about what counts as justicein education cannot be divorced fromjudgements about what is possible.Because in the real world principles do not

5

e-inclusion canbe understoodwithin thecontext ofdebates aroundsocial inclusionand social justice

translate precisely into practice, just aspractices only ever meet with partialdegrees of success… any model of justicemust face the challenge of reducing theinequities of distribution, recognition andassociation which oppress and marginalizegroups represented by people such asMartin." (Gewirtz 2006, p79-80)

Throughout the 1980s, a major movementtowards integration in educationdeveloped. This was aimed at theintegration of young people then identifiedas having special educational needs andwas later overtaken by the social model of inclusion. Integration and inclusion aresometimes seen as two words for thesame concept but they are actually quitedistinctive. Integration was the process by which schools and other institutionsmade small changes in order to enableparticular learners to share a lesson or a subject, or get access to a building.Inclusion is a much more fundamentalconcept by which the needs of potentialusers with learning difficulties areconsidered at an earlier stage and learningenvironments are set up to be inclusive,whether or not the need for such changesappears to be present.

E-inclusion is a much more recent termwhich is often used to refer to the use ofdigital technologies to break down barriersof gender, race, age, sexuality or class.Within research circles, e-inclusion haslinks with developments in the disabilitystudies movement, and the emphasis to be found there on issues such as culture,agency and identity (Riddell and Watson2003; Shakespeare 1994). At the sametime, e-inclusion is also used to refer todebates surrounding the emergence ofdigital divides (see Selwyn and Facer 2007)through inequalities in access to and use

of digital technologies for social, leisureand citizenship purposes. The digital divideis an issue for many countries, with China,soon to become the home for the mostnumerous national group of internet users,among those countries now recognisingthese concerns (Guo, Bricout and Huang2004). In almost every case, people withlearning difficulties are the wrong side ofthat divide.

The term e-inclusion in this review relatesto the use of digital technologies to enableinclusive learning practices for people withlearning difficulties. Although someadvertisers may refer to ‘e-inclusionequipment’ or ‘e-inclusion software’, it is much more appropriate to talk aboute-inclusion practices, a term whichemphasises the interaction between digitaltools, contexts and people, and focusesattention on the activity of the use of digitaltechnologies by or with people withlearning difficulties. It is this widerunderstanding of the interaction betweendigital technologies, contexts and peoplewhich is now often, and more accurately,described as e-inclusion.

1.3 COMMENTS ON THE RESEARCH FIELD

There is little longitudinal, large-scaleresearch into e-inclusion, such as the five-year study in the USA which showedchanging patterns of technology use bystudents with autism (Mirenda et al 2000).The vast majority of the research that does exist is small-scale and related to particular products. Only the mostexpensive and potentially profitableaspects of digital technology for learningdifficulties, such as Integrated LearningSystems, have been the focus of major

6

there is littlelongitudinal,large-scale

research into e-inclusion

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

research. Too often, such research hasbeen damaged by the extent of theinvolvement of resource providers withpecuniary interest.

Research into the education of childrenwith learning difficulties tends to beconcentrated around particular topics such as dyslexia (Payne and Turner 1999;Singleton 1994), perhaps because theseare the areas for which research fundingcan most easily be obtained. There is astrong emphasis in much of the literatureon teachers as researchers (Rose andGrosvenor 2001), and whilst this is to bewelcomed, it is also relatively inexpensiveto fund compared to large-scale fully-funded research by experiencedpractitioners whose results will beacceptable to peer-reviewed academicjournals.

There is little published, peer-reviewedresearch related to the use of digitaltechnologies to assist those with learningdifficulties to learn more effectively andefficiently, although the use of informationtechnology to manage information aboutsuch learners has featured (Carr,McGuiness, Oatey and Holder 1992). Thereis a growing body of anecdotal evidence,much of it lively, well-written and worthy of study, but the amount of substantial or longitudinal research remainsdisappointing. Even research with titlessuggesting a wide-ranging discussion of a topic can once again be seen to beevaluation in a different guise. A recentpaper in a key European journal forexample (Fasting and Lyster 2005) had thetitle ‘The effects of computer technology in assisting the development of literacy inyoung struggling readers and spellers’ andyet even the briefest of readings of thepaper shows it to be an evaluation of the

use of a particular software product. In a similar vein, US-based research intocomputer-based texts (Twyman and Tindal2006) is often marked by cultural norms tothe extent that, in this example, the valueof the textbook is a given and thediscussion in the paper relates to theextent to which the computer-based textcan play a textbook-like role.

Too often, the research can be accused ofa technologically determinist perspectivewhich takes insufficient account of thesocial and cultural contexts which supportthe technology use. As such, much of theresearch into aspects of disability andtechnology has been related to theevaluation of particular hardware orsoftware, rather than looking at thepedagogical context in which technology is used. Examples of this include anexamination of the benefits of a particularproprietary switch (Cole and Swinth 2004)or research into the benefits of one brandof reading pen rather than this technologyin general (Higgins and Raskind 2005).Even when the focus appears to becommunities of practice, the research may be into one particular model ofcollaborative learning (Zorfass and Rivero2005). One of the risks inherent in thisapproach is that there may be otherfactors at play – including changingteacher roles – and any perceivedimprovement could be as a result of othercausal agents rather than the technologyunder consideration.

A fairly recent Becta leaflet (Becta 2003)summarised research into what itdescribed then as ICT supporting SEN and inclusion; this document contains 16citations, and only six of these are frompeer-reviewed academic journals. One ofthe key findings from research, according

7

too often, theresearch can beaccused of atechnologicallydeterministperspective

to this publication, is that ICT can enablegreater autonomy for learners; and thereis also emphasis on unlocking hiddenpotential, a trope to be met in otheremancipatory or revelatory writings on ICT.An unpublished research report for Bectaproduced more recently (Hick et al 2005)dealt with the topic in more detail but alsocovered the inclusion of older people, anddealt with other difficulties as well asthose related to learning. This wide-ranging review found that there was moreresearch focused on learners with SENrather than on those who may be at risk of exclusion for other reasons; however, in a refrain that will become familiar, theauthors noted that much of the researchconsisted of small-scale studies andcurriculum development publications.

The inclusion team at Becta have beenvery influential in the development ofunderstandings related to ICT andinclusion. They have done this throughconference input, by writing sections formany of the books referred to in this reportand sometimes by members of the teamproducing influential publications(McKeown 2000). In her short book,McKeown’s text forms a link betweenearlier technologically-determined studiesand later work based on whole-school andinclusive approaches. Although structuredin a traditional way, with much referenceto key software titles, the textualcommentary recognises the limitations of some technologies and the vitalimportance of appropriate pedagogicalapproaches. Similarly, key texts of recentyears have focused much more onteacherly practices – pedagogies – than on case studies of specific technologies inuse. This is not to say that there is no rolefor case studies and their use can be a wayof ensuring that an edited compilation

carries credibility in addition to assertion(Abbott 2002c). For example, one editorhas sought to place those teacherlypractices within developing theoreticalframeworks by placing the experiences of the British Museum web team as theyseek to include all learners (Howitt andMattes 2002) and the daily practices ofinnovative teachers and advisers (Paveley2002; Ware 2002), alongside statements of policy and developing theoreticalframeworks (Abbott 2002a; Phelan 2002;Stevens and Waller 2002).

People who are labelled as having learningdifficulties have themselves begun tocontribute to the literature on the topic.This growing body of literature features for the first time the voices of people withlearning difficulties (Armstrong 2003;Atkinson, Jackson and Walmsley 1997) and it is to be hoped that future suchpublications will also discuss the authors’use of ICT, which is our current focus. The process of "tempering official and‘objective’ accounts of the past with thememories and experiences of the people"involved (Atkinson et al 1997, p2) is bothvital and enlightening. The increasinginvolvement of people with learningdifficulties in technology companies is another way of combating their"disempowerment and… the denial of their voice in decisions relating to theirlives" (Armstrong 2003, p124). Thisemerging possibility also extends to theparents of young people with learningdifficulties; although inter-agency workingis still rare, it is occasionally the case thatwork with parent partnerships has led toparental involvement in research, as wasthe case with an overview of AssistiveTechnology completed in the US (Jeffs,Behrmann and Bannan-Ritland 2006).

8

people who arelabelled as

having learningdifficulties have

themselvesbegun to

contribute to theliterature on the

topic

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

1.4 SUMMARY

Before engaging with the evidencegenerated by this research, therefore, one of the key findings of this review is theneed for a more mature and establishedfield of research in the area of digitaltechnologies and learning difficulties, one in which research is connected with a wider theoretical understanding oflearning in social contexts and with digitaltechnologies, rather than constrained tothe evaluation of the efficacy (or otherwise)of particular tools, and one which is itselfmore inclusive of the accounts of thosewho are themselves labelled as havinglearning difficulties.

2 CURRENT AND HISTORICALUNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNINGDIFFICULTIES

The history of learning difficulties is acomplex one (Brigham, Atkinson, Jackson,Rolph and Walmsley 2000) and includesdeveloping and changing understandingsand terminology (Thomas and Vaughan2004) which themselves impinge on andoften shape our understanding of howdigital technologies may play a role inlearning.

Until relatively recent times, an inability to learn or a marked slowness in learninghas been seen, in one way or another, as adefect internal to the learner so described.This has often been reflected in theterminology used. It seems unbelievable to us now that the use of terms such asimbecile ("incapable of managingthemselves or their affairs"), feeble-minded ("require care, supervision andcontrol for their own protection") and idiot("deeply defective in mind from birth")were seen as the outcome of enlightenedlegislation in the late 19th century (GreatBritain 1886). Similarly, and much morerecently, terms such as maladjusted,educationally subnormal and crippled wereoften thought to be neutral by teachersentering the profession in the 1970s.

These terms were given quasi-scientificcredibility by being linked to IQ test scoreswhich were an accepted construct at thetime as an accurate and immutablemeasure of potential. Indeed, until the1970s, allocation to a special school was a direct outcome of the result of an IQ test;the test score decided if a pupil waseducationally subnormal (and the degreeof this subnormality), or, presumably,‘normal’. These categories of pupils were

9

SECTION 2

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

10

then put into different schools where theywould be taught alongside others withsimilar IQ test results.

While no longer reliant upon the outcomesof IQ tests, the pathologising (Billington2000) – or labelling - of learners withspecial educational needs was a feature of the original version of the 1994 SpecialEducational Needs Code of Practice (DFE1994). This Code of Practice enshrined inlaw key categories of need which werebecoming accepted at the time, includinggradations to measure levels of need, suchas moderate learning difficulties (MLD) asopposed to severe learning difficulties (SLD).

Recently, however, we have seen a far-reaching change in the understanding of people who are not learning effectively.This has been characterised by a moveaway from the medical model of learningdifficulties ("this child has learningdifficulties") to the social model ("thisclassroom/school is set up in such a waythat it is difficult for all children to learn")and a focus on the teacherly practice thatcan bring this about (Abbott 2001).

A growing awareness of the ways in whichlearning is socially situated (Wenger 2000)has led to an understanding that learningdifficulties can be created or fostered by inadequate teaching, inappropriatepedagogy or insufficient resources. This social model of inclusion recognisesthat learning can only take place if theappropriate context has been created.Deficiencies are no longer seen as solelylocated in the individual learner nor, as inprevious uses of now-disputed conceptssuch as IQ, are they understood as fixedand immutable.

This change in understanding is reflectedin the very different categories in the

current SEN Code of Practice (DfEE 2000)and in more recent legislation (DfES 2004).In these documents, much more attentionis paid to the context in which learningtakes place, and the extent to which thiscan support or minimise learningopportunities.

The most recent 2000 SEN Code ofPractice rejects the seven categories ofneed found in the 1994 version in favour of four broad areas which can besummarised as interaction, cognition,social and sensory. This is a partialrecognition of the social model ofinclusion, and this process continues inthe most recent substantive statementfrom the DfES; its very title (‘RemovingBarriers to Achievement’) indicative of this change:

"Inclusion is about much more than the types of school children attend: it isabout the quality of their experience; howthey are helped to learn, achieve andparticipate fully in the life of the school.(DfES 2004, p25)

This history of language, understandingand terminology has been reflected in (and has influenced) the debates over therelative merits of withdrawal or supportwhen attempting to improve the learningopportunities of all pupils, together withthe linked issue of separate or inclusiveschooling. The development of separatespecial schools, from their beginnings inthe late 19th century to their heyday in the 1970s, led to a culture of specialeducation, namely, special provision forthose deemed to be different. In 1994,UNESCO persuaded most countries to signwhat has become known as the SalamancaDeclaration; an intention to move, asquickly as possible, towards unifiededucation for all (UNESCO 1994).

SECTION 2

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

this social modelof inclusion

recognises thatlearning can only

take place if theappropriate

context has beencreated

Movement since then has been halting andminimal in all but a handful of countries,although a recent UN Convention on theRights of People with Disabilities(December 2006) has now been adoptedand is awaiting signature (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/index.html).

In the UK, a key theoretical contribution to this process was the report of the 1978committee chaired by Warnock (DES 1978).It was the Warnock Report that broughtthe term special educational need intocommon currency, together with theperception that this term could be appliedto around 20% of the school population at some point during their education.Following the Warnock Report, movementtowards inclusion was slow. In the UK,numbers of special schools began todecline during the 1980s and 1990s. Thisprocess came to a halt by the turn of thecentury, mostly as a result of "the conflictsbetween ‘inclusive’ education, the leaguetabling of schools and the testing andexamination culture" (Rogers 2007, p56).At a time when schools can be closed andheadteachers induced to resign as a resultof a drop in test results, it is hardlysurprising that many schools are reluctantto welcome pupils who find learningdifficult. In 2005, it was once againWarnock who authored one of the keytheoretical statements arguing for aretention of special schools in the verydifferent climate of the last few years(Warnock 2005) and this was followed by a collection of articles arguing to varyingextents for the necessity of some level of separate schooling (Cigman 2007).

The debate around separate as opposed to inclusive schools is also linked to thegrowth of medically-oriented categories of learning difficulty such as dyslexia

(sometimes known as specific learningdifficulty), Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder (ADHD) and Asperger’ssyndrome. These perceived conditions,sometimes treated by drug therapy as can be the case with ADHD, have led to a culture of expectation of specialisttreatment by trained individuals, a processwhich itself sometimes leads to educationthrough withdrawal if not separateschooling.

This approach is challenged by somecommentators. Billington, an educationalpsychologist, for example, promotes "less oppressive ways of seeing children"(Billington 2000, p116), anduncompromisingly argues for an end to categorisation of all kinds. There are,moreover, others who suggest thatlabelling and categorisation is not just a linguistic process. Ainscow, for example,argues that the provision of learningassistants may be creating division(Ainscow, 2000) which promptsconsideration of whether the same couldalso be true of designated technology useattached to one individual. Billington andothers (eg Rogers 2007) identifycategorisation, ranking and league tablesas actively acting against progress towardsinclusion. Such perspectives, however,have been slow to leach down topractitioner books and advice given toteachers (Wilson 2000), although whole-school approaches are now more common(Cowne 2003; Tilstone and Layton 2004;Westwood 2003).

This uncompromising social model,particularly where it relates to disability,has, however, attracted some criticism:

"[In the social model] Disabilities have tobe social constructions only – barriers

11

created by society’s inability to takeaccount of people it perceives as havingimpairments. By contrast, impairments are biological characteristics of the body or mind… I worry about this return tomind-body dualism… [which has worked]…to the disadvantage of people with severeintellectual and communicative disabilities.(MacKay 2002, p161)

However, arguably what MacKay is actuallycriticising in this paper is not the socialmodel of inclusion, but inadequate anduninformed responses to it that haveemerged in particular politicalcircumstances.

It has also been suggested, often from an educational psychology perspective(Farrell 2004), that a laudable desire toavoid labelling (and the production of self-fulfilling prophecies that this canengender) may lead to deficiencies inidentification and assessment. Thelanguage of debate differs too; wheresocial scientists talk of the social model of inclusion, psychologists like Farrell will be concerned with whether specialeducational needs are biologically orsocially determined.

2.1 SUMMARY

While still subject to significant debate, the shift to a social model of inclusionmust be seen as an important corrective to a medical model which predeterminedmany young people to lack of achievementin education, and which assigned that lack of achievement to children’s own deficitsrather than a failure of the educationalenvironments to support them to learn.How we balance medical and socialaccounts of learning difficulties is likely

to remain a ‘live’ topic of debate for sometime to come, as it is in wider debates inthe social sciences and studies ofchildhood more generally (see, forexample, Prout 2005).

Notwithstanding this, the shift inperspective to engage with a social modelof learning difficulties encourages anengagement with improving anddiversifying the contexts (social, materialand cultural) in which all children can beenabled to learn. As has been suggested(Daniels 2000), the challenge is to gobeyond the rhetoric and achieve realchange. As such, the social model isparticularly relevant to our consideration of how digital technologies might be usedto enable e-inclusion.

12

SECTION 2

CURRENT AND HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

3 A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

E-inclusion – the use of digital technologyto assist those who find learning difficult –is an under-theorised area which hasdeveloped piecemeal over the last 30years. In order to attempt to create astructure within which to investigate theresearch to date and in order to keep theneeds of people with learning difficulties inmind, this section of the review proposesthree broad categories of e-inclusion.

The first category is the use of technologyto train or rehearse. Much use oftechnology in the 1980s and early 1990sfits into this category, as does far toomuch later and current use as well.Although such technology has its place,that place should be in the backgroundand only when needed; too often thistechnology has taken centre stage. Thistype of e-inclusion is often associated witha behaviourist model of learning.

A second category of e-inclusion involvesthe use of technology to assist learning.This brings to mind the term assistivetechnology, but use of this term isproblematic since it is differently defined in various contexts. As used in this paper,technology that assists is usually linked tothe need to compensate for a physicaldisability or difficulty. For example,someone who is unable to speak may beable to take part in a discussion by using a speaking device. This device is thereforeassisting the learning to take place but isnot a catalyst for the learning itself. Theuse of technologies in this way is alsousually not related to a specific theoreticalmodel of learning; it is an adjunct tolearning rather than the key agencythrough which the learning takes place.

The third category, and one whichdescribes far less classroom practice thanis sometimes claimed, is the use oftechnology to enable learning, where theuse of technology makes learning possiblewhere it was not possible before. In thiscase, the technology may be mobilised inan active role in the learning process:perhaps by asking questions, interveningin an activity or presenting interactivescenarios or simulations. This mightinvolve the use of technologies to facilitatethe creation of collaborations andcommunities where learners worktogether, an approach more oftenassociated with social-constructivistmodels of learning, and engaging morespecifically with learning in social contextsand learning through collaboration andinteraction with other people. Cruciallyhowever, the significant difference betweenthis categories and the other two is that itis only through the use of technology,albeit in a collaborative or supportivecontext, that particular learning can takeplace. The use of technology transformsrather than modifies the learning context.

It is worth pointing out that theunderstanding of e-inclusion identified inthese three categories is linked to a seriesof phases which have tended to followtheoretical developments in the field oflearning, and learning with digitaltechnologies, after a considerable interval.Indeed, much educational software thathas been developed in the last 20 yearshas seemed to belong to an earlier era of thinking about theories of learning. In general, e-inclusion in Western Europehas been more closely linked to a growingunderstanding of constructivist learningthan have been some of the mass-marketsolutions produced in North America, aswill be shown below.

13

SECTION 3

A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

The remainder of this section talksthrough these different approaches to theuse of technology for e-inclusion.

3.1 USING TECHNOLOGY TO TRAIN OR REHEARSE

There is a long history of the use oftechnology within educational settings tohelp those who are struggling. Those oldenough to remember teaching in the|1960s and 1970s may also remember arange of devices based on audio recordingtechnology. These ranged from a flash card reader which enabled a single word to be read aloud, to the audio page wherean A4 sheet could carry images or text onone side whilst the reverse was used tostore magnetically a few sentences. These devices were developed for twomain reasons: the availability of improvedmagnetic storage of audio and theperceived relationship between phonicsand reading. In most schools, thesedevices were seen as specialist tools to be used by expert teachers, usually linkedto what was called the RemedialDepartment, and not available to otherclassroom teachers.

The major use of technology to train andrehearse has been through drill andpractice software, and this still has asignificant presence in the marketplacealthough a declining one in mosteducational institutions. It is hardlysurprising that drill and practice softwarehas had far greater impact in the specialeducational needs sector than elsewherein education. With the medical model inthe ascendant, the 1980s and early 1990swere the heyday of such software.

Similarly, the expectation at that time was that special schools needed specialsoftware. As an example of this, when allLondon schools were provided with packsof software by their local authority, thesepacks were produced in three differentversions: primary, secondary and special.There was even a special word processingprogram, quite different from the industrystandard programs now in use, anddesigned to be used solely by those whofound writing difficult. It used word banksand other support but pre-dated the moreuseful tools such as text to speech andsymbol support that were to follow 1.

The drill and practice phase of e-inclusionreached its summit in the UK in the early1990s with the rise of Integrated LearningSystems (ILS). There are differentdefinitions of ILS but in most cases theterm is taken to mean a set of learningactivities, often related to literacy andnumeracy, and offered together with adiagnostic tool. Students take the tests set by the system and are then offeredindividually-tailored activities to meet theirperceived needs. The systems are usuallymuch more expensive than other softwarebut they contain many hours of activitiesand complex reporting and tracking toolsto inform teachers. Whilst advocates of ILSpoint to them being ‘teacher-proof’, a termused in the US advertising for a marketleader but not when the same product was sold in the UK, critics of this way ofworking are concerned by the apparentsidelining of the teacher.

ILS products were developed over morethan 25 years, predominantly in NorthAmerica, and were brought to the UK aftera government delegation visited the USA

14

there is a long history

of the use oftechnology within

educationalsettings to help

those who arestruggling

SECTION 3

A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

1 It is interesting to note in passing that the only program included in all three packs, a text rebuilding program based on socially collaborative learning, is the only one still available today, albeit in an enhanced form.

and elsewhere and saw them in use (NCET 1993, 1994a, 1994b). A series ofgovernment reports indicated the limits to what could be expected from theseproducts, but the supposed, although often unproven, link between their use and improved test scores, much promotedin some tabloid newspapers, ensured their survival at least for a few years (T Detheridge 1994). Later governmentreports were much less positive andsuggested diminishing returns over time,and researchers began to express gravedoubts about their efficacy (Underwood1994; White 1992). When these werefollowed by the results of independentresearch rather than that funded bymanufacturers with vested interests, oftenby the same researchers who had beeninvolved in the funded research, it becameclear that ILS was not the panacea it wasonce claimed to be (Becker 1992a, 1992b;Maddux and Willis 1992).

Surprisingly, the topic was still consideredworthy of a chapter (Hedley 2004) in arecent publication focusing on ICT as a toolfor inclusion (Florian and Hegarty 2004). Inhis chapter, Hedley considers ILS not justas a learning tool but as a mechanism forraising self-esteem. Hedley acknowledgesthat there is no evidence that ILS increasesachievement, and his own perspective as a teacher in an ILS-using school is avaluable one. His anecdotal evidence of the diminishing effect over time and, insome cases, regression of that effect, is mirrored in much of the literature.Hedley’s discussion of self-esteem raisessome important issues, although it couldbe argued that self-esteem can be raisedin other ways. His conclusion is that an ILScan "form a central part of a school’sspecial educational needs provision but itshould always be just that, part of a widerset of resources" (Hedley 2004, p77).

Perhaps the final word on ILS should come from Lewis’s closely-argued paperexamining the UK evaluation whichrecognises the impossibility of separatingthose learning outcomes linked to ILSfrom those related to, or produced by,other aspects of pedagogy (Lewis 1999).

Rather more surprising than the 1980senthusiasm for drill and practice softwareis the realisation that such software stillhas a firm hold in the special educationalneeds market even after it has lost most ofits credibility within the mainstream. Thismight seem surprising in view of the muchgreater understanding now current amongteachers regarding the value of differentkinds of software. However, it is importantto note that much drill and practicesoftware is sold not just in educationalcatalogues but in high street outlets, withparents and supplementary schools asadditional purchasers.

ILS does not constitute the only approachto using technology for training andrehearsing, however. One focus has beenthe use of the spoken voice to prompt,rehearse or remind. Speech synthesis has been a focus of interest from the mid-1980s (Roston 1992), and it is striking tonote the extent to which speech generatedby a computer has improved today. Thishas enabled the production of programswith vastly-improved speech in so far asclarity is concerned, but this has notalways been accompanied by an equivalentimprovement in efficacy of learning.

Another focus since the 1980s has beenvirtual reality (VR) and multimedia (Brown 1993; Cromby, Standen and Brown1996; Mechling, Gast and Langone 2002). A number of teams investigated the extentto which VR could enable people withlearning difficulties to interact more

15

effectively with a computer simulation, orto use computer-based media to preparefor real-life activities. These types of mediahave also sometimes been used becausethe topic in question – such as sexeducation - was not suitable for real-lifeexperience (Lee, McGee and Ungar 2001)in the classroom. A frequent criticism ofsome of these developments has been thesuggestion that a more effective learningexperience could be offered through areal-life visit to a venue rather than a VR one.

The full potential of virtual reality for e-inclusion remains unrealised, althoughrecent work with people with autism hasshowed some benefits for developingimaginative play following the use of VRscenarios (Herrera, Jordan and Vera 2006).The researchers set up shop andclassroom scenarios and found thatstudents with autism began to play moreimaginatively after using these.

3.2 USING TECHNOLOGY TO ASSIST LEARNING

Although the focus of this review is thoselearners who find learning difficult, manyof the e-inclusion solutions discussed hereare also shared with, or similar to, thoseadopted by people characterised in otherways. People who use Alternative andAugmentative Communication (AAC) wereamongst the earliest users of e-inclusiondevices, often in the form of technologiesallowing them to participate in discussion,make their views and wishes known and tobecome literate. AAC users often do nothave learning difficulties but may makedifferent use of the same technologies thatare used by people with LDD. ProfessorStephen Hawking, for example, is perhapsthe most high-profile AAC user in the UK,

but he would certainly not be labelled ashaving learning difficulties.

One area of overlap between some AACusers and people with learning difficultiesis the use of graphic symbols forcommunication and literacy. Althoughsymbol use pre-dates digital technologiesand has a long history, it is only throughsymbol software and symbol-enhancedcommunication devices that this practicehas become so widely disseminated. As recorded in a series of publications(Abbott 2000; Abbott, Detheridge andDetheridge 2006; M Detheridge andDetheridge 1997, 2002), digitally-basedsymbol use has developed from simpleword-picture correspondence to a set of much more complex practices andcapabilities. A more recent publication(Abbott et al 2006) reflects upon theprogress made with symbol use throughthe availability of desk-top publishingprogrammes, word processors and webbrowsers which make use of graphicsymbols, and notes the widening of thegroups making use of them. Symbol usehas been widely discussed within the AACliterature, a well-researched field whichsupports a peer-reviewed internationaljournal. AAC-based research, however,understandably focuses on communicationneeds rather than digital technology use,but those charged with supporting peoplewith learning difficulties would do well tobe aware of this body of research.

Another overlap is with the field known as Assistive Technology (AT), as has beenacknowledged above. In the past, this termhas often been used to describe the use ofe-inclusion following an accident, illnessor loss of movement. In this sense, it hassometimes been bracketed withrehabilitation engineering. More recently,Assistive Technology has become a more

16

the full potentialof virtual realityfor e-inclusion

remainsunrealised

SECTION 3

A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

general and widely used term, and thismay continue in the future. AssistiveTechnology has been defined as "thesoftware and technology which helpspeople with disabilities and special needsto overcome the additional barriers theyface in communication and learning"(Becta 2003, p3). This is a very widedefinition but can be contrasted with theeven wider one adopted by the Foundationfor Assistive Technology (FAST): "anyproduct or service designed to provideindependence for disabled and olderpeople" (www.fastuk.org). AbilityNet, a UK charity working in this area, defines AT as technologies that improve"opportunities and independence forstudents with SEN, leading to realinclusion" (www.abilitynet.org.uk/education).HumanITy (www.humanity.org.uk) isanother UK-based organisation that hasworked for ten years in the broad area ofe-inclusion but with a particular focus on,and background in, broadcasting.

Switch access is well established, althoughstill under-researched, with much of theliterature dealing with switch use ineveryday life rather than specifically forlearning (Lancioni et al 2002). Switches areusually simple round buttons that can bepressed or levers than can be operated bymovement of the head or other body part.Clicking the switch has the same effect asmoving the mouse, clicking a mousebutton or selecting a letter on thekeyboard; as a result, switch control of a computer can be very time-consuming,but for some users it is the only route torelatively independent control. Innovativesoftware can enable switch users todevelop surprisingly rapid text output;Dasher (www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher), for example, uses prediction,colour and movement to enable writers

to output up to 39 words per minute with asingle switch or up to 29 words per minutewith eyetracking.

Since the 1990s, the focus has been on the gradual reduction of the wide range of software and the rapid development of extra features in some key programs. In some cases, this may be the samesoftware that is used in mainstreamsettings but with added facilities, as withthe addition of speech to a standard wordprocessor. Some manufacturers producedmodified versions of standard officeapplications, with some features omittedor hidden. Interestingly, some of the bestsoftware intended for the specialeducational needs market is now also tobe found in many mainstream schools.This is particularly the case with two of the market leaders: a suite of symbol-supported programs (the Widgit Literacyprograms from Widgit) and a series ofprograms making use of on-screenselection grids (the Clicker programs from Crick)2. These were all originallydeveloped for particular learningdifficulties situations, but they havemigrated into the mainstream settingswhere they are now to be found. Boththese companies have worked withresearchers for many years to understanduser needs and to mediate betweenteachers and developers, rather than using those researchers to evaluatepossible links between software use and educational attainment.

Within wider European circles, a particulardrive within the European Union relates toe-accessibility and the propagation oftechnology solutions within the EU as partof the i2010 initiative. A recently publishedcollection (Roe 2007) summarised some ofthe key developments, but the majority of

17

2 www.widgit.com, www.cricksoft.com

these were related to aspects of sensoryimpairment or electronic communications.A few contributors did consider learningdifficulties however, and it is interesting tonote that some technologies developed toassist those with sensory impairment maybe repurposed for other disabilities.Handheld devices that help blind people toknow where they are, for example, are nowbeing used in pilot research to assistpeople with learning difficulties inGothenburg, Sweden, to become moreindependent when away from home(Lindstrom 2007).

By the present day, one of the mostmarked changes in digital technologies forpeople for assisting learning has been thatthere are no longer strong barriersbetween products aimed at this supposedgroup and those aimed at the mainstream.It is now far more likely that young peoplewith learning difficulties will be usingstandard software or hardware but withextra facilities built in. This could be in theform of an alternative keyboard or mouse,a restricted set of options or a new supportfacility not normally to be found on amenu. One example of this is the filterdeveloped in Spain that removes tremoreffects on the mouse cursor, a source ofdifficulty to some users (Rocon, Mirandaand Pons 2006).

Much of the current emphasis is on theuse of generally available tools in wayswhich make them accessible to all users,or which pair devices together to createnew synergies. An example of this is theuse of handheld text-reading pens toenable people with learning difficulties touse the web more easily (Harrysson, ASvensk and Johansson 2005) or the use of ambient and other mobile technologies(Hasselbring 2001; Woerden 2006).Hasselbring (2001) looked forward to a

future where the use of handhelds – whathe termed ubiquitous computing, althoughthat term has many definitions – wouldbecome second nature for people withlearning difficulties. Tinker (2001) sharedthe emphasis on mobile computing butfocused more on the applications thatcould be developed specifically for thistarget group (Tinker 2001). This focus onmobile technology is part of a wider trendwhich also includes, for example,publications which suggest that thecomputer itself can be seen as a tool forinclusion (Brodin and Lindstrand 2004),both in the school and, perhaps even moreimportantly, in the home (Lindstrand 2002).Access to mobile technology is seen bythese writers as an equity issue, with theassistance provided by the technology seennot as an add-on but a basic human right.

One of the most recent publications tofocus in particular on the use of ICT bychildren designated as having specialneeds (Florian and Hegarty 2004) makes a convincing case for its use as a tool forinclusion. For the most part, the chapterauthors in this publication focus onassistive technology and the use of ICT forassessment and early identification, butone chapter looks at the use of virtualenvironments by pupils with learningdifficulties (Standen and Brown 2004). Intheir aim to offer control by the learnersand active learning throughout, theauthors show their recognition of theneeds of all learners.

The key current perspective in much of the literature is the role of technology inassisting students with learning difficultiesas they are increasingly included inmainstream education. This leads to adebate around the provision of appropriatetechnology, technology which tends to befound at present in special rather than

18

there are nolonger strong

barriers betweenproducts aimed

at this supposedgroup and those

aimed at themainstream

SECTION 3

A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

mainstream schools. In the past, the UKhas funded technology from educationbudgets and placed it with local authoritiesor agencies supporting schools, who thenloan it to individuals. This is in contrast tothe system in many European countries,particularly in the Nordic region, wheretechnology that is necessary is fundedfrom health budgets and becomes theproperty of individuals. The UK Cap Project(cap.becta.org.uk) ran from 2002 to 2006.For the first time in the UK, this projectallocated technology to individuals. Despitethe official evaluation and users havingindicated the success of this approach(Wright et al 2006), the funding has nowceased and there is no indication to date of a follow-on project or indeed any way of maintaining and updating equipmentissued by CAP 3. Plans are developing,however, for assisting people with learningdifficulties to use the internet through theDfES Cybrarian Project (www.dfes.gov.uk/ciogroup/myguide.shtml), although this isonly at pilot stage.

3.3 USING TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE LEARNING

Arguably, the previous two approaches to e-inclusion could be said to haveprioritised technology over learning. Andindeed, this has been one of the majorrisks in theorising the role of digitaltechnologies in e-inclusion debates ineducation – that the focus moves awayfrom what we understand to be the mosteffective means of teaching and learningwith digital technologies, towards anunhelpful view of technology as ‘in itself’offering the ‘solution’ to learningdifficulties.

This third category, ‘using technology to enable learning’, takes a differentperspective. It argues that whiletechnologies are tools for learning andenablers of learning, it is only learnerswho learn; and learning happens in a rich social and cultural context in whichteachers, more expert others and peersplay an important role. This category offers at once a more complex and moremodest view of the role of technology in e-inclusion and locates it within anunderstanding of distributed cognitionwhich focuses on the interaction betweenperson, technology and environment.

This is not a new understanding and suchreservations can be found throughout theliterature, although such voices have notalways been heard. Consider, for example,McKeown’s realistic and positivediscussion of the potential of the use oftechnology by people with dyslexia:

"Technology will not provide all theanswers to the problems of specificlearning difficulties but it can be effectivein reducing the number of hurdles thatchildren have to cross at any one time."(McKeown 1992, p100)

While Hegarty (1991) remains importantfor its focus on the future, and its earlyrecognition of such trends, Hawkridge andVincent (1992) put forward a more cohesiveand closely reasoned argument for the useof computers by people with learningdifficulties, which recognised the limits oftechnological determinism in this field:

"Computers can ease learning difficulties.They can help learners to overcome theirdifficulties. They cannot work magic. They

19

learning happensin a rich socialand culturalcontext in whichteachers, moreexpert othersand peers playan important role

3 On a related matter, it has been suggested that ICT can enable special schools to become resource centres (Abbott and Cribb 2001; Abbott and Galloway 2003), but this aspect of ICT use for inclusion is outside the remit of this publication.

are not necessarily the best solution.Because each learner’s needs are slightlydifferent, there are few standard rules."(Hawkridge and Vincent 1992, p21)

In the concluding section of their book theauthors look forward by considering "theusers of the technology, their teachers andthe support required to make effectiveuse" (Hawkridge and Vincent 1992, p220).This recognition of the importance ofpedagogy and training, in addition toresources, has proved to be far-sighted.For example, only last year, those involvedin the recent Communication Aids Projectechoed many others in identifying the needfor appropriate pedagogical practices iftechnology devices are to be of real andlasting benefit (Wright et al 2006).

These perspectives, then, foreground theneed to pay attention to the role ofteachers, and others, in creating theconditions within which digitaltechnologies can be appropriately andeffectively used to support e-inclusivepractices. This is a far cry from the‘teacher-proof’ claims attached to ILS.Similarly distinct from ILS behaviouristmodels has been the adoption ofconstructivist and socio-cultural theoriesof learning within e-inclusion debates.

For example, constructivist theories of learning stimulated truly innovativedevelopments such as Developing Tray (the text rebuilding program) (Stephens1985) and Logo, the innovativeprogramming language developed bySeymour Papert and others at MIT inBoston – both examples of technology thatcan enable learning. These led to a rangeof original and worthwhile subsequentapplications. By the time that Blamires(1999) was published, the use of digital

technologies was frequently seen within aconstructivist framework. Once again, thetitle of the book (‘Enabling Technology…’)was an indication of changingunderstandings. Although the termenabling technology has not proved to belong-lasting, the definition given by theauthor is worthy of mention:

"The creative and sensitive application ofappropriate technology in order to improvethe quality of life of individuals and theirrange of life opportunities." (Blamires1999, p1)

Importantly, the focus of this text hasshifted from a structure based oncategories of difference to one basedaround aspects of socialisation andphysical engagement. Noting theincreasing importance of inclusion, the editor remarks that "the successfuleducational use of technology alsorequires rigorous thought about learning"(Blamires 1999, p113).

Around the same time, other writers whowere to become highly respected voices in the field made the first attempts topropose theoretical frameworks for theuse of ICT by and with people with learningdifficulties. In a tightly argued account ofthe processes involved in communication(T Detheridge 1997), significant barriersare identified. These barriers included thefocus for the most part on directcommunication rather than literacy, thepace of change in symbol use and tools,ethical problems related to establishing a non-symbol-using control group whowould be denied access to literacy, and thechanging focus of research funding. In thesame book, a small-scale study showedclear benefits from involving users in thedesign of symbols. It is disappointing that

20

SECTION 3

A TAXONOMY OF E-INCLUSION

no further researchers appear to havedeveloped this work.

One emerging underpinning understandingwithin the use of technology to enablelearning is the considerable potential thatdigital technologies have to supportcollaborative learning. This is not a newconcept, and the research evidenceregarding such collaborative learning hasa lengthy history. As was suggested morethan ten years ago:

"Socio-cultural theory provides apersuasive framework for thinking aboutteaching and learning… [and] a distinctiveperspective on the relation of technologiesto education." (Crook 1994, pviii)

This potential is being explored by thosebeginning to use the internet for e-inclusion practices. In a paper (Banesand Walter 1997) which predates the bookon a similar topic by the same authors(Banes and Walter 2000), the headteacherand IT coordinator of a special schooldisplay their recognition of the potential ofthe internet only two years after the worldwide web was invented, a recognitionwhich predated that of many of theirmainstream colleagues.

These developments, together withinnovative technological advances, areleading to a second wave of e-inclusionwhich is collaborative rather thanindividualist, holistic rather than skills-based and inclusive rather than separatist.Technology can enable learning but doesso without necessarily taking centre stage;paradoxically, it may be the most subtleand background uses of technology thatare the most transformational. E-inclusionhas come of age.

3.4 SUMMARY

Our aim should always be to ensure thatappropriate technology is available for allat the point of need to enable and enhancelearning in the most powerful wayspossible. In two linked publications (Nind,Rix, Sheehy and Simmons 2003; Nind,Sheehy and Simmons 2003), Nind and herco-authors discuss in depth a range ofperspectives on inclusive education andthe learning contexts in which it can takeplace. They address ICT specifically in onlyone chapter, but there are telling ICT-related moments in some of the otheraccounts included. The reader is struck,for example, by the comment in an extractfrom the unpublished autobiography of aperson with learning difficulties:

"Using a computer led me… to begin livingon my own without always needing mymother around." (Chappell 2003, p31)

The use of technology to enable learneragency and independence; the use oftechnology to enable access to powerfullearning experiences whether throughcollaboration, construction or rehearsaland training; the use of technology tocomplement and respond to the rich socialsettings in which learners find themselves- these are some of the opportunities thatopen themselves up now for exploration inthe field of e-inclusion. This review offers a view of the role of digital technologies ine-inclusion practices that is at once muchricher and more modest than that whichhas sometimes preceded it. In many ways,it seems we are now beginning to learn thelessons from earlier studies and are in aposition to take the whole area forwardsignificantly.

21

our aim shouldalways be toensure thatappropriatetechnology isavailable for allat the point ofneed to enableand enhancelearning in themost powerfulways possible

4 FUTURE DIRECTIONS,OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

4.1 FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDAS

Issues of agency, identity, power andculture, familiar topics in disability studiesscholarship, are almost invisible in theemerging and sometimes simplisticresearch literature on inclusion in theeducational system. This is partly becauseof the direction of funding towards short-term practitioner research, but is also areflection of the disjunction too often to befound between teachers and researchers.Teacher-researchers working towardsinclusion are often less familiar with thewritings of Riddell and others than theyare with the SEN Code of Practice and theworkings of SEN tribunals. By the sameaccount, researchers often publish in whatcould be seen as a special needs ghettowhich will of necessity limit the audience,rather than in volumes aimed at the wholeof education, although some have beenaware of this and have attempted to writemore widely (Abbott 2002b; Snyder 2002).

Self-advocacy is perhaps the topic that willbring these divergent groups together, andusers of symbols and their supporters arealready beginning to coalesce around thissubject. The self-advocacy movement hasgrown as a result of the efforts of disabledpeople who have consistently challengedthe assumptions made about them. Toooften, although not surprisingly, theirchallenges to the school system havecome only many years after they have leftit. Their experiences of schooling haveoften been stories of institutionalisation,resulting in low self-esteem and loss ofidentity (Goodley 2003; Soto 1997). The callfor others to "embrace and theorise

resilience whilst challenging analyses that may actually recreate victims ofdisablement" (Goodley 2003, p128) mayhave been written about adults describedas disabled, but could be an equally validcall to teacher researchers.

Researching the effectiveness oftechnology to support learning by thosedefined as having special educationalneeds is essentially no different fromresearching the needs of all otherlearners. The demons of technologicaldeterminism and cyberbole loom just aslarge, and the trapdoors for the unwaryreader open just as wide. At the sametime, the process of reviewing theliterature in this field leads to a clearunderstanding that there has too oftenbeen a time lag between the theorisationof learning with digital technologies ingeneral and that in the field of e-inclusion.This has, at least to some extent, limitedthe richness of discussion in the field. Asthe debates on mainstream or separateeducation have raged in the field oflearning difficulties, so we may need toexplore the potential of ‘mainstreaming’theorisation of e-inclusion in order toensure that it draws on the rich researchstrands in learning with ICT in evidence,for example, in emergent programmes ofwork such as the ESRC/EPSRC TechnologyEnhanced Learning call.

Moreover, frameworks such as thatdeveloped by Fisher, Loveless et al (2006)also offer a rich basis to begin to theorisethe role of digital technologies in creatinginclusive learning environments byidentifying four clusters of affordances:knowledge building, distributed cognition,community and communication, andengagement. All of these should be viewedas goals for learning experiences for all

22

issues of agency,identity, power

and culture arealmost invisiblein the research

literature oninclusion in the

educationalsystem

SECTION 4

FUTURE DIRECTIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

children, and consideration of how toachieve these learning practices shouldnot be denied to children with learningdifficulties. At the same time, frameworkssuch as activity theory and actor networktheory in studies of childhood andtechnology, and technology and learning,may offer fruitful ways of theorising therelationship between social models ofinclusion and digital technologies, and new takes on the debates between socialand medical models of inclusion.

As well as theoretical debates, there aresome pressing empirical questions in theresearch field; knowledge about the extentof e-inclusion activity is lacking, sincemuch of the statistical data that has beencollected relates to numbers of computersrather than modes of use (DfES 2002). We know that there is widespread ICT use within special needs settings, butresearch from Australia suggests that the problem may not be lack of use butunder-use of ICT (Seymour 2005); it isused, but it is not used as effectively or as much as it might be.

If this is the case, and much of theliterature in the review would suggest thatit is, the indication is that the need for thefuture is more training rather than moretechnology, and it is relevant to note thatthe SEN-focused version of the NationalLottery-funded training of all teachers touse ICT met with greater approval thanthat for most other topics. However it is to be achieved, the future for e-inclusionmust revolve around improvedunderstanding on the part of teachers asmuch as on provision of new, enhanced ormore numerous technologies.

4.2 FUTURE POLICY REQUIREMENTS

For a vision of e-inclusion to develop whichis rooted in pedagogy and communities oflearners, rather than in technologicaldeterminism, as is called for in theliterature discussed above, the need is firstfor a documented national understandingof some of the key benefits, affordancesand reservations attached to the informeduse of digital technologies to assist thosewith learning difficulties. Such a pedagogicalstatement would enable developers toprioritise future activities, policy makers toplan for development and, most importantly,teachers to make more selective andeffective use of the technologies at theirdisposal. The production of such acommon understanding could be a keytask for the group set up by Becta andDfES to discuss inclusion within thedevelopment of personalised learning 4.

The next stage in the process is theincorporation of this shared understandinginto initial and continuing teachereducation. This represents particularchallenges for those involved in initialteacher education, where the UK model of a typical one-year post-graduatetraining is at variance with much of therest of the world. However, recent movesto enable parts of that training to beaccredited at Masters level may provide a way forward and a link to continuingprofessional development.

Continuing Professional Development(CPD) is key to developing and enhancingunderstandings of e-inclusion and has notbeen a major priority for schools in recentyears. There are few specific coursescovering e-inclusion and those that doexist may be aimed more at therapists or

23

the need for thefuture is moretraining ratherthan moretechnology

4 schools.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=lv&catcode=ss_lv_lp_03&rid=12939

rehabilitation experts than at teachers, butthis area is changing and Masters coursesin aspects of e-inclusion are beginning toemerge. The focus on e-inclusion whichforms part of the European UnionFramework 7 for research (2007-2013) will also be influential in this area.

What is clear is that the provision ofhardware-driven schemes, such as theattempt over the last few years to put largenumbers of electronic whiteboards into UK schools, is unlikely to lead to lastingchange in e-inclusion practices. Indeed,there are practical challenges for inclusiveschools in that only one of the currentbrands of whiteboard can be lowered toenable wheelchair users to access it. A recent evaluation of interactivewhiteboards commissioned from theInstitute of Education and published by the DfES (Moss et al 2007) showed thatonly a very small minority of teachers had received training in the use of thistechnology with students with learningdifficulties, even where they had receivedtraining in other aspects of its use. Inparticular, the researchers noted the needfor clear pedagogical understanding inorder for meaningful change to take placein classroom practices.

"When use of the technological tools tookprecedence over a clear understanding ofpedagogical purpose, the technology wasnot exploited in a way that would or couldsubstantially enhance subject learning…the focus on interactivity as a technicalprocess can lead to some mundaneactivities being over-valued." (Moss et al2007, p9)

Technology is a permanent part of oureducational lives. Indeed, a recent paperfrom Canada (Ryan 2006) described in

some detail the lives of those young peoplewho may be technologically dependentbecause they are medically fragile, withtd/mf now becoming a recognised term in the country. For the young peoplediscussed in the paper the computer thatenables them to write is as vital – oralmost so – as, for example, the dialysismachine that enables their kidneys tofunction. We are all, to some extent,technologically dependent; how many of us could easily return to writing withoutcomputers and dealing with the limitationsof handwriting and typewriters? Indeed, ithas been suggested that technology – andsocial networking in particular – mightenable some disabled people to establish a presence which would otherwise eludethem (Seymour and Lupton 2004). Thisdevelopment belongs to another aspect of e-inclusion: the use of technology forrecreation and other areas outsidelearning, and as such is outside the remitof this publication; but teachers need to beaware of these uses of technology by theyoung people in their classrooms.

4.3 FUTURE AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT

It has been suggested in this paper that e-inclusion can be seen to encompasstechnology to train or rehearse, technologyto assist learning and technology to enablelearning. If this division is accepted, atleast for the purposes of discussion, thenthere are clear possibilities in each areafor future development.

It seems likely that technology to train or rehearse will remain a feature of theeducational terrain, at least for theforeseeable future. Although it is has been,to date, the least revolutionary or visionary

24

SECTION 4

FUTURE DIRECTIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

use of e-inclusion, drill and practicesoftware programs continue to sell in largevolumes and are defended by those whofind them helpful. The dangers in this areaare real however, and it is important toremain alert so that technology does notbecome the 21st century equivalent of themeaningless ‘busy-book’ found in many a1970s special school classroom. What iscurrently under-researched, and littleunderstood, is the potential for immersivetechnologies to be combined with reflectivespaces and practices to offer newpedagogical models for these approachesto teaching and learning.

Technology to assist learning facesexciting and revolutionary changes in the near future. With non-invasive braincontrol of software nearing achievement(and identified for specific researchfunding by the European Union) it seemslikely that e-inclusion will soon unlockliteracy for those who may currently beimmobile and possibly consideredincapable of communication. Eye-gazesoftware is already at a well-developedstage and will reduce in price considerablyover the years ahead. Put alongside switchand other interfaces, and the associatedsoftware, this will enable almost all peopleto interact with technology in ways that arepossible for them. It is likely that much ofthis development will involve handheldtechnologies such as mobile phones orpersonal digital assistants, or thecombined device which will replace themboth. The 2006 launch of the Wii systemalso raises the potential of motion-sensitive control for e-inclusion. Screendisplay technology continues to developtoo, although much of the real potentialmust await 3D and holographicrepresentation, which might provide newfacilities for those who use e-inclusion

devices but might also represent a newform of division. The danger is thatholographic 3D images will beaccompanied by an interface requiring a complex degree of motor control whichmay be out of reach of some users.

It is in the potential for technology toenable learning that the real, althoughless apparently exciting, developments will take place. If teachers are enabled tounderstand the potential – and limitations– of technology for the promotion ofinclusion, and are given the appropriateresources to put this into practice, we arelikely to see major developments in thisarea. For this to happen, there needs to bea programme of varied, appropriate andwell-resourced training opportunities,experimental and sustained research anddevelopment, and the creation of digitalresources to support both learners andteachers of a high quality.

This may be an apparently expensivetarget, but the alternative – ill-informed orinadequate use of e-inclusion technology –would be far more costly in lostopportunities and wasted resources.

25

it has beensuggested thattechnology mightenable somedisabled peopleto establish apresence whichwould otherwiseelude them

GLOSSARY

AAC Augmentative and AlternativeCommunication – often through the use ofdevices that produce speech by synthesisor from a bank of recorded phrases. Some AAC users may also have learningdifficulties, but many do not

ADHD Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder

ASD Autistic Spectrum Disorder – the term used in preference to the simpledescription ‘autistic’ in order to indicatethe wide range of disorders that may fallunder this heading

Asperger’s syndrome an example of anautistic spectrum disorder that is oftenused to describe those who have particularspecific abilities, as well as difficulties withareas such as social interaction

Communication Aids Project UKgovernment funding for communicationaids which ran from 2002 to 2006

digital technologies a general term usedto describe a wide range of technologies,many of which use computers in someform or another

e-inclusion a relatively new term, widelyused in Europe, and which can cover allaspects of the use of technology to ensurethe inclusion of all members of societyincluded. In this report, the term is used to cover the inclusion of people withlearning difficulties through the use ofdigital technologies

eye-gaze the control of a computer cursoror mouse arrow through eye movementand blinking

ICT Information and CommunicationTechnology

inclusion the process by which aspects of society, such as schools or otherinstitutions, change so that everyone canparticipate in the activities on offer

integration although the term indicates abringing together, integration has come tobe seen within education as inadequatecompared to full inclusion as a target

language support support, usually in theform of a teacher or teaching assistant, fora learner whose first language is not thatin use in the classroom

LDD Learning Difficulties and Disabilities

learning difficulties a wide-ranging term,sometimes deemed acceptable by those to whom it is applied, and indicating adifference of pace or methodology bywhich some people can be helped to learn.Learning difficulties may also be createdby the context in which learning takesplace, so that they can be minimised oreven removed if the context is changed

learning disabilities a difficulty withlearning which is deemed permanent and which cannot be removed, but may be greatly reduced, by a change in thelearning context

medical model the assumption thatspecial educational needs are created by deficiencies or differences that reside in the individual

self-advocacy the provision of tools andsupport for people with learning difficultiesso that they can take more control overtheir own lives

SEN Special Educational Needs

social model the assumption that manypeople are characterised as having specialeducational needs because society hascreated institutions and other settings that

26

GLOSSARY

produce learning difficulties where theyneed not have existed

special education separate education,often in geographically separate or evenremote institutions, for those described as having special educational needs

switch a simple control or set of controlswhich can take the place of mouse andkeyboard and offer a mechanism forcontrol of a computer by hand, head, blow or other bodily movement

symbols in the context of this report, thegraphic symbols (PCS, Widgit Literacy,Makaton, Bliss etc) used by some peoplewith learning difficulties to increase theiraccess to communication and literacy

technological determinism theassumption that technology, in and ofitself, is an agent of change in society

REFERENCES

Abbott, C (2001). Special educationalneeds: Becoming more inclusive. In J Dillon and M Maguire (eds), Becoming aTeacher: Issues in Secondary Teaching(2nd ed) (pp192-202). Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press

Abbott, C (2002a). Moving forward. In C Abbott (ed), SEN and the Internet: Issuesfor the Inclusive Classroom (pp164-168).London: RoutledgeFalmer

Abbott, C (2002b). Writing the visual: theuse of graphic symbols in onscreen texts.In I Snyder (ed), Silicon Literacies:Communication, Innovation and Educationin the Electronic Age (pp31-46). London:Routledge

Abbott, C (ed) (2000). Symbols Now.Leamington Spa: Widgit

Abbott, C (ed) (2002c). Special EducationalNeeds and the Internet: Issues in InclusiveEducation. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Abbott, C and Cribb, A (2001). Specialschools, inclusion and the world wide web- the emerging research agenda. BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 32(3),331-342

Abbott, C, Detheridge, T and Detheridge, C(2006). Symbols, Literacy and SocialJustice. Leamington: Widgit

Abbott, C and Galloway, J (2003). ICT: an aid to inclusion? Reflections of thepotential of ICT for the changing nature ofthe special school. In T v Weert and RMunro (eds), Informatics and the DigitalSociety: Social, Ethical and CognitiveIssues (pp189-196). Boston: KluwerAcademic Publishers

27

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M (2000). Reaching out to all learners: some opportunities andchallenges. In H Daniels (ed), SpecialEducation Re-formed: Beyond Rhetoric(pp101-122). London: Falmer Press

Armstrong, D (2003). Experiences ofSpecial Education: Re-evaluating Policyand Practice Through Life Stories. London:RoutledgeFalmer

Atkinson, D, Jackson, M and Walmsley, J(eds) (1997). Forgotten Lives: Exploring the History of Learning Disability.Kidderminster: BILD

Banes, D and Walter, R (1997). Theinternet: a new frontier for pupils withsevere learning difficulties? British Journalof Special Education, 24(1), 27-30

Banes, D and Walter, R (2000). Internet forAll. London: David Fulton Publishers

Becker, HJ (1992a). Computer-basedIntegrated Learning Systems in theelementary and middle grades: a criticalreview and synthesis of evaluation reports.Journal of Educational ComputingResearch, 8(1), 1-41

Becker, HJ (1992b). A model for improvingthe performance of learning systems.Educational Technology (September 1992),6-15

Becta (2003). What the Research SaysAbout ICT Supporting Special EducationalNeeds (SEN) and Inclusion. Coventry:Becta

Billington, T (2000). Separating, Losingand Excluding Children: Narratives ofDifference. London: RoutledgeFalmer

Blamires, M (ed) (1999). EnablingTechnology for Inclusion. London: PaulChapman Publishing

Brigham, L, Atkinson, D, Jackson, M,Rolph, S and Walmsley, J (eds) (2000).Crossing Boundaries: Change andContinuity in the History of LearningDisability. Kidderminster: BILD

Brodin, J and Lindstrand, P (2004). Arecomputers the solution to supportdevelopment in children in need of specialsupport? Technology and Disability, 16(3),137-145

Brown, D (1993). Microcomputer software:virtual reality, virtually unlimited. BritishJournal of Special Education, 20(1), 12

Carr, J, McGuiness, S, Oatey, J andHolder, A (1992). Individual programmesusing IT. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 19(1), 35-38

Chappell, M (2003). Weaving a tale. In M Nind, J Rix, K Sheehy and K Simmons(eds), Inclusive Education: DiversePerspectives (pp. 23-31). London: DavidFulton Publishers

Cigman, R (ed) (2007). Included orExcluded? The Challenge of theMainstream for Some SEN Children.Abingdon: Routledge

Cole, J and Swinth, Y (2004). Comparisonof the touchfree switch to a physicalswitch, children's abilities andpreferences: a pilot study. Journal ofSpecial Education Technology, 19(2)

Cowne, E (2003). The SENCO Handbook:Working within a Whole-School Approach(4th ed). London: David Fulton Publishers

Cromby, J, Standen, P and Brown, D(1996). The potentials of virtualenvironments in the education and trainingof people with learning disabilities. Journalof Intellectual Disability Research, 40(6),489-501

28

REFERENCES

Crook, C (1994). Computers and theCollaborative Experience of Learning.London: Routledge

Daniels, H (ed) (2000). Special EducationRe-formed: Beyond Rhetoric? London:Falmer Press

DES (1978). Special Educational Needs:Report of the Committee of Enquiry intothe Education of Handicapped Childrenand Young People. London: HMSO

Detheridge, M and Detheridge, T (1997).Literacy Through Symbols: ImprovingAccess for Children and Adults. London:David Fulton Publishers

Detheridge, M and Detheridge, T (2002).Literacy Through Symbols: ImprovingAccess for Children and Adults (2nd ed).London: David Fulton Publishers

Detheridge, T (1997). Bridging thecommunication gap (for pupils withprofound and multiple learning difficulties).British Journal of Special Education, 24(1),21-26

Detheridge, T (ed) (1994). IntegratedLearning Systems: A Report of the PilotEvaluation of ILS in the UK. Coventry: NCET

DFE (1994). Code of Practice on theIdentification and Assessment of SpecialEducational Needs. London: DES

DfEE (2000). SEN Code of Practice on theIdentification and Assessment of Pupilswith Special Educational Needs. London: DfEE

DfES (2002). Survey of Information andCommunications Technology in Schools2002. London: DfES

DfES (2004). Removing Barriers toAchievement: The Government's Strategyfor SEN. London

Farrell, M (2004). Inclusion at theCrossroads: Special Education - Concepts

and Values. London: David FultonPublishers

Fasting, R and Lyster, S-AH (2005). Theeffects of computer technology in assistingthe development of literacy in youngstruggling readers and spellers. EuropeanJournal of Special Needs Education, 20(1),21-40

Florian, L and Hegarty, J (eds) (2004). ICTand Special Educational Needs: A Tool forInclusion. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress

Gewirtz, S (1998). Conceptualizing socialjustice in education: mapping the territory.Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469-484

Gewirtz, S (2006). Towards acontextualised analysis of social justice ineducation. Educational Philosophy andTheory, 38(1), 69-81

Goodley, D (2003). Against a politics ofvictimisation: disability culture and self-advocates with learning difficulties. In SRiddell and N Watson (eds), Disability,Culture and Identity (pp105-130). Harlow:Pearson Education

Great Britain (1886). Classification ofDefectives under the Mental Deficiency,Lunacy, Idiots and Education Acts. London

Guo, B, Bricout, J and Huang, J (2004). Acommon open space or a digital divide? Asocial model perspective on the onlinedisability community in China. Disabilty &Society, 20(1), 49-66

Harrysson, B, A Svensk and Johansson, G(2005). ACCeL system: a new way ofcontrolling computers using pen andpaper: some user experiences. Technologyand Disability, 17(1), 33-36

Hasselbring, T (2001). A possible future ofspecial education technology. Journal ofSpecial Education Technology, 16(4)

29

Hawkridge, D and Vincent, T (1992).Learning Difficulties and Computers:Access to the Curriculum. London: JessicaKingsley Publishers

Hedley, I (2004). Integrated learningsystems: effects on learning and self-esteem. In L Florian and J Hegarty (eds),ICT and Special Educational Needs: A Toolfor Inclusion (pp64-79). Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press

Herrera, G, Jordan, R and Vera, L (2006).Abstract concept and imagination teachingthrough Virtual Reality in people withAutism Spectrum Disorders. Technologyand Disability, 18, 173-180

Hick, P, Ainscow, M, Dyson, A,Kalambouka, A, Izzidien, S, Francis, Aet al (2005). Inclusive Learning with ICT.Coventry: University of Manchester

Higgins, E and Raskind, M (2005). The compensatory effectiveness of theQuicktionary Reading Pen II on the readingcomprehension of students with learningdisabilities. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 20(1), 31-40

Howitt, C and Mattes, J (2002). The BritishMuseum COMPASS website and learnerswith special needs. In C Abbott (ed),Special Educational Needs and theInternet: Issues for the InclusiveClassroom (pp174). London:RoutledgeFalmer

Jeffs, T, Behrmann, M and Bannan-Ritland, B (2006). Assistive Technology andliteracy learning: reflections of parents andchildren. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 21(1), 38-44

Lancioni, G, O'Reilly, M, Singh, N, Oliva, D,Piazzolla, G, Pirani, P et al (2002).Evaluating the use of multiplemicroswitches and responses for children

with multiple disabilities. Journal ofIntellectual Disability Research, 46(1), 346-351

Lee, D, McGee, A and Ungar, S (2001).Using multimedia to teach personal safetyto children with severe learning difficulties.British Journal of Special Education, 28(2),65-70

Lewis, A (1999). Integrated LearningSystems and pupils with low attainmentsin reading. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 26(3), 153-157

Lindstrand, P (2002). ICT (Information andCommunication Technology): A naturalpart of life for children with disabilities?Technology and Disability, 14(2), 75-83

Lindstrom, J-I (2007). Safe navigation withwireless technology. In P Roe (ed), Towardsan Inclusive Future (pp9-23). Brussels:COST

MacKay, G (2002). The disappearance ofdisability? Thoughts on a changing culture.British Journal of Special Education, 29(4),159-163

Maddux, CD and Willis, JW (1992).Integrated Learning Systems and theiralternatives: problems and cautions.Educational Technology (September 1992),51-57

McKeown, S (1992). Microcomputersoftware programs for writing andspelling. British Journal of SpecialEducation, 19(3), 100

McKeown, S (2000). Unlocking Potential:How ICT Can Support Children with SpecialEducational Needs. Birmingham: TheQuestions Publishing Company Ltd

Mechling, L, Gast, D and Langone, J(2002). Computer-based video instructionto teach persons with moderate

30

REFERENCES

intellectual disabilities to read groceryaisle signs and locate items. Journal ofSpecial Education, 35(4), 224-240

Mirenda, P, Wilk, D and Carson, P (2000).A retrospective analysis of technology usepatterns of students with autism over afive year period. Journal of SpecialEducation Technology, 15(3)

Moss, G, Jewitt, C, Levacic, R, Armstrong,V, Cardini, A and Castle, F (2007). TheInteractive Whiteboards, Pedagogy andPupil Performance Evaluation. London:DfES

NCET (1993). Seen IT in the USA. Coventry:NCET

NCET (1994a). Seen IT in Australia.Coventry: NCET

NCET (1994b). Seen IT in the UK. Coventry:NCET

Nind, M, Rix, J, Sheehy, K and Simmons, K(eds) (2003). Inclusive Education: DiversePerspectives. London: David FultonPublishers

Nind, M, Sheehy, K and Simmons, K (eds)(2003). Inclusive Education: Learners andLearning Contexts. London: David FultonPublishers

Paveley, S (2002). Inclusion and the web:strategies for improving access. In CAbbott (ed), SEN and the Internet: Issuesfor the Inclusive Classroom (pp44-52).London: RoutledgeFalmer

Payne, T and Turner, E (1999). Dyslexia: A Parents' and Teachers' Guide. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters

Phelan, A (2002). Inclusion through ICT:the wider view. In C Abbott (ed), SEN andthe Internet: Issues for the InclusiveClassroom (pp146-163). London:RoutledgeFalmer

Riddell, S and Watson, N (eds) (2003).Disability, Culture and Identity. Harlow:Pearson Prentice Hall

Rocon, E, Miranda, J and Pons, J (2006).TechFilter: filtering undesired tremorousmovements from PC mouse cursor.Technology and Disability, 18(1), 3-8

Roe, P (ed) (2007). Towards an InclusiveFuture. Brussels: COST

Rogers, C (2007). Experiencing an'inclusive' education: parents and theirchildren with 'special educational needs'.British Journal of Sociology in Education,28(1), 55-68

Rose, R and Grosvenor, I (2001). DoingResearch in Special Education: Ideas intopractice. London: David Fulton Publishers

Roston, A (1992). Microcomputer software:finding a voice on disk. British Journal ofSpecial Education, 19(4), 136

Ryan, T (2006). The technologicallydependent/medically fragile at riskstudent. International Journal of SpecialEducation, 21(3)

Seymour, W (2005). ICTs and disability:Exploring the human dimensions oftechnological engagement. Technology andDisability, 17(4), 195-204

Seymour, W and Lupton, D (2004). Holdingthe line online: exploring wiredrelationships for people with disabilities.Disability & Society, 19(4), June 2004

Shakespeare, T (1994). Culturalrepresentation of disabled people: dustbinsfor disavowal. Disability, Handicap andSociety, 9(3), 283-301

Singleton, C (ed) (1994). Computers andDyslexia: Educational Applications of NewTechnology. Hull: Dyslexia ComputerResource Centre

31

Snyder, I (ed) (2002). Silicon Literacies:Education, Communication and the NewTechnologies. London: Routledge

Soto, D (1997). Diego's Story. London:Vermilion

Standen, P and Brown, D (2004). Usingvirtual environments with pupils withlearning difficulties. In L Florian and JHegarty (eds), ICT and Special EducationalNeeds: A Tool for Inclusion (pp96-108).Maidenhead: Open University Press

Stephens, J (ed) (1985). Devtray TeachingDocuments. London: ILEA

Stevens, C and Waller, T (2002).Supporting SEN teachers: policy andmanagement issues. In C Abbott (ed), SENand the Internet: Issues for the InclusiveClassroom (pp121-134). London:RoutledgeFalmer

Thomas, G and Vaughan, M (eds) (2004).Inclusive Education: Readings andReflections. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress

Tilstone, C and Layton, L (2004). ChildDevelopment and Teaching Pupils withSpecial Educational Needs. London:RoutledgeFalmer

Tinker, R (2001). Future technologies forspecial learners. Journal of SpecialEducation Technology, 16(4)

Twyman, T and Tindal, G (2006). Using acomputer-adapted, conceptually basedhistory text to increase comprehension andproblem-solving skills of students withdisabilities. Journal of Special EducationTechnology, 21(2), 5-16

Underwood, J (ed) (1994). IntegratedLearning Systems in UK Schools. Coventry:NCET

UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statementand Framework for Action on SpecialNeeds Education

Ware, D (2002). Spike the bear and an on-line special school. In C Abbott (ed), SENand the Internet: Issues for the InclusiveClassroom (pp65-72). London:RoutledgeFalmer

Warnock, M (2005). Special EducationalNeeds: A New Look. London: Philosophy ofEducation Society of Great Britain

Wenger, E (2000). Communities ofPractice. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress

Westwood, P (2003). CommonsenseMethods for Children with SpecialEducational Needs. London:RoutledgeFalmer

White, M-A (1992). Are ILSs goodeducation? Educational Technology(September 1992), 49-50

Wilson, J (2000). 'Learning Difficulties','Disability' and 'Special Needs': someproblems of partisan conceptualisation.Disability & Society, 15(5), 817-824

Woerden, K v (2006). Mainstreamdevelopments in ICT: why are theyimportant for Assistive Technology?Technology and Disability, 18(1), 15-18

Wright, J, Newton, C, Clarke, M, Donlan,C, Lister, C and Cherguit, J (2006).Communication aids in the classroom: theviews of education staff and speech andlanguage therapists involved with theCommunication Aids Project. BritishJournal of Special Education, 33(1), 25-32

Zorfass, J and Rivero, H (2005).Collaboration is key: how a community ofpractice promotes technology integration.Journal of Special Education Technology,20(3), 52-67

32

REFERENCES

About the Author

Chris Abbott is a Reader in e-Inclusion in the Department of Education and ProfessionalStudies at King’s College, London

About Futurelab

Futurelab is passionate about transforming the way people learn. Tapping into the hugepotential offered by digital and other technologies, we are developing innovative learningresources and practices that support new approaches to education for the 21st century.

Working in partnership with industry, policy and practice, Futurelab:• incubates new ideas, taking them from the lab to the classroom • offers hard evidence and practical advice to support the design and use of innovative

learning tools • communicates the latest thinking and practice in educational ICT• provides the space for experimentation and the exchange of ideas between the creative,

technology and education sectors.

A not-for-profit organisation, Futurelab is committed to sharing the lessons learnt fromour research and development in order to inform positive change to educational policyand practice.

Futurelab1 Canons RoadHarboursideBristol BS1 5UHUnited Kingdom

tel: +44 (0)117 915 8200fax: +44 (0)117 915 8201e-mail: info@futurelab.org.ukblog: flux.futurelab.org.uk www.futurelab.org.uk

Registered charity 1113051

This publication is available to download from the Futurelab website –www.futurelab.org.uk/litreviews

Also from Futurelab:

Literature Reviews and Research ReportsWritten by leading academics, these publications provide comprehensive surveys ofresearch and practice in a range of different fields.

HandbooksDrawing on Futurelab's in-house R&D programme as well as projects from around theworld, these handbooks offer practical advice and guidance to support the design anddevelopment of new approaches to education.

Opening Education SeriesFocusing on emergent ideas in education and technology, this series of publicationsopens up new areas for debate and discussion.

We encourage the use and circulation of the text content of these publications, which are available to download from the Futurelab website – www.futurelab.org.uk/resources.For full details of our open access policy, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/policies.

Photos on pages 17 and 18 courtesy of Inclusive Technology.

Creative Commons

© Futurelab 2007. All rights reserved; Futurelab has an open access policy which encourages circulation of ourwork, including this report, under certain copyright conditions - however, please ensure that Futurelab isacknowledged. For full details of our Creative Commons licence, go to www.futurelab.org.uk/policies.

Disclaimer

These reviews have been published to present useful and timely information and to stimulate thinking anddebate. It should be recognised that the opinions expressed in this document are personal to the author andshould not be taken to reflect the views of Futurelab. Futurelab does not guarantee the accuracy of theinformation or opinion contained within the review.

FUTURELAB SERIES

REPORT 15

ISBN: 978-0-9548594-5-9 Futurelab © 2007LR15