Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Evaluating Software for Use by Students with
Disabilities to Foster Inclusion in General Education

Professor Kyle Higgins, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
higgins@unlv.nevada.edu

Professor Randall Boone, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
rboone@unlv.nevada.edu

Professor Thomas B. Pierce, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
pierce@unlv.nevada.edu

Technology is obviously an indispensable part of everyday life. As such, it also is a major component of our educational system (Armstrong, Yang-Dori, & Cuneo, 1994; Lovely, 1996; Pastor & Kerns, 1997). Because commercial educational software often forms the nucleus of technology-based instruction in special/general education classrooms, obtaining quality educational software targeted for students with learning disabilities is vital.
Educators and parents rely on experts in commercial business to produce quality educational software for classroom and home use, with the assumption that the software has been designed to meet the unique learning needs of students with learning disabilities. In other words, we believe these commercial products have been properly designed, developed, and evaluated prior to release. Parents and educators assume that the software they purchase has undergone evaluation with students with learning disabilities and that the software will help them achieve desired educational outcomes for students and children.

What We Know About Educational Software

Although many software developers know it is important to consult with educational experts, much software still is developed without consideration of key educational factors that may impact learning (Geisert & Futrell, 1995). In 1986, Ager found that fewer than 20% of the software programs he reviewed were rated as satisfactory by educators after the software was used with students with learning disabilities. Neuman (1991) found that rigorous and systematic study of the interactions of students with learning disabilities and their teachers with commercial software was virtually nonexistent. She also identified problems that occurred when students with learning disabilities interacted with the commercial software. In 1992, Zane and Frazer found that software developers had no data to validate their claims as to the value of their educational software for student learning. Of 34 software producers contacted, only 15 companies responded to their inquiries. Nine sent more documentation literature concerning the software and six admitted that they had no data. Specific to students with learning disabilities, Larsen (1995) found that a theoretical framework was missing in the design of most educational software and in the use of the software with students with learning disabilities. Higgins, Boone, and Williams (1999) replicated the work of Zane and Frazer (1992) and contacted 33 educational software publishers. Eleven of the publishers were willing to provide information as to the development of their software. Five of them admitted that they had not conducted an evaluation of their software prior to publishing it. Six of the publishers were willing to provide information, but not concerning any software evaluation conducted with students with learning disabilities. Twenty-two software publishers were unwilling to provide any information.

With this lack of information from education software publishers concerning the production of their software, educators and parents are basically on their own when selecting commercial educational software for use with students with learning disabilities. Often parents and educators find that software they have purchased is not adaptable, does not teach what it says it teaches, or does not support learning that is occurring in the classroom (Williams, Boone, & Kinglsey, in press). Because of these many concerns and issues, it is unclear to what extent educational software is meeting the needs of parents, teachers, and students today (Forcier, 1999).

For these reasons, parents and educators often must engage in their own evaluation process. In this evaluation, several components must be taken into consideration: (a) the intended use of the software and whether software is appropriate to meet your child’s learning needs, (b) the content of the software and whether or not the software directly supplements what your child is learning in school, (c) the instructional presentation of the software and whether or not the software meets the learning characteristics of your child (e.g., reading level, multiple forms of engagement, multiple representations of the content), (d) ease of use by your child (e.g., can your child read the information, does your child get lost in the software), (e) documentation and support provided, and (f) the technical adequacy of the software (e.g., user inputs). This is not an easy task for parents and teachers who continually are faced with less and less time to do more and more. But more importantly, there is no validated tool with which parents and teachers can confidently evaluate software for their children.

Why Design of a Software Evaluation Tool?

While software development has become less technically difficult, this provides only a potential for higher quality--not a guarantee (Armstrong & Loane, 1994). Just because a piece of software is reliable and easy to use does not necessarily indicate that it is of high educational value or that it meets the learning needs of a child with a learning disability. Many educators agree that while software has become more technically mature and active, it is seriously lacking in educational relevance (Flake, McClintock, & Turner, 1990).
So how do parents and educators cope with the need and desire to utilize and integrate computer-based learning materials into their homes and classrooms while also recognizing the limitations of current software? Software reviews and software evaluations have been around since computers were first introduced into schools. Currently, there are over 20,000 pieces of educational software available with hundreds of new titles being added yearly---with over a thousand available for a single subject area, it is difficult for parents and teachers to sort through to see if one piece of software has been evaluated. And while many journals or education-oriented magazines publish software reviews, there can be problems with the rigor and consistency of the content. Commercial magazines are supported by advertising from the very companies that publish the software under review. This may produce a conflict of interest that creates a hesitancy to view the products under review with a critical eye. Often a software review is an opinion article---it is one person’s view of the software. Typically a reviewer has never used the software with a targeted user group (e.g., students with learning disabilities) or is even familiar with the learning characteristics of the targeted group.
While much has changed in regard to educational software use for students with learning disabilities over the past two decades, the need for evaluation remains unchanged. While technical quality of current software is less troublesome than in the early days of computer use in special education, computerized instruction is not necessarily effective instruction. In reality, parents and teachers continue to be on their own when selecting educational software for children/students with learning disabilities. They are also on their own when determining how to repurpose or adapt software from the general education curriculum. Thus, the development and validation of a software evaluation tool has three areas of potential for parents and educators:

1. Knowledge of the existence of such a tool will provide parents and educators who are currently dissatisfied with educational software with a sense of support and validation; parents and educators who are using educational software without a critical eye may recognize the possibility of limitations in the software and become more discriminate users.

2. Using the evaluation tool is a potential knowledge builder for parents and educators who employ it as part of their decision-making process for selecting instructional materials for their children/students. The evaluation tool will essentially become a tutorial for recognizing appropriate software and will help parents and educators make decisions.

3. With new emphasis on providing students with learning disabilities an increased access to the general education curriculum, quality instructional materials that can be integrated into a general education classroom are very important. Educational technology has long been considered an accepted and effective educational support for students with learning disabilities. Providing a tool for parents that will help match their child to appropriate educational software titles will provide a stable educational platform for increased success within the general education curriculum.

The Development of a Software Evaluation Tool

Our current project, funded by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services is developing and validating a software evaluation tool for parents and educators to use when selecting software for specific populations of students/children (e.g., learning disabilities). The evaluation tool will be usable with software that is commonly used in special education settings including: (a) instructional software (e.g., tutorial, drill and practice, simulations), (b) applications and tools (e.g., word processors, spelling checkers, text-to-speech, and graphics programs), and (c) multimedia and internet-based software (e.g., presentation authoring software, WebQuests).
The development of the software evaluation tool began with an extensive review of the literature to identify characteristics of appropriate software for students with learning disabilities. The goal was to collect as much of the research-based literature as possible that deals with software development for children/youth with learning disabilities at a variety of age levels. This literature has produced a list of research-based characteristics of appropriate software for children/youth with learning disabilities. From this list, a blueprint of the software evaluation tool was created. An expert panel made up of special education professors and researchers reviewed the blueprint and provide input. From this input, the software evaluation tool was revised and sent back out to the expert panel. We are currently in the process of collecting feedback from special and general education teachers as well as from parents on the software evaluation tool. After this feedback is collected, we will validate the software evaluation tool through a variety of statistical analyses. The result of this process will be a valid instrument for parents and educators to use to evaluate educational software. Because of the validation process, parents and teachers can be assured that they are using an instrument that measures what it says it measures. We expect to have the validated tool ready for parents and educators to use in December 2004. At that time, it will be available to parents and teachers free of charge.

Things to Consider When Purchasing Educational Software

Until the software evaluation tool is available, the following dimensions and items provide areas that parents and educators should be aware of when assessing a piece of educational software:

1. The software should consider the characteristics of a child’s learning disability. For example does it communicate relevant features of the task to be completed?

2. The software should provide options for the parent or teacher to select according the type of learning disability of the child. For example, can the reading level of the software be adjusted?

3. The software should provide instructional options that can be tailored to a child’s learning disability. For example, does the software provide adequate prompts for learning and responding?

4. The screen design of the software should take into consideration the learning characteristics of students with learning disabilities. For example, all text on the screen should be double-spaced and include color-cueing.

5. The instructional options built into the software should take into consideration the learning characteristics of students with learning disabilities. For example, the software should have built-in learning guidance for errorless learning and provide for overlearning.

6. The sound included in the software should be relevant and not interfere with learning. The software should include an option to turn off the sound.

7. All feedback included in the software should be consistent, obvious, and overt. A child should not be left wondering if he/she responded correctly.

8. The software should provide the ability to support assistive devices (e.g., text-to-speech).

Even with the lack of information concerning the evaluation of educational software for use with students with learning disabilities, parents and educators continue to use more and more software and, thus, are placed in the dual roles of evaluators and users of educational software. Only our success as evaluators as well as consumers will ensure that we do not use software that is ineffective with our children, does not teach what it says it teaches, or does not support what is occurring in our child’s classroom. The software evaluation tool we are in the process of developing will be one aid for parents and educators to use, as they become more proficient software critics and more determined advocates for better software for students with learning disabilities.

References

Ager, A. (1986). Performance contoured programming: A structure for microcomputer-based teaching of individuals with severe learning difficulties. Journal of the Association from Programmed Learning, 23 (2), 130-135.
Armstrong, T.C., & Loane, R.F. (1994, January/February). Educational software: A developer’s perspective. Tech Trends, pp. 20-22.
Armstrong, L., Yang-Dori, J., & Cuneo, A. (1994). The learning revolution: Technology is reshaping education. Business, 3360, 80-88.
Flake, J.L., McClintock, E., & turner, S. (1990). Fundamentals of computer education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Forcier, R. (1999). The computer as an educational tool for productivity and problems solving (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Geisert, P.G., & Futrell, M. K. (1995). Teachers, computers, and curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Williams, D. (1999). Educational software: Is it designed for students with learning disabilities? Presentation for the 19th International Conference on Learning Disabilities, October, Washington, D.C.
Higgins, K., Boone, R., & Williams, D. (2000). Evaluating educational software for special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36(2), 109-115.
Larsen, S. (1995). What is “quality” in the use of technology for children with learning disabilities? Learning Disabilities Quarterly , 18 (2), 118-130.
Lovely, G. (1996). Teacher’s home computer. Instructor, 106(1), 100-103.
Neuman, D. (1991). Learning disabled students’ interactions with commercial courseware: A naturalistic study. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 39 (1), 31-49.
Pastor, E., & Kerns, E. (1997). A digital snapshot of an early childhood classroom. Educational Leadership, 55(3), 42-45.
Truett, C. (1984). Field testing educational software: Are publishers making the effort? Educational Technology, 24(5), 7-12.
Williams, D., Boone, R., Kingsley, K. (in press). Teacher beliefs about educational software: A delphi study. Journal of Research on Technology Education.
Zane, T., & Frazer, C. G. (1992). The extent to which software developers validate their claims. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 24(3), 410-419.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact