2002 in Review: A Synthesis of the Special Education Technology Literature

Abstract

Both scholars and practitioners struggle with the concomitant problems of too much information, inadequate tools for managing information overload, and too little time for professional development. As a result, professionals routinely lament how difficult it is to stay current within their discipline. The purpose of this study was to examine recent additions to the extant knowledge base in special education technology using a methodology known as the comprehensive one-year research synthesis. Two questions guided the inquiry: How widely scattered is the literature on special education technology? and What have we learned lately? The table of contents from each issue of 31 journals in special education technology (n = 5), special education (n = 17), and educational technology (n = 9) published in 2002 were studied. The procedures yielded a corpus of 833 articles of which 221 articles (27%) were judged relevant for this review as contributing to the emerging knowledge base on special education technology research and practice. Analysis of the literature scatter revealed relevant literature could be found in 28 journals but that a core set of 8 journals contributed 58% of the relevant articles. Content analysis of the relevant articles revealed a number of dominant themes in the literature during 2002: alternative and augmentative communication (AAC), assistive technology, instructional design, instructional strategies, multimedia, preservice teacher education, staff development, and technology integration. The major attributes of the comprehensive one-year research synthesis approach are that it simultaneously addresses the problem of information overload and provides a new tool for accessing the knowledge base. Limitations of the one-year research synthesis methodology are discussed along with the implications of this work for future research, development, and practice.

Assistive and Educational Technology Standards and Teacher Competencies in Relation to Evidence-Based Practice: Identification and Classification of the Literature

“…The methods used included (a) subject index searching, (b) browsing, (c) footnote chasing, and (d) consultation (Tubr, Bly, Edwards, Pritchard, & Simoneaux, 2001;Wilson, 1992). These methods replicate those of other literature reviews in AT (Alper & Raharinirina, 2006;Edyburn, 2000Edyburn, , 2001Edyburn, , 2002Edyburn, , 2003Edyburn, , 2004Jeffs & Morrison, 2005;Okolo & Bouck, 2007;Reid, 2002;Wessells, de Witte, & van den Heuvel, 2004;Wessells, Dijcks, Soede, Gelderblom, & de Witte, 2003). A unique resource in the field of AT, the Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice (Edyburn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005) was duly explored for references, with particular attention paid to references noted in the seminal work on AT competencies included this handbook, written by Dr. Elizabeth A.…”

Research on Computer-Mediated Instruction for Students with High Incidence Disabilities

“…Appropriate research articles were located by searching electronic databases (Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and PsychINFO), and conducting a physical search of key journals. In addition, reference lists included in other research syntheses published during this period were searched for appropriate citations (Edyburn, 2001(Edyburn, , 2002(Edyburn, , 2003(Edyburn, , 2004Edyburn, Higgins, & Boone, 2005), and Google searches were conducted for writers whose names emerged from these related publications. These literature searches located 34 studies that met our criteria.…”

Curriculum authoring tools and inclusive classroom teaching practice: a longitudinal study

“…Of most fundamental and preliminary interest however, is the extent to which use of such tools actually impact the classroom practice of those teachers. Edyburn (2002), in a review of the special education technology literature, notes the overwhelming emphasis on description of practice over research efficacy. There is also a dearth of objective evidence on the way technologies impact what teachers do, with the vast majority of studies relying on testimonial, indirect ratings, opinion, informal observation, and summative student achievement as indicators of efficacy (Angrist & Lavy, 2002; Silvernail & Harris, 2003; Wenglinsky, 1998).…”