Knowledge and degree of training of Primary Education teachers in relation to ICT taught to disabled students

Knowledge and degree of training of primary education teachers in relation to ICT taught to disabled students José María Fernández-Batanero, Julio Cabero and Eloy López José María Fernández-Batanero is an associate professor of the Teaching and Educational Organisation Department of the University of Seville, Spain. His academic interests lie in teacher training in relation to ICT for people with disabilities. Julio Cabero is an emeritus professor of Teaching and Educational Organisation at Seville University, Spain. He is widely known for his work in educational technology and new technologies for education. Eloy López is an associate professor of the Department of Education and Social Psychology at the Pablo de Olavide University of Seville, Spain. His research focuses on Educational Technology, Teaching and Higher Education. Address for correspondence: Professor José María Fernandez-Batanero, School of Education, University of Seville, Seville 41013, Spain. Email: [email protected] Abstract The integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into the inclusive classroom requires competent teaching staff from both the technological and pedagogical points of view. Within this context, and with the aim of looking at one of these theoretical premises, this study aimed to identify the degree of training and technological knowledge of primary school teachers in Spain with respect to the use of ICT with individuals with disabilities (functional diversity). A descriptive ex post-facto research method was used, where the sample comprised 777 teachers. An ad-hoc questionnaire was used as the data-collection instrument. The results revealed the low skill levels of the teachers with respect to the use of ICT with students with disabilities, where the level of training of the teaching staff was determined by personal (gender, age), professional (teaching experience) or educational (qualifications) variables. The findings of this study point to the need for teacher training that instructs teachers on the use of ICT in order to favour the learning and educational innovation of students with disabilities. Keywords: Information and Communications Technology, disability, teacher training, accessibility. Introduction The transformation and evolution ICT has led to in today’s societies have meant that education centres have had to integrate these tools to improve the teaching and learning processes. At the international level, there are many studies that highlight the importance of the integration of technology to improve the learning of the “entire” student body (Ghaleb, 2014; Hu & Yelland, 2017…), but there is a scarcity of studies that stress its use with students with disabilities (Istenic & Bagon, 2013; Hersh, 2016), despite the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) considers ICT to include key tools for promoting fairness and equal opportunities. In this sense, the potential of ICT to contribute to a better quality of life for students with disabilities, is brought to light. That said, one of the problems we face in ensuring that ICT reaches all students, including those who have a disability, is teacher training, as shown by recent studies (Cappuccio, Compagno & Pedone, 2016). According to Hatlevik (2017), among others, teachers feel competent to use ICT as a personal tool and/or resource for the projection and transmission of information and knowledge, without this implying the creation of significant learning, but also show distrust towards the use thereof for didactic purposes. This could be due to the fact that the training model that has been commonly used focusses more on instrument-related aspects than pedagogical ones (Suriá, Martínez & Ordoñez, 2010; Tello & Cascales, 2015). In this sense, research on the effectiveness of teacher training and ICT shows that the type of information offered (courses, seminars, etc.), besides being scarce, does not lead to changes in the teaching activity (Hu & Yelland, 2017). On the other hand, along with the quality of the training, there are various personal and professional variables that affect the carrying out of training activities such as gender, age, teaching experience, qualifications, attitudes and technological mastery. Along these lines, Suárez, Almerich, Gargallo & Aliaga (2013) and Ilomäki (2011), attest that the gender and age of teaching staff are factors linked to training in ICT, indicating that teaching staff possess different levels of competencies and where male teachers show a greater level of technological competency while female teachers are more likely to integrate ICT into their teaching practices. Also, Cabero & Martín (2014) argue that younger teachers have greater knowledge, and also, Alqurashi, Gokbeli & Carbonara (2017), Gudmundsdottir & Hatlevik (2017) indicate that the recently-qualified (recent graduates) feel more confident about integrating this technology. In accordance with the above, if the teacher’s level of ICT training is scarce or inefficient, the studies that deal with the active teacher’s ICT training and the use thereof with the disabled also reveal insufficiency, and more clearly evidence this low level of training, independent of the type of disability in question: hearing, visual, cognitive, motor, etc. (Brodin & Lindstrand, 2010; Vladimirovna & Sergeevna, 2015). This has a negative repercussion on the use of ICT, preventing this information from being made more accessible and the abilities of disabled individuals being enhanced, and failing to make it easier for their difficulties to be mitigated or reduced to a minimum (Homero, Tejedor & Calvo, 2017). Nonetheless, in the Spanish context, in recent years there have been research studies that have addressed the problems of ICT training and education and the competencies required by teachers for their day to day practices, in order for ICT to be used with people with a disability (Morales & Llorente Cejudo, 2016; Cabero, Fernández Batanero & Barroso, 2016). Despite this, both studies analyse this need for training by focusing their attention on the initial training of teaching staff, without including active teachers and their corresponding permanent training. For this reason, the conducting of a study that encompasses the previously-mentioned aspects is of great relevance. This study will: a) offer information in relation to social aspects, where we find processes of social discrimination and exclusion of the population with a disability that are of special concern for families, education centres or other institutions and b) will place us in a position of being able to address the factors of the efficiency and effectiveness of the pedagogical practices with ICT, as they increase communication and boost the abilities of the disabled, leading to a reduction in their limitations. Research purpose, questions and hypotheses The purpose of this document is to provide a general and complete view of the training and education of active Primary Education teachers in Spain, in relation to the use of ICT with students with disabilities. The general question that we seek to answer is: Are Primary School teachers in Spain sufficiently prepared for the use and application of ICT with students with disabilities? A series of questions and hypotheses are derived from this main question. RQ1. Is there a relationship between the technical and didactic (teaching) training that the teachers indicate having with respect to the audiovisual, computer and internet technologies and the degree of training/knowledge that they possess for the use of ICT with people with disabilities? Null hypothesis (H0): There are no significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less between the technical and didactic training the teachers claim to possess with respect to the audiovisual, computer and internet technologies and the degree of training/knowledge they possess for the use of ICT with subjects with disabilities. Alternative hypothesis 1 (H1): There are significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less between the technical and didactic training the teachers claim to possess with respect to the audiovisual, computer and internet technologies and the degree of training/knowledge they possess for the use of ICT with subjects with disabilities. RQ2. Is the level of training of the teachers the same or different depending on the type of disability: hearing, motor, visual, cognitive, etc.? As a function of this question, the following hypotheses were formulated: Null hypothesis 2 (H0): There are no significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less between the knowledge the teachers have on the technologies applied to the different types of disability (general, hearing, motor, visual, cognitive and accessibility). Alternative hypothesis 2 (H1): There are significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less between the knowledge the teachers have on the technologies applied to the different types of disability (general, hearing, motor, visual, cognitive and accessibility). RQ3. Is the level of training of the teachers determined by personal (gender, age), professional (teaching experience) or educational (university degree) variables? This question allows us to formulate the following hypotheses: Null hypothesis 3-4-5-6-7-8 (H0): There are no significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less as a function of the teacher’s gender (their age; their years of teaching experience; their university degree; their specialisations studied; and having received training on the use of technologies with people with disabilities), and the knowledge they possess on the use of technologies with different types of disability (general, hearing, motor, visual, cognitive and accessibility). Alternative hypothesis 3-4-5-6-7-8 (H0): There are significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less as a function of the teacher’s gender (their age; their years of teaching experience; their education degree; their specialisations studied; and having received training on the use of technologies with people with disabilities), and the knowledge they possess on the use of technologies with different types of disability (general, hearing, motor, visual, cognitive and accessibility). Method The design of the study was post-facto descriptive, with an accidental non-probabilistic sample. Participants The study sample comprised 777 teachers from primary schools from the 17 Autonomous Communities of Spain, with most of these centres being public (f=588, 75.68%), followed by semi-private schools (f=141, 18.15%) and 48 private schools (6.18%). Of these 777 teachers, 216 (27.80%) were men and 561 (72.20%) women. 25.48% (f=198) were under 30 years old, 27.84% (f=294) were aged between 31 and 40, 30.89% (f=240) were aged between 41 and 55, and 5.79% (f=45) were older than 55 years of age. A little over 35% (35.14%, f=275) had between 1 and 5 years’ teaching experience, followed by 18.15% (f=141) who had between 16 and 25 years’ experience. Most of these teachers (43.24%, f=336) were civil servants, followed by 19.31% (f=150) who were interim staff, with the smallest number of teachers being substitute teachers (2.70%, f=33). 258 (33.20%) had a three-year degree in Primary School Teaching (General Basic Education ‘EGB’), 255 (32.82%) had a four-year university degree in Primary School Education, 51 (6.56%) had a 4-year university degree in Child Education, and 213 (27.41%) had other degrees. Lastly, it should be mentioned that 219 (28.19%) specialised in special education, 111 (14.29%) in physical education, 75 (9.65%) in English Language, 72 (9.27%) in music education, and 38.61% (f=300) in other specialisations. Data collection instrument The final version of the questionnaire comprised 71 items structured into two parts (general and specific): The general part comprised 18 items that collected information on the different biographical aspects of the teachers and information on the general evaluation of the training received on aspects related to ICT (answer option from 0 to 10 and Yes and No options). The specific part comprised 53 items, with a Likert-type response scale and six answer options, that gathered information on the following dimensions: general perception of the use of ICT with people with a disability (10 items), ICT for people with a visual disability (9 items), ICT for people with a hearing disability (9 items), ICT for people with a motor disability (7 items), ICT for people with a cognitive disability (7 items). To measure the reliability of the questionnaire, Crobach’s Alpha was calculated for the entire instrument (0.993), as well as its different dimensions (general aspects scale, 0.967; visual deficiency scale, 0.986; hearing deficiency scale, 0.983; motor deficiency scale, 0.982; cognitive deficiency scale, 0.979 and accessibility scale, 0.967). The values could be considered very high and an indication of the high levels of reliability of the scale and the dimensions this comprises (O’Dwyer & Bernauer, 2014). The questionnaire was published online, and can be viewed at: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfux6m1cU6Nf- 69eiiMS28LjcSom38yqe2OmS-Jy4mXAgJVnA/viewform Results The mean score found for the entire instrument was 3.26 on a scale of 1 (very negative) to 6 (very positive), with a standard deviation of 1.28. The value obtained was above the middle value (3), which would denote that the teachers interviewed considered themselves to be regularly trained in the use of ICT with students with disabilities. This training score was higher than the general perspective (3.70) and in relation to the use of ICT with individuals with cognitive (3.45), motor (3.29) and hearing (3.02) disabilities; on the contrary, the lowest scores were found in relation to the knowledge the teachers claimed to have with respect to accessibility (2.85) and the use of technologies with people with visual disabilities (3.02). In the general part of the questionnaire, the teachers were asked to score, using a scale of 0 to 10, the knowledge they believed they possessed with respect to the technical and educational handling of the audiovisual, computer and internet media. The results indicated that the teachers seemed to have certain knowledge with respect to the use of ICT, although usage was greater for the Internet (7.05) than for the audiovisual and computer resources (6.58), and technical handling was greater than educational handling. a) Significance of the technical and didactic mastery of the audiovisual, computer and internet media and training on the knowledge of ICT for use with the disabled. One of the objectives of the present research study was to understand if there was a relationship between the level of training/knowledge of the teachers on the use of ICT with students with various disabilities, and the teachers’ own perspective regarding their training on the technical management and educational use of the audiovisual, computer and internet technologies. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used, with the scores shown in table 1. Table 1: Correlations between the technical and educational domains of the audiovisual, computer and internet media and their mastery for the educational use of ICT with students with disabilities (* p≤ .05 - ** p≤ .01) T.M. AV-Co E.M. AV-Co T.M. Int E.M. Int General Pearson’s Correlation .106** .149** .192** .209** Sig.(bilateral) 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 Visual Pearson’s Correlation 0.036 .080* .099** .111** Sig.(bilateral) 0.314 0.026 0.006 0.002 Hearing Pearson’s Correlation .090* .130** .140** .156** Sig.(bilateral) 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 Motor Pearson’s Correlation .072* .088* .111** .101** Sig.(bilateral) 0.044 0.015 0.002 0.005 Cognitive Pearson’s Correlation .084* .097** .140** .152** Sig.(bilateral) 0.019 0.007 0.000 0.000 Accessibility Pearson’s Correlation 0.053 .088* .134** .123** Sig.(bilateral) 0.144 0.014 0.000 0.001 Total Pearson’s Correlation .079* .115** .148** .156** Sig.(bilateral) 0.027 0.001 0.000 0,000 Note. T.M. AV-Co (audiovisual-computer technical mastery); E.M. AV-Co (audiovisualcomputer educational mastery); T.M. Int (Internet technical mastery); E.M. Int (Internet educational mastery). The results were split three ways: firstly, there were primarily significant relationships between the technical and educational mastery of the audiovisual, computer and internet media, and the mastery the teachers claimed to have on the use of ICT with students with disability, in general as well as for different types; in second place, the correlations were positive, so that when one variable increased, the other also did and in the same direction; and in third place, these correlations were very low. b) Differences in the knowledge possessed by the teachers on ICT used with different types of disability. As for the existence of significant relationships between the knowledge mentioned by the different teachers on the different dimensions studied in the questionnaire (general, visual, hearing…etc.), a new Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used, with the values shown in table 2. Table 2: Correlations between the different dimensions in the questionnaire. (**p≤ .01) Dimensions compared Correlation General-Visual .738** General-Hearing .775** General-Motor .744** General-Cognitive .770** General-Accessibility .676** Visual-Hearing .814** Visual-Motor .804** Visual-Cognitive .742** Visual-Accessibility .773** Hearing-Motor .865** Hearing-Cognitive .832** Hearing -Accessibility .753** Motor-Cognitive .837** Motor-Accessibility .774** Cognitive-Accessibility .728** In this case, the results showed that all the correlations were positive and significant to ** p≤ .001, and very high. In other words, the teachers who indicated that they had been trained in one of the dimensions were also trained in the others. In order to analyse the hypothesis that referred to possible significant differences with an alpha risk of 0.05 or less between the knowledge the teachers have of the technologies applied to the different types of disability (general, hearing, motor, visual, cognitive and accessibility), a Student’s t-test was used, which resulted in the values for 776 degrees of freedom are shown in table 3. Table 3: Student’s t-test values between the different dimensions examined in the questionnaire. (**p≤ .01) Dimensions compared t General-Visual 19.529** General-Hearing 14.617** General-Motor 10.846** General-Cognitive 6.855** General-Accessibility 21.973** Visual-Hearing -5.766** Visual-Motor -8.164** Visual-Cognitive -11.349** Visual-Accessibility 5.028** Hearing-Motor -3.170** Hearing-Cognitive -7.952** Hearing - Accessibility 9.683** Motor-Cognitive -5.093** Motor-Accessibility 12.375** Cognitive- Accessibility 15.380** The resulting values led to the rejection of all the H0 to conclude that there were statistically significant differences as well as an alpha risk of p≤ .001 with respect to the knowledge shown by the teachers on the different types of knowledge of the use of ICT with individuals with different types of disabilities. c) Differences in the knowledge possessed by the teachers on ICT used with different types of disabilities as a function of gender. Another of the hypotheses referred to the existence of differences in the knowledge possessed as a function of the gender of the 216 male and the 561 female teachers, with the mean values shown in table 4. Table 4: Values found as a function of the teachers’ gender Gender Mean General Male 3.6000 Female 3.7326 Visual Male 2.8356 Female 3.0914 Hearing Male 2.8920 Female 3.3244 Motor Male 3.2560 Female 3.3086 Cognitive Male 3.1337 Female 3.5782 Accessibility Male 2.8869 Female 2.8304 Total Male 3.0967 Female 3.3196 As shown by the mean values, they tended to be higher for the women than for the men, except for the “accessibility” dimension. In order to analyse if the differences found were significant from a statistical point of view, a Student’s t-test was used for independent samples, although prior to this, a Levene’s test was used to analyse the homogeneity of the variances (homoscedasticity), and as a function of the significance value obtained, to determine the t-value that should be used. Table 5 shows the values obtained and the degree of significance used to accept or reject the H0, which referred to the non-existence of significant differences. Table 5: Differences as a function of the gender of the teachers. (** p≤ .01) Levene’s test F Sig. t Df Sig. General Equal variances are assumed 1.582 .209 -1.447 775 .148 Equal variances are not assumed -1.500 420.348 .134 Visual Equal variances are assumed 20.998 .000 -2.253 775 .025 Equal variances are not assumed -2.459 472.723 .014** Hearing Equal variances are assumed 8.248 .004 -3.667 775 .000 Equal variances are not assumed -3.898 444.653 .000** Motor Equal variances are assumed 3.106 .078 -.426 775 .670 Equal variances are not assumed -.441 420.314 .659 Cognitive Equal variances are assumed .618 .432 -3.641 775 .000 Equal variances are not assumed -3.702 403.679 .000** Accessibility Equal variances are assumed 6.028 .014 .488 775 .626 Equal variances are not assumed .519 445.475 .604 Total Equal variances are assumed 7.550 .006 -2.181 775 .029** Equal variances are not assumed -2.326 447.749 .020 The results did not lead to the rejection of the H0 that referred to the non-existence of statistically-significant differences to p≤ .05 or less in the following dimensions: general knowledge, application of ICT with people with motor and accessibility deficits. On the other hand, there were significant differences in the following dimensions: visual, hearing and cognitive. It should be mentioned that the H0 was also rejected due to the scores found for the instrument as a whole. In every case, the female teachers had greater knowledge than the men on the use of ICT with people with disabilities. d) Differences in the knowledge possessed by the teachers on ICT used with different types of disabilities as a function of age. An ANOVA was used to analyse if there were statistically-significant differences as a function of the teachers’ age. It should be noted that as the procedure followed was explained previously, only the F values obtained will be presented, as well as the degree of significance, which were as follows: General (F=18.059; p≤ 0.001), visual (F=14.656; p≤0.001), hearing (F=24.070; p≤0.001), motor (F=21.786; p≤0.001), cognitive (F=22.790; p≤0.001) accessibility (F=7.732; p≤0.001), and total (F=20.591; p≤0.001). The results allowed for the rejection of all the H0 formulated that referred to the nonexistence of significant differences as a function of the teachers’ age, to a significance level of p≤ .01, with respect to the knowledge the teachers mentioned having on the use of ICT with individuals with disabilities. These differences were found in their general knowledge, as well as their knowledge of the different types of diversity. In order to understand if there were differences between the different age groups, a “Post-Hoc” ANOVA analysis was applied for multiple comparisons (Miller, 1997). It should be noted that in order to avoid over-analysing the results, and as the results were very similar, it could be said that the differences were mainly found between the younger teachers with respect to those who were older. As a result, it could be indicated that the 10-year age range was sufficient to establish differences in the knowledge the teachers indicated having on the use of ICT with students with disabilities. e) Differences in the knowledge the teachers have on ICT taught to people with different types of disability as a function of their years’ experience. In order to analyse the existence of possible differences as a function of years’ teaching experience, a new ANOVA was performed which resulted in the following: General (F=8.350; p≤ 0.001), visual (F=7.491; p≤ 0.001), hearing F=15.450; p≤ 0.001), motor (F=12.410; p≤ 0.001), cognitive (F=12.048; p≤ 0.001), accessibility (F=2.183; p≤ 0.001), and total (F=10.926; p≤ 0.001). The results point to the existence of significant differences with an alpha risk of p≤0.01, as a function of the years’ teaching experience. f) Differences in the knowledge the teachers have on ICT taught to people with different types of disability as a function of their academic degrees. As regards the differences in the teachers’ knowledge of the technologies as a function of their academic degree (4-year degree in Primary School Teaching, 4-year degree in