ICT and disabilities. Construction of a diagnostic instrument in Spain

www.jsser.org Journal of Social Studies Education Research Sosyal Bilgiler Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi 2018:9 (3), 332-350 332 ICT and disabilities. Construction of a diagnostic instrument in Spain. José Batanero 1 , Pedro Tadeu 2 and Julio Cabero 3 Abstract This work presents the process of validation of a questionnaire that aims to determine the level of training and knowledge of teachers in the Spanish primary education, with respect to the application of the Information Technology and Communication (ICT) for people with disabilities. The structure of the instrument includes 6 dimensions: general, visual, hearing, motor, cognitive, and accessibility. The procedure considered the content validation, validation of construct through factor analysis and determination of reliability through Cronbach Alpha. The "expert judgement" technique, was used for the validation of content by applying a process of selection of experts at our educational research, the so-called expert coefficient or "K coefficient". The developed process made it possible to give scientific validity to the intended instrument. Key words: ICT, disability, questionnaire, expert-coefficient, teacher-training competency. Introduction The interaction between ICT and students with disability, or in other words, the ways in which ICT can contribute to the development of environments for learning that takes into account the diversity of students, represents a priority research in an educational framework. Educators should promote other forms of teaching and learning, and the commitment to educational innovation and oriented equity is always a matter of concern within educational community. Approach to the problem So offering a fair and equitable education in which those who have more difficulties to learn may find the necessary means and support to achieve it, is a priority objective in the education systems of inclusive orientation. Commitment to inclusive education needs the impetus of an educational system to open their schools to all students and to ensure, each one of them, an education capable of attending to the differences. 1 Ph.D. Prof., University of Seville, batan[email protected] 2 Ph.D. Prof., UDI-Polytechnic of Guarda, ptad[email protected] 3 Ph.D. Prof., University of Seville, [email protected] Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 Such a reality would not be possible without taking into account the educational support provided by the ICT to the inclusive process since they constitute the support that will allow constructing tasks that will meet the interests of persons. One of the problems facing teachers for the incorporation of ICT into educational practice is in many cases the lack of both technological and instrumental, as methodological and strategic training. Regarding training, this is even less, such as been shown by different investigations, regarding the use of ICT for people with disabilities. Along with this, the research wanted to determine the level of training and knowledge that teachers of primary education had with respect to the application of ICT for people with disabilities, and if such training had been determined by variables such as gender, location of the school, type of Centre, etc. Also would be important to know if the training and knowledge were different depending on the type of disability. Like this, it became necessary to build a valid and reliable diagnostic instrument. Justification of the study Currently studies that highlight the importance of the integration of technology for the improvement of the learning of "all" the students are abundant (Ghaleb, 2014; Khetarpal, 2015; Alper and Goggin, 2017), but are rarer those who made special emphasis on students with special educational needs disability (Wallace and Georgina, 2014; Istenic and Bagon, 2014). The potential that ICT has to contribute to a better quality of life in students with functional diversity is being proofed by different studies that have been made in recent years: Patton and Roschelle (2008) respecting students with mental disabilities; Bouck, Doughty, Flanagan, Szwed and Bassette (2010) regarding writing improvements; Shih et al. (2011), hearing problems. Although rare, there have been carrying out studies which highlight the lack of teacher training to teach successful ICT, in the framework of special education (Liu, 2011; Yusof, Gnanamalar, Low, and Aziz, 2014; Altinay and Altinay, 2015; Vladimirovna and Sergeevna, 2015). In the Spanish context, studies regarding teachers training for the management of ICT, show that they have high attitudes towards them, but feel insecure for their incorporation into the process of teaching and learning, and not so much from a technological point of view, but rather from a didactic and methodological perspective (Prendes & Gutierrez, 2013). This explains the low Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero variability of technological materials that teachers used with students in their professional activity (Ferrandis, Grau & Fortes, 2010). In the case of this training for the use of ICT applied to people with special educational needs, the first thing to point out is the few number of research’s, as we can see in articles that address the issue of the training of teachers and the skills need to be used with people with special educational needs (Rosario & Vazquez, 2012; Terigi, 2013; Rangel & Penalosa, 2013; Ortiz, Almazán, Penaherrera & Cachon, 2014). On the other hand, looking to this small number of investigations, they pointed out the lack of training and knowledge that teachers have with respect to different types of technologies that can be used with these people, the possibilities offered, and the functions that can be used (Roig, Ferrandez, Rodríguez-Cano & Crespo, 2012; Tello & Cascales, 2015). This gap on the use of ICT has negative repercussions, avoiding at the same time that these people benefit from the possibilities offered by these technologies as tools for inclusion in the classrooms. Is necessary to take into account such knowledge, since lately there are quite advanced studies regarding ICT showing that there exist significant instruments letting the inclusion of persons with different types of special needs: cognitive, sensory or motor, and that can help overcome the limitations arising from the same (Homer, Weaver & Calvo, 2017). In particular may promote the autonomy of students, being able to adapt to the needs and demands of each student in a personalized way; offering immediate feedback; facilitate synchronous and asynchronous communication of these students with other classmates and teachers; save time for the acquisition of skills and abilities; facilitate the diagnosis of the student; support a model of communication and multi-sensory training; promote an individualized training, since students can progress at their own pace, which is of extreme importance for these subjects; promote the development of the autonomy and independence of persons; avoid marginalization and the digital detachment; facilitate the social inclusion of the student with specific difficulties; provide moments of leisure; save time for the acquisition of skills and abilities; students can execute and repeat the exercises with minimal effort in order to acquire skills, attitudes and abilities; they encourage these people to approach the cultural and scientific world; and also being excellent simulators (Toledo, 2013). A good teacher training requires a study to learn about the reality of which we start, and this necessarily requires the creation of valid and reliable instruments that allow diagnosis. In the Spanish context have been developed some, referred to the knowledge and digital competence that teachers and students had with respect to ICT (Bullón et. al., 2008), the Diagnostics of digital Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 competence of teachers and learners (Marin & Reche, 2011;) Ortiz, Almanzan, Penaherrera & Cachon, 2014; Morales, Trujillo & Raso, 2015 & Rangel, 2015), but none relating to ICT and disability. These instruments have not been developed for the diagnosis of the knowledge that teachers may have for the incorporation and use of ICT, to be used with people with different types of disabilities. For this reason, this study, which was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness was developed. Method We have established five stages for the design and construction of the instrument. This instrument will help to diagnosis the knowledge that teachers of primary education had regarding the potential and the application of the ICT for persons with disabilities: • review of the literature; • the first production version of the instrument; • application of the instrument to the technique of "expert judgement" for analysis; • draft of final version instrument; • Test pilot to get the reliability index. Review of the literature focused basically on various types of documents that have the following characteristics: • Theoretical studies on ICT and disabilities; • Research on the use of ICT for people with disabilities; • Websites of institutions dedicated to persons with disabilities; • Reviewing documents located in http://www.scoop.it/, and research on the domain of digital competencies. Some of the documents have been presented previously to the theoretical foundation of the work. After the review of the literature, the next step was the development of the first version of the questionnaire by the members of the research team Diagnóstico y formación del profesorado para la incorporación de las TIC en alumnado con diversidad funcional (DIFOTICYD) (EDU2016 75232-P), direct translation, Diagnosis and Training of Teachers for the Incorporation of ICT with students with Disabilities, belonging to the universities of Sevilla, Jaén, Granada, Cordoba, Alicante, Leon and Extremadura. The first version of the instrument was formed by 66 items, Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero which had the following distribution by dimensions: 11 for General, 16 for Visual, 8 for Hearing, 13 for Motor, 8 to Cognitive and 10 for Accessibility. It was constructed a scale Likert type, usual for this type of research format. For the analysis of the validity of the content of the instrument it was applied the "expert judgement" technique, whose relevance depends clearly on the process followed by the selection of the same, which apply different criteria generally related to the expert with the theme linking to analyze (Brill, Bishop and Walker, 2006;) Garcia-Abreu and Fernández- García, 2008). Our study followed a double process for selection, first people who met some or several of the following criteria were selected: • Have professional experience in special education, in the use of ICT for people with disabilities; • Are teaching ICT applied to education or special education; • Are from different universities, or working in an institution related to special education. This led us to form an initial group composed of 52 expert assessors who were willing to participate in this process of construction of the instrument, an important aspect is that the process would have two turns. Then the coefficient expert, also known as "K coefficient", was obtained (Oñate, 2001, Garcia-abreu and Fernandez-Garcia, 2008; Blasco et al., 2010; Cabero and Llorente, 2013). This procedure of selection is being used in different articles Zayas (2011), Cabero and Barroso (2013), Llorente (2013) and Mengual-Andres, Roig-Vila and Blasco (2016) in which it was very significant. The coefficient is obtained from the opinion of the expert on their level of knowledge about the research problem, as well as sources that allow analyzing the criterion established. The coefficient is obtained by applying the formula: K = ½ (Kc + Ka) (Cabero and Barroso, 2013, 29). Where Kc is equal to the rate of knowledge or information that has the expert about the topic or problem, where is use a scale of 0 to 10 (whereas 0 - not having absolutely no knowledge and 10 - have full knowledge). Ka is the coefficient of argument or justification of the criteria of experts, obtained from estimations that perform the expert in different fields that we present in Table 1. Table 1 Evaluations for obtaining the Ka value High Medium Under Theoretical analyses carried out by you .3 .2 .1 Experience gained from your practical activity .5 .4 .2 Work study on the topic of Spanish authors .05 .05 .05 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 Work study on the topic of foreign authors .05 .05 .05 Own knowledge about the problem abroad .05 .05 .05 His intuition about the topic addressed .05 .05 .05 The above formula allows to obtain a score between 0 and 1 and is adopted as a criterion for those people who do not obtain a score greater than 0.8 they are not considered in the research experts. From the initial 52 judges, only were selected 36; i.e. 16 were eliminated. It was administered to 36 judges the initial questionnaire, in order that each one of them could indicate us their "pertinence", "relevance" and "clarity" regarding the itens; to obtain from this the index of "Reason for content validity" of Lawshe modified by Tristan (2008). Table 2 presents the results achieved for each item. Table 2 Reason for validity of content for each item CVR Dimension Item Pertinence Relevance Clarity Average General 1 .906 .938 .906 .917 2 .938 .906 .813 .885 3 .938 1,000 .938 .958 4 .844 .813 .906 .854 5 1,000 .906 .906 .938 6 .875 .938 .875 .896 7 1,000 .906 .906 .938 8 1,000 .969 .906 .958 9 .875 .875 .844 .865 10 .969 .969 .906 .948 11 .906 .906 .813 .875 Visual 12 .938 .875 .969 .927 13 .938 .938 .906 .927 14 .906 .938 .906 .917 15 .906 .938 .906 .917 16 .938 .906 .875 .906 17 .875 .813 .750 .813 18 .938 .938 .969 .948 19 .938 .875 .938 .917 20 .875 .906 .906 .896 21 .875 .781 .781 .813 Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero 22 .875 .844 .906 .875 23 .875 .844 .813 .844 24 .938 .906 .844 .896 25 .906 .906 .844 .885 26 .875 .844 .844 .854 27 .906 .875 .844 .875 Hearing 28 .844 .875 .938 .885 29 .781 .688 .844 .771 30 .906 .938 .938 .927 31 .938 .938 .938 .938 32 .906 .906 .938 .917 33 .875 .938 .844 .885 34 .938 .906 .875 .906 35 .906 .906 .906 .906 Motor 36 .938 .906 .969 .938 37 .906 .844 .906 .885 38 .875 .906 .938 .906 39 .906 .813 .844 .854 40 .906 .844 .781 .844 41 .813 .781 .781 .792 42 .906 .875 .906 .896 43 .969 .875 .781 .875 44 .906 .875 .938 .906 45 .844 .813 .875 .844 46 .906 .844 .813 .854 47 .906 .813 .813 .844 48 .906 .906 .844 .885 Cognitive 49 .844 .813 .844 .833 50 .813 .781 .813 .802 51 .875 .875 .875 .875 52 .906 .875 .781 .854 53 .938 .844 .781 .854 54 .906 .781 .844 .844 55 .875 .813 .844 .844 56 .906 .875 .813 .865 Accessibility 57 .844 .813 .813 .823 58 .844 .813 .750 .802 59 .844 .750 .813 .802 60 .813 .688 .750 .750 61 .625 .563 .750 .646 62 .719 .656 .750 .708 63 .781 .719 .813 .771 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 64 .938 .750 .844 .844 65 .688 .656 .531 .625 66 .813 .719 .813 .781 CVR .886 .852 .854 .864 The result of each dimension is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Reason for validity of content for each dimension Dimension Pertinence Relevance Clarity Average General .932 .920 .884 .912 Visual .906 .883 .875 .888 Hearing .887 .887 .902 .892 Motor .899 .853 .861 .871 Cognitive .883 .832 .824 .846 Accessibility .791 .713 .763 .755 Different criteria were adopted for the construction of a new version of the questionnaire: • Following the proposal of Tristan (2008), deleting those items that do not have a CVI (Content Validity Index) average of 0.65 or higher; • Following the recommendation of the experts, unifying questions so the questionnaire could be not so much extensive; • Reduce the questionnaire regarding the factors visual and motor, because the number of items was not proportional with the others; • And make some changes regarding the formulation or the terminological precision in some items. This led us to build a new instrument, in this case consisting of 53 items that were organized by size according to the following distribution: 10 (General), 12 (Visuals), 9 (Hearing), 7 (Motor), 7 (Cognitive), and 8 (Accessibility). This version was then passed to experts in a second round, so they valued from 0 to 10, its pertinence, relevance and clarity; and at the same time, they appreciate it on a global basis. Values are presented in Table 4 with the means and standard deviations. Table 4 Averages and standard deviations overall assessment Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero Dimension Mean Standard deviation Pertinence 9.63 .63 Relevance 9.44 .93 Clarity 9.67 .48 Overall assessment 9.97 .19 As we can see this version obtained a fairly high score by experts. What led us to carry out a pilot study to obtain the index of reliability, which was obtained by the alpha of Cronbach coefficient as suggested by O'Dwyer and Bernauer (2014). The instrument, Likert-type and 6 response options (VP = very positive/very relevant; P = positive/relevant; R+ = Regular positive/regularly relevant; R- = Regular Negative/moderately inappropriate; N = negative/Inopportune; VN = very negative/very inconvenient) was administered to 291 teachers of different Spanish autonomous community and who mainly taught at public schools in primary education. The instrument applied via the internet, was built with Google Docs, and it can be seen at the following web address: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfux6m1cU6Nf-69eiiMS28LjcSom38yqe2OmS- Jy4mXAgJVnA/viewform In Table 5 we present the mean and standard deviation of the 6 dimensions that were part of the instrument. Table 5 Averages and standard deviations of different dimensions Dimension Mean Standard deviation General 3.54 1.32 Visually 2.73 1.59 Hearing 2.91 1.66 Motor 2.97 1.70 Cognitive 3.20 1.67 Accessibility 2.63 1.57 Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations reached in each of the items. Table 6 Averages and standard deviations of each different items Item M SD. 1 I have general knowledge about the possibilities that ICT offered to persons with disabilities. (G) 3.92 1.35 Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 that the instrument can be used in the Latin American context, where this problem is beginning to awaken interest with some language adaptations. Thanks This work has been developed with funding from the research EDU2016-75232-P, belonging to the State Plan Project for the Promotion of Scientific Research and Technical Excellence 2013- 2016 (MINECO). References Alper, M. y Goggin, G. (2017). Digital technology and rights in the lives of children with disabilities. New Media y Society (online). From http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444816686323 Altinay A. y Altinay, Z. (2015). Examination on ICT integration into Special Education Schools for Developing Countries. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 14, núm. 3, pp. 70-72. Blasco, J. E. et al. (2010). Validación mediante el método Delphi de un cuestionario para conocer las experiencias e interés hacia las actividades acuáticas con especial atención al windsurf. Ágora para la educación física y el deporte, vol.12, núm. 1, pp. 75-94. Bouck, CE, Doughty, TT, Flanagan, SM, Szwed, K., y Bassette, L. (2010). Es la más poderosa pluma? Utilizando Pentop computadoras para mejorar los estudiantes secundarios. Diario de Tecnología de la Educación Especial, núm. 25, pp. 33-47. Brill, J. M.; Bishop, M. J. y Walker, A. E. (2006). The Competencies and Characteristics Required of an Effective Project Manager: A Web-Based Delphi Study. Education Technology Research and Development, vol. 54, núm. 2, pp. 115-140. Bullón, P, Cabero, J, Llorente, M.C., Machuca, G, Gallego, O, y Pérez García, R. (2008). Alfabetización digital de los estudiantes de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla: Grupo de Investigación Didáctica. Cabero, J., Fernández Batanero, J. M. y Barroso, J. (2016). Los alumnos del grado de magisterio: TIC y discapacidad. REDIE. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, vol. 18, núm. 3, pp. 106- 120. Avaiable from http://redie.uabc.mx/redie/article/view/965 Cabero, J. y Barroso, J. (2013). La utilización del juicio de experto para la evaluación de TIC: el coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordón, vol. 65, núm. 2, pp. 25-38. Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero Cabero, J. y Llorente, M.C. (2013). La Aplicación del Juicio de Experto como Técnica de Evaluación de las Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación (TIC). Eduweb. Revista de Tecnología de Información y Comunicación en Educación, vol. 7, núm. 2, pp. 11-23. Cabero, J., Fernández-Batanero, J.M. y Córdoba, M. (2016). Conocimiento de las TIC aplicadas a las personas con discapacidades. Construcción de un instrumento de diagnóstico. Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, vol. 8, núm. 17, pp.157-176. Ferrandis Martínez, Mª Vicenta; Grau Rubio, Claudia y Fortes del Valle, Mª del Carmen (2010). Curso on line de formación del profesorado de la ESO sobre atención a la diversidad. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, vol. 2, núm. 3, pp. 51-70. From http://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/2026. García-Abreu, L. y Fernández-García, S. (2008). Procedimiento de aplicación del trabajo creativo en grupo del trabajo creativo en grupo de expertos. Energética, vol. XXIX, núm. 2, pp. 46-50. Ghaleb, A. (2014). Assistive technology in special education and the universal design for learning. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 13, núm. 2, pp. 18-23. Gutierrez-Castillo, J.J., Cabero-Almenara, J. y Estrada-Vidal, I. (2017). Diseño y validación de un instrumento de evaluación de la competencia digital del estudiante universitario. Espacios, vol. 38, núm. 10. From http://www.revistaespacios.com/a17v38n10/17381018.html. Homero, G., Tejedor, F. J. y Calvo, M. I. (2017). Meta-análisis sobre el efecto del software educativo en alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales. Revista de Investigación Educativa, vol. 35, núm. 1, pp. 35-52. Istenic, A. y Bagon, S. (2014). ICT-supported learning for inclusion of people with special needs: Review of seven educational technology journals, 1970-2011, British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 45, núm. 2, pp. 202-230. Khetarpal, A. (2015). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Disability. Review of market integration, vol. 6, núm. 1, pp. 96-103. Liu, S. H. (2011). Un modelo multivariado de factores que influyen Uso de Tecnología por futuros profesores durante la Práctica Enseñanza. Tecnología para la Educación y Sociedad, vol. 15, núm. 4, pp. 137-149. Llorente, M. (2013). Assessing Personal Learning Environments (PLEs). An expert evaluation. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, vol. 2, núm. 1, pp. 39–44. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 2018: 9 (3), 332-350 Marín, V. y Reche, E. (2012). Universidad 2.0: actitudes y aptitudes ante las TIC del alumnado de nuevo ingreso de la escuela universitaria de magisterio de la UCO. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, núm. 40, pp. 197-211. Mateo, J. (2004). La investigación ex post-facto. En Rafael Bisquerra-Alzina (coord.). Metodología de la investigación educativa. Madrid: La Muralla, (pp. 195-230). Mengual, S., Roig, R. y Blasco, J. (2016). Delphi study for the design and validation of a questionnaire about digital competences in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 13, núm. 12, From http://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-016-0009-y. Morales, M, Trujillo, J. M. y Raso, F. (2015). Percepciones acerca de la integración de las TIC en el proceso de enseñanza-apreendizaje de la Universidad. Píxel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, vol. 46, pp. 103-117. O’Dwyer, L. y Bernauer, J. (2014). Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Oñate, M. (2001). Utilización del método Delphy en la pronosticación: Una experiencia inicial. Aplicación del Método Delphy. From http://www.rieoei.org/deloslectores/804Bravo. Ortíz, A. M., Almanzán, L., Peñaherrera, M. y Cachón, J. (2014). Formación en TIC de futuros maestros desde el análisis de la práctica en la Universidad de Jaén. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, vol. 44, pp. 127-142. Pardo-Merino, A. (2002). Spss11: guía para el análisis de datos. Madrid: McGraw-Hill. Patton, CM, y Roschelle, J. (2008, 7 de mayo). ¿Por qué el mejor plan de estudios de matemáticas no será un libro de texto. Educación Semana, pp., 24-32. Prendes, M.P. y Gutiérrez, I. (2013). Competencias tecnológicas del profesorado en las universidades españolas. Revista de Educación, vol. 361, pp. 196-222. From http://www.revistaeducacion.mec.es/re342/ re342_17.pdf Rangel, A. (2015). Competencias docentes digitales: propuesta de un perfil. Pixel-Bit, Revista de Medios y Educación, vol. 46, pp. 235-248. From http://www.redalyc.org/articulo. oa?id=36832959015 Rangel, P. y Peñalosa, E. (2013). Alfabetización digital en docentes de educación superior: construcción y prueba empírica de un instrumento de evaluación. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, vol. 43, pp. 9-23. Batanero, Tadeu & Cabero Roig, R.; Ferrández, S.; Rodríguez-Cano, C. y Crespo, M. (2012). El uso de las TIC en el aula de Educación Especial: percepción de los maestros, en Juan Navarro, María Teresa Fernández, Francisco Javier Soto y Francisco Tortosa (coords.). Respuestas flexibles en contextos educativos diversos. Murcia: Consejería de Educación, Formación y Empleo. From http://diversidad. murciaeduca.es/publicaciones/dea2012/docs/ rroig.pdf Rosario, H. y Vásquez, L. (2012). Formación del docente universitario en el uso de tic. Caso de las universidades públicas y privadas. (U. de Carabobo y U. Metropolitana). Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, núm. 41, pp. 163-171. Tello, I y Cascales, A. (2015). Las TIC y las necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo: análisis de las competencias tic en los docentes. RIED, vol. 18, núm. 2, pp. 355-383. Toledo, P. (2013). Las tecnologías de la información, la comunicación y la inclusión educativa, en Nuevos escenarios digitales. Las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación aplicadas a la formación y desarrollo curricular. Madrid: Pirámide, pp.411-427. Tristán, A. (2008). Modificación al modelo de Lawshe para el dictamen cuantitativo de la validez de contenido de un instrumento objetivo. Avances en medición, núm. 6, pp. 37-48. Vladimirovna, S. y Sergeevna, O. (2015). Features of the Information and Communication Technology Application by the Subjects of Special Education. International Education Studies, vol. 8, núm. 6, available in http://10.5539/ies.v8n6p162. Wallace, T. y Georgina, D. (2014). Preparing special education teachers to use educational technology to enhance student learning. 11th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age. Yusof, A. M., Gnanamalar, E., Daniel, S., Low, W. y Aziz, K. (2014). Teachers’ perception of mobile edutainment for special needs learners: the Malaysian case. International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 18, núm. 2. Pp. 234-256. Zayas, P. (2011). El proceso del análisis y la descripción con las especificaciones para confeccionar la matriz de las competencias y construir el perfil del cargo o de ocupación. Ejemplo de dependiente gastronómico en la rama turística. TURyDES. Revista de Investigación y Desarrollo Local, vol. 4, núm. 9. From http://www.eumed.net/rev/turydes/09/pmza.htm (8/06/2012).