J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
DOI 10.1007/s10882-015-9440-6
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Art Educators’ Use of Adaptations, Assistive Technology,
and Special Education Supports for Students
with Physical, Visual, Severe and Multiple Disabilities
Mari Beth Coleman 1,2 & E. Stephanie Cramer 1 &
Yujeong Park 1 & Sherry Mee Bell 1
Published online: 21 June 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine art educators’ use of adaptations,
including assistive technology, and their reported supports from special education
personnel to meet the needs of students with physical, sensory, severe, and multiple
disabilities in the art classroom. Seventy-seven P-12 art teachers responded to an online
survey items consisting of perceived knowledge and preparedness and strategies and
resources, including assistive technology, used in the art classroom. Results showed
that (a) neither years of teaching experience nor number of students with disabilities
taught were related to frequency of use of assistive technology; (b) respondents agreed/
strongly agreed that it is important for students with significant disabilities to participate
in artmaking (96 %); (c) in response to a list of assistive technology devices, over half
reported using most of them rarely or never. Those most commonly reported were
large-handled writing or painting tools, adapted scissors, and devices for stabilization;
and (d) one-fourth of the respondents reported Bnever^ working collaboratively with a
special education teacher and most reported collaboration happens only Bsometimes.^
Findings suggest the need for more preservice and inservice preparation for art teachers
to most effectively engage students with significant disabilities as well as more
preparation for special education teachers and paraeducators in both collaboration
and specific assistive technology expertise.
Keywords Art . Assistive technology . Physical disabilities . Visual impairments .
Multiple disabilities . Severe disabilities
* Mari Beth Coleman
mbc@utk.edu
1
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
2
416 Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996-3442, USA
638
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
All students, including those with disabilities that result in motor limitations, visual
impairments, limited verbal speech, or severe cognitive delays have the legal right to
access the general curriculum (Pugach and Warger 2001). Research suggests that
students with significant disabilities can benefit from being included in general education classes (Copeland et al. 2004; Ryndak and Billingsley 2004) and can access the
general education curriculum if classrooms are designed to foster this access (Browder
et al. 2006; Ryndak et al. 2009). Of course, successful inclusion and curriculum access
require general education teachers to become more aware of and proficient in using
adaptations in academic subjects (Alquraini and Gut 2012; Carey and Sale 1994). For
many students to access the general curriculum, adaptations will include the use of
assistive technology (AT) devices and services.
Since the 1990s, there has been an increase in research addressing the effects of AT for
students with disabilities used in diverse educational settings (Derer et al. 1996; Ree and
Kanny 1993). In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (now Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004) began requiring every individualized education plan team to address whether a child needs AT devices to maximize
accessibility to inclusion classroom settings. Access to AT for these students, however,
does not always guarantee increased access to learning tasks. Students with disabilities
represent a range of abilities and limitations; the successful use of adaptations, including
accommodations, modifications, and AT devices, depends on whether adaptations meet an
individuals’ learning needs (Copley and Ziviani 2004). Finding the most effective combinations of adaptations and teaching strategies for students with physical, visual, severe, or
multiple disabilities to access to the general curriculum can be especially difficult for
teachers. Though true for all inclusive environments, this especially applies for art classrooms where curriculum access relies heavily on physical, visual, and abstract problem
solving abilities (Coleman and Cramer 2015)—skills that are increasingly more connected
to all subject areas in the Common Core State Standards.
Inclusion in Art Education
Although not always placed as a high priority by lawmakers, art education is a vital part
of P-12 education (Bolin 2006). Students of all ages and ability levels can benefit from
expressing their thoughts, ideas, and emotions through the multiple modes of learning
(intuitive, kinesthetic, etc.), creative processes, graphic narratives, and social experiences of an art classroom (e.g., working with shared materials, learning how to critique
constructively, participating in group art projects). Developing Bcreative and expressive
capabilities^ (Nyman and Jenkins 1999, p. 5) is important for all students and can offer a
way for the differences experienced by individuals with disabilities to be valued as part
of the human experience (Penketh 2014). For students with disabilities, art education
can provide ways to practice fine motor skills, enhance opportunities to engage in
multiple forms of mastery, and increase the ability to problem solve (Loesl 2012).
Additionally, art education can raise awareness of disability-related issues and offer
students Bvisual literacy and the development of practical and aesthetic skills and
competencies with which to create powerful alternative images^ (Taylor 2005a, p. 767).
Despite the many benefits of art education, education reform has led to its devaluation—something shared by special education. According to Hourigan (2014),
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
639
Arts education and special education within public schools have faced similar
challenges in the wake of school reform. Services and programming have been
reduced, leaving a larger gap in resources and accessibility. Because of loopholes
in policy, new reform initiatives such as vouchers and charter schools will
continue to marginalize students with exceptionalities, minorities, and students
in poverty, as well as arts and humanities programs. (p. 35)
Ideally, to help ensure that the full benefits of artmaking are available to all students,
including those with disabilities that require numerous adaptations for full participation
(e.g., physical, visual, severe, and multiple disabilities), funding would be available for
school systems to employ art therapists to support art teachers. Art therapists and art
educators share the goal of Bfacilitating the process of self-discovery that occurs in the
special relationship between the student, his or her mental images, and the use of media
to express these ideas^ (p. 181), but differ in their approaches. The focus of art
education is to teach about art processes, expression, and artistic culture with the focus
of art therapy being to assist individuals in utilizing artmaking as a tool of communicating and coming to greater emotional understanding. Unfortunately, most school
systems do not employ art therapists; thus leaving the onus of providing full access
to the art curriculum for all students solely upon art teachers—sometimes with support
from special education personnel.
Art teachers often serve students with significant disabilities for limited amounts of
time and have limited disability-specific knowledge while special education teachers
understand individual students’ needs but have little knowledge about the art curriculum. Therefore, the issue becomes, Bwhose responsibility is it for ensuring that all
adaptations which might improve access to artmaking are maximized in the art
classroom for a student with a disability?^ Ideally, close collaboration between the
special educator, art educator, and paraeducator, if applicable, would occur and all of
these professionals would be experts in adapting the art classroom to meet each
student’s particular needs. Based on the paucity of research in this area and broader
literature on inclusion, it is speculated that this type of collaboration and expertise is not
predominant in art classrooms and may result in significantly limited access to the art
curriculum for students with significant disabilities.
In her classic study, Guay (1994) found that 85 % of art teachers in K-12 classrooms
were working with students who have Ball but the severest disabilities^ (p. 54). Of 212
art teachers surveyed, 70 % felt unprepared or minimally prepared to teach students
with disabilities in an integrated art setting. Guay speculated this was, in part, related to
minimal training requirements (usually one special education course and some content
about working with students who have disabilities infused into art methods courses).
No newer studies comprehensively addressing art teacher preparation for working with
students who have severe disabilities were located; however, the current study was part
of a larger study (Cramer et al. 2015) in which findings suggest that great strides to
improve art teacher preparation for working with individuals who have disabilities that
limit physical, visual, and cognitive access to art have not occurred in the past 20 years.
Taylor (2005a, b) examined the relationship between visual arts education and selfidentity for young adults with physical and/or sensory impairments who were attended
or had attended a college art program. She notes the lack of literature examining the
Blevel, consistency and coherence of … support^ (p. 326) for students in art education
640
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
programs. Given such a limited literature base, a murky area exists in the literature for
identifying who is responsible for ensuring adaptations are implemented in the art
classroom and what types of adaptations and supports in the art classroom increase
meaningful participation for students with significant disabilities.
Although not discussed in the context of art, Fisher et al. (2013) discussed a
Btriangle of supports^—three dimensions of support that can lead to successful access
to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities: personal supports,
accommodations and modifications, and instructional and assistive technologies. These
adaptations are also essential in the art classroom in order to create an environment that
is universally designed (i.e., accessible to all people; Center for Applied Special
Technology n.d.) in order to result in meaningful outcomes for all learners. Further
exploration of personal supports provided by paraeducators in the art classroom and
support through the use of technology to access the art curriculum follows.
Paraeducators in Art Classrooms
Personal supports often are provided by paraeducators and peers within the general
education environment (Fisher et al. 2013). Having assistance from another person,
adult or child, frees the art teacher from providing assistance such as collecting and
readying materials for art activities for a student who is not able to perform independently in the classroom due to a disability. Although not thoroughly documented in the
literature, it is likely that many teachers who have worked with students who have
severe disabilities have noted that these students return from art class with art projects
that are more attractive and well-constructed than those of peers (i.e., made by an
adult). The authors of the current study have witnessed this situation first-hand and
acknowledge that paraeducator support in the art classroom is necessary, though
problematic.
Burdick and Causton-Theoharis (2012) acknowledge that the number of
paraeducators supporting students with disabilities in the art classrooms has increased
while research examining how this support can be utilized in the most beneficial way
remains scarce. Based on case analysis, these authors suggest that art teachers can play
a vital role in supporting students with disabilities in the art classroom if respectful
teaming and empowerment through knowledge takes place. Unfortunately, this does
not seem to be common practice in research surrounding the use of paraeducators.
Giangreco and Broer (2005) surveyed 737 special educators, administrators, general
education teachers, paraeducators, and parents involved in the education of students
with disabilities served in general education classrooms. Their findings indicated that
many students with disabilities receive a Bsubstantial amount^ (p. 22) of instruction
from paraeducators despite numerous issues that impede quality education in
paraeducator-supported instructional settings. Giangreco and Broer found that a large
percentage of paraeducators reported spending most of their time within close proximity (3 ft) to students with disabilities and indicate this proximity can inhibit socialization
between students with disabilities and their peers who do not have disabilities. In an art
classroom which relies on social engagement and communication-skill building, this
type of Bsupport^ can be a detriment to students with severe disabilities. Other issues
pointed out included students’ over-dependence on paraeducator support and
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
641
paraeducator autonomy for making instructional decisions. Although this study was not
specifically about art classrooms, these issues are applicable to art education.
Paraeducators generally are not trained in art education methodology and do not
have the background to make instructional decisions in the art classroom. Often, they
do not understand that art is more about process than product. Taylor (2005b) explains,
BThere may be a well-meaning if misguided commitment by the assistant to enabling
the [child with a disability] to produce ‘conventional’ artwork in order that the
perceived gap in competence between them and their non-disabled peers is narrowed
by producing tangible evidence that they are ‘just like everybody else’^ (p. 330). She
suggests that this over-manipulation of a child’s artwork sends the message that the
child’s efforts are not adequate and limits the child’s ability to express creativity
through artmaking. Guay (2003) conducted a qualitative analysis of instructional and
managerial interactions within 12 art classrooms. She concurs that, BIn many art
classrooms the use of paraeducators continues to marginalize students with disabilities,
creating the antithesis of inclusion^ and that, Bwell-meaning but untrained and unsupervised paraeducators usurp opportunities for students with disabilities to interact,
work with cooperative others, and in the end, learn through interaction^ (p. 36–37).
Although there were some positive findings, Guay’s study sheds light on the fact that
merely having Banother pair of hands^ in the art classroom is not always beneficial in
maximizing art education for students with significant disabilities. Guay and Gerlach
(2006), art educator and special educator respectively, stress that art teachers recognize
that the presence of a paraducator in the art classroom challenges art teachers to become
active leaders; leadership skills such as this only come with adequate training and
collaboration/cooperation of all involved.
It is evident that further research is needed to determine how paraeducators interact
in art classrooms with students who have severe disabilities and to explore how
paraeducators can be employed in useful ways to provide meaningful art experiences
for these students. Another type of support that needs further examination is the use of
adaptations, including AT, in art classrooms.
Adaptations in Art Classrooms
In addition to personal supports, adaptations, including accommodations, modifications, and AT, often are a necessary part of providing access to curriculum for students
with disabilities. Accommodations are adaptations such as decreased workload, increased time, alternate response methods (e.g., using word processing software or
augmentative communication devices), etc. which do not alter or lower expectations
toward meeting the standards while modifications are adaptations which do decrease
the level or number of standards addressed for a student (Coleman and Heller 2009).
Accommodations and modifications may be used during instruction and practice of
content and/or during assessment of acquired knowledge and skills within the content
area. Given the standard, BInterpret intent and meaning in artistic work^ (National Core
Visual Arts Standards 2014), accommodations might include the use of graphic
organizers and word processing software to write about art elements, personal perspective and context; modifications might include having a student identify art elements by
pointing to one or two elements, thereby missing out on the opportunity to describe or
642
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
give feedback on the personal meaning of a work of art, theirs or others (Wexler and
Derby 2015). In traditional academic situations, modifications generally are reserved
for students with decreased cognitive abilities who cannot learn all standards in their
entirety. Unfortunately, in an art classroom, modified instruction may be used more
frequently because solutions that would allow greater independence in participation are
not considered. This may be due to lack of familiarization. Wexler and Derby (2015)
advocate that innovative communication techniques need to be Bformalized^ in the art
classroom in order to provide opportunities for all (p. 138). Recognizing this, art and
special educators alike need to seek ways on how to provide these opportunities.
A final dimension of support that can increase meaningful participation in art
experiences for students with significant disabilities is technology (Fisher et al. 2013;
Loesl 2010). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act defines an
AT device as, B…any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired
commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain,
or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability^ [20 U.S.C. § 1401
(1); 1401 (2)]. The Bany^ portion of this definition can be taken very literally in that
something as simple as scotch tape used to hold the corner of a piece of paper down
while a student with hemiplegia (i.e., one-sided paralysis) writes with her hand that has
controlled movement.
As is the case with technology used to support learning of traditional academics, AT
used to access the art curriculum may range from very simple, inexpensive, nonelectronic devices (i.e., low tech) to battery-operated art tools (i.e., mid tech) to
computerized software (i.e., high tech). For students with visual impairments, AT might
include high contrast colors, tactile materials such as sandpaper and cotton instead of
2D materials like paint, battery-operated lighted magnification devices, or computers to
view works of art on a screen with bright backlighting or to listen to descriptions of art
on a museum website. For students with poor fine motor control, AT might include
adapted implements such as large-handled paintbrushes or spring-open scissors, switchcontrolled battery-operated devices such as adapted SpinArt, or an adapted joystick
used to control computerized drawing software (Cramer et al. 2015). Loesl (2010)
proposes that adaptive art tools should be standard equipment and available for use by
all students. She points out that many art tools are adaptive by nature, though not
specifically designed for use by individuals with disabilities.
Despite acceptance of adaptive tools by some art professionals, there may not be a
clear understanding of the empowerment AT can provide individuals with severe
disabilities. Penketh (2014) objects to some researchers (Taylor 2005a; Young 2008)
describing individuals with disabilities as Busers of assistive technology^ stating, BThe
discussion of technology in this context offers a reductive view of the student and a
limited concept of art education as a series of technical solutions with little consideration given to the creative potentialities of the subject or the student^ (p. 296).
Conversely, the authors of the current study feel that AT has tremendous power to
increase creative potential for individuals with disabilities. This is especially true for
individuals with visual impairments, physical disabilities, and severe/multiple disabilities because of decreased access to traditional artmaking activities.
Despite the possibilities opened to individuals with disabilities through AT, surprisingly little research exists demonstrating effective AT interventions for providing
curriculum access for students with low incidence disabilities. No studies were located
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
643
examining access to the art curriculum through AT. A few case reports are available that
demonstrate the effectiveness of AT at improving independence in creating art for
individuals with disabilities.
Young (2008) examined the outcomes of a program where art tutors and computer
tutors collaborated to support computerized artmaking by adults with physical disabilities. Although technological problems occurred, data from observations and interviews
of participants who completed a 10-week course revealed that art software combined
with adaptive computer input devices allowed greater autonomy in the creation of art.
Taylor (2005a) found that college students with physical disabilities increased in their
use of technology for scanning and manipulating images over several years; however,
the students did not report using technology in art and design in a Bcreative and
meaningful way^ (p. 327). She likens art education for children with disabilities to a
lottery, stating that children with disabilities may or may not encounter art educators
who are committed to the use of technology to support access to art and have the
appropriate training and equipment to do so. For students with the most significant
disabilities, this could mean missing out on vital experiences.
For students with physical disabilities, visual impairments, or severe and multiple
disabilities, AT may play an even greater role in allowing increased independence and
providing more meaningful participation in school experiences. With regard to
individuals with physical disabilities, Stumbo et al. (2009) stated that Bappropriately
chosen and implemented assistive technology^ (p.108) is crucial for increasing the level
of participation in education for individuals to reach levels similar to peers without
disabilities. This can be especially true for art which relies heavily on physical manipulation of materials. Similarly, students with visual impairments may rely heavily on AT
to access information other students acquire through visual means (Heller 2000; Heller
et al. 2002; Shih and Chao 2010). For students with severe or multiple disabilities, being
able to activate a switch to complete an art project can reach beyond participation in
curriculum to enhancement of quality of life allowing students to gain control over some
aspects of their environment (Coleman and Cramer 2015). Unfortunately, there is not a
strong literature base to demonstrate how AT is being used in the art classroom.
Purpose of Study
Although there are a lot of possible ways to adapt art instruction through personal
supports, accommodations and modifications, and technology, it is unclear whether
there is wide-range use of such adaptations by teachers—special educators and art
educators alike—to make art instruction more accessible and more meaningful for
students with disabilities. Given the unique needs of students with visual, motor, speech
and/or cognitive limitations in the art classroom, a survey was developed to examine art
teachers’ preparedness, perceived knowledge, skills, and attitudes and use of adaptations, including AT, in the art classroom. Although students with high incidence
disabilities (e.g., specific learning disabilities) may have difficulties in art, their needs
differ from students with more significant disabilities; thus, the focus of the survey was
on students who have physical, visual, severe, and multiple disabilities. Results about
general preparedness, knowledge, and skills have been reported elsewhere (Cramer
et al. 2015) while findings specific to the use of adaptations, AT, and supports from
644
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
special education personnel are reported here. To be specific, the following research
questions were used:
1. What types of accommodations and modifications do art teachers report using in
their classrooms for students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities?
2. What is the frequency of usage of certain AT devices in art classrooms for students
with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities?
3. Do art teachers report feeling prepared to use AT to increase art capabilities for
students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities?
4. What are the reported barriers to the use of AT in art classroom for students with
physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities?
5. What is the reported frequency of support from special education teachers and
paraeducators when art teachers have students with physical, visual, severe, or
multiple disabilities in their classrooms?
6. What attitudes are expressed by art teachers regarding teaching students with
physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities and regarding interest and willingness to receive more training for working with these students?
Method
The study involved development of survey items addressing students with physical,
visual, severe, and multiple disabilities in art classrooms. The survey was distributed to
art teachers through a national art educators’ association.
Survey Development
Survey Item Development An expert in art education and two experts in special
education participated in developing draft survey protocols in a way that would allow
responses to match the research questions. The original survey targeted art teachers and
art teacher educators in the United States. A paper version of the survey was distributed
at a state conference for art educators and 17 art educators responded. In addition to the
survey items, participants were asked to provide feedback on the survey instrument
(e.g., appropriateness of questions and length). Based on these responses, the survey
was revised to (a) separate the instrument into two separate instruments addressing P-12
teachers and teacher educators separately, (b) reduce the survey length, and (c) refine
several questions for clarity and adequacy in soliciting participant responses. Survey
items addressed in the final teacher instrument reported in this paper include nine
questions about demographics (e.g., number of years teaching, type of school); six
questions about the types of accommodations used in the art classroom; two questions
about specific types of AT used in the art classroom; one question addressing attitudes
about working with students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities; and
three questions about supports from special education personnel.
Upon the development of an initial set of survey questions, a research
methodologist was invited to elaborate the survey questions and make the items
precise in accordance with the proposed research questions. The final set of
survey questions was constructed consisting of items addressing the following
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
645
constructs: (a) demographic information, (b) levels of perceived knowledge and
preparedness and sources of preparedness for teaching students with physical,
visual, severe, or multiple disabilities in the art classroom, and (c) strategies
and resources, including AT, used for teaching students with physical, visual,
severe, or multiple disabilities in the art classroom. Several types of questions
were used in the survey: multiple choice (one question statement with several
choices from which to choose one answer), fill-in-the-blank (fill in the number
of years of teaching or state in which employed), open-ended responses (space
to enter lengthier answers such as additional comments), and grid questions
(one question with several sub-questions requiring Likert-type scale responses
such as BNever,^ BSometimes,^ BRegularly,^ BVery Often^ and BAll the time.^).
The survey can be obtained from the first author upon request.
Disability Categories in Survey Art teachers’ past experiences were asked with
the focus on students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities. Six
types of disabilities covered in the survey included: (a) significant vision loss
or blindness, (b) mild physical limitations, (c) severe physical limitations, (d)
multiple disabilities which include physical and intellectual disabilities, (e)
Severe intellectual disabilities without physical disabilities, and (f) autism
resulting in severe disabilities.
Survey Implementation
After the survey questions were refined, a PDF of the survey was uploaded to
the website of one of the researchers. The PDF included instructions for how to
mail the survey to the researchers. The questions also were transferred to a web
survey format in IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 21
(SPSS 21) to increase access to the survey, reduce the cost of conducting the
research, and increase the response rate. An email with an explanation of the
research purpose, directions for completing the survey, and links to the PDF
version and the SPSS version were submitted to the National Art Education
Association elementary, middle, secondary, special education and higher education distribution listservs. Similar information was sent to each state’s Art
Education Association organization website. Due to the difficulty of determining information regarding the total numbers of listserv members and the
potential overlap between state and national members, a total count of how
many members received the email is difficult to establish. Seventy-seven participants completed the online survey and all the participants were from United
States. No respondents sent survey responses via U.S. Mail.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics and frequency analyses generated by SPSS were used to
address the six research questions. In addition, in order to examine if art
teachers’ years of teaching and numbers of students with disabilities they had
influence on their intention to use certain AT device, non parametric Chi square
646
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
analyses were used where years of teaching and numbers of student with
disabilities were added as fixed factors.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
2Seventy-seven art teachers completed the survey. Mean age of respondents
was 43.2 years and the mean number years of teaching art was 13.5. Most art
teachers (58.4 %) reported working with 1–10 students with physical, visual,
severe, or multiple disabilities per year. When asked how often they work with
students who have certain types of disabilities, higher numbers of art teachers
responded regularly, very often, or all the time for students who have autism
resulting in severe disabilities (51.9 %), mild physical limitations (48.1 %),
severe intellectual disabilities without physical limitations (46.8 %), and students with multiple disabilities that included intellectual and physical limitations
(45.5 %). Fewer teachers responded regularly, very often, or all the time to
working with students having severe physical disabilities without intellectual
disabilities (27.3 %) and students having significant vision loss or blindness
(10.4 %). Complete demographic information for respondents is located in
Table 1 and information about the types of students taught by respondents is
located in Table 2.
Adaptations, Including Assistive Technology, in the Art Classroom
The first research question addressed the types of accommodations and modifications
used by art teachers for students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities.
Table 3 contains complete results of responses.
A majority (68.4 %) of art teachers responded that they assign the same
projects with accommodations or modifications to students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities as they assign to students without disabilities.
A large number (53.2 %) reported assigning modified art projects while 20.3 %
reported assigning modified writing assignments. For assessment, 54.4 % of
teachers said they use modified rubrics while 13.9 % said they use the same
rubrics for students with and without significant disabilities. Large numbers of
teachers reported assessing students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple
disabilities based on effort (65.8 %) or participation (70.9 %). The most
frequent types of adaptations reported were peer or adult assistance with
managing materials (84.8 %), extended time (59.5 %), and peer or adult
hand-over-hand or hand-under-hand assistance (54.4 %). Lower percentages of
teachers responded that they provide projects partially completed by an adult or
peer (44.3 %), modified materials (38.0 %), special equipment (35.4 %), and
projects completely done by a peer or adult (8.9 %). Other types of assignments, assessments, or adaptations reported included things such as providing
choices, simplifying steps, decreasing amount of time on task required, using
washable or safer materials, assigning supplemental activities that build fine
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
647
Table 1 Art teachers’ demographic information
Demographic information
Mean age
43.2 years
(n=74; 5 preferred not to answer; range 25–64)
Mean number
of years teaching art
13.5 ;years
(n=76; 1 preferred not to answer; range 1–41)
Median=16; Bimodal=7 and
8 (7.9 ;% each)
Gender
Female
Ethnicity
Highest degree obtained
Teaching level
Type of school
87.3 ;%
(n=69)
Male
11.4 ;%
(n=9)
Other or prefer not to answer
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
African-American or Black
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
American Indian, Native
American, or Inuit
2.5 ;%
(n=2)
Caucasian-American,
European-American, or White
86.1 ;%
(n=68)
(n=2)
Hispanic or Latino/a
2.5 ;%
Prefer not to answer
7.6 ;%
(n=6)
Bachelor’s
22.8 ;%
(n=18)
Master’s
62.0 ;%
(n=49)
Specialist’s
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
Doctorate
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
Other
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
High School
57.0 ;%
(n=45)
(n=37)
Middle School
46.8 ;%
Elementary School
65.8 ;%
(n=52)
Preschool
15.2 ;%
(n=12)
Urban
40.3 ;%
(n=31)
Suburban
36.4 ;%
(n=28)
Rural
20.8 ;%
(n=16)
Other (e.g., specialized, magnet)
2.6 ;%
(n=2)
motor skills (e.g., puzzles and Theraputty), and adapting on a case-by-case
basis.
To address the second research question, participants were provided with a list of AT
devices and asked to rate the frequency with which they use each device in their
classrooms with students who have physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities.
These results are located in Table 4.
A lot of the devices were reported as being used rarely or never by large percentages
of respondents and only a few devices were reported as being used sometimes, often, or
almost always by more than 50 % of respondents. AT devices for visual needs were
reported as being used sometimes, often, or almost always as follows: 49.4 % use tactile
rather than visual materials, 37.7 % use large print materials, 14.3 % use handheld
648
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
Table 2 Art teachers’ experiences with students who have physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities
Experiences with students who have physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities
Approximate number of students per year with physical, visual, severe, or
multiple disabilities (N=79)
0 (this response ended the
survey)
2.5 %
(n=2)
1–5
31.6 %
(n=25)
6–10
25.3 %
(n=20)
11–15
7.6 %
(n=6)
16–20
11.4 %
(n=9)
20–25
5.1 %
(n=4)
>25
16.5 %
(n=13)
How often students with certain types of disabilities are taught
All the time
Very
Regularly Sometimes Never or
often
rarely
Significant vision loss or
blindness
2.5 %
(n=2)
3.8 %
(n=3)
3.8 %
(n=3)
25.3 %
(n=20)
62.0 %
(n=49)
Mild physical limitations
7.6 %
(n=6)
12.7 %
(n=10)
26.6 %
(n=21)
44.3 %
(n=35)
6.3 %
(n=5)
Severe physical limitations
without
intellectual disabilities
3.8 %
(n=3)
5.1 %
(n=4)
17.7 %
(n=14)
38.0 %
(n=30)
32.9 %
(n=26)
Multiple disabilities which
include
physical and intellectual
disabilities
6.3 %
(n=5)
12.7 %
(n=10)
25.3 %
(n=20)
30.4 %
(n=24)
21.5 %
(n=17)
Severe intellectual disabilities
without
physical disabilities
10.1 %
(n=8)
15.2 %
(n=12)
20.3 %
(n=16)
35.4 %
(n=28)
16.5 %
(n=13)
Autism resulting in severe
disabilities
12.7 %
(n=10)
12.7 %
(n=10)
25.3 %
(n=20)
32.9 %
(n=26)
13.9 %
(n=11)
magnifiers or other nonelectronic vision devices, and 12.9 % use light boxes (device
which provides back lighting for contrast). Three devices which help provide physical
access were used sometimes, often, or almost always by more than 50.0 % of respondents: 59.7 % use large-handled writing or painting tools and adaptive scissors while
55.8 % use larger-sized materials. Devices for materials stabilization (e.g., using tape or
non-slip material) are used by 46.8 % of respondents. All other devices received less
than 30 % responses of sometimes, often, or almost always. Other types of AT listed by
art teachers included recorded instructions, interactive white board activities, iPod/iPad
devices, student response system / clickers, along with several options which would
address hearing loss (e.g., FM system).
In order to see if the mean number of years teaching art influences frequency of
teacher’s use of each AT device in their classroom, chi-square tests were conducted. A
chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between years’
experience and frequency of use. The relation between years of teaching art and the rate
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
649
Table 3 Types of assignments, assessments, and adaptations provided to students with physical, visual,
severe, or multiple disabilities
Types
%
N
Same art projects and written assignments with accommodations or modifications
68.4
54
Modified art projects
53.2
42
Modified written assignments
20.3
16
Same art projects and written assignments with NO accommodations or modifications
8.9
7
Assessment based on participation
70.9
56
Assessment based on effort
65.8
52
Modified rubrics
54.4
43
Modified quizzes or worksheets
17.7
14
Same rubrics for all students
13.9
11
No assessment of these students
7.6
6
Quizzes or worksheets same for all students
6.3
5
Peer or adult assistance with materials management
84.8
67
Extended time
59.5
47
Peer or adult hand-over-hand or hand-under-hand assistance
54.4
43
Assignments
Assessment
Adaptations
Projects partially completed by peer or adult
44.3
35
Modified materials
38
30
Special equipment
35.4
28
Projects completely done by peer or adult
8.9
7
of frequency was not significant, X 2 (6, N=77)=4.1, p<.19. Similarly, the number of
students with disabilities they taught was not significantly related to the frequency to
use AT, X 2 (6, N=77)=2.1 p<.29.
Because the researchers predicted low rates of AT use would be reported, the
third research question addressed art teachers’ perceived preparedness for using
AT and the fourth question addressed reasons for low uses of AT in the art
classroom. As previously mentioned, data reported here are part of a larger data
set. Findings from the larger study (Cramer et al. 2015) indicated that art
teachers felt prepared to teach art, but not well prepared to teach students with
physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities. This holds true for knowledge
and preparedness for using AT (see Table 5).
Over half of the participants responded somewhat minimal or extremely
minimal to their perceived knowledge of types of AT (52.0 %) and their
perceived abilities to select and use AT devices to increase capabilities in art
(57.1 %) for students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities.
When asked if they felt their university coursework or training and support
from their school system had adequately prepared them with knowledge and
650
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
Table 4 Frequency of usage of assistive technology devices
Assistive technology devices
Almost Often
always
Sometimes Rarely
Never
Vision
Tactile rather than visual materials
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
16.5 ;% 27.8 ;%
(n=13) (n=22)
11.4 ;% 36.7 ;%
(n=9) (n=29)
Large print materials
0 ;%
(n=0)
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
30.4 ;%
(n=24)
19.0 ;% 41.8 ;%
(n=15) (n=33)
Handheld magnifier or other
nonelectronic vision device
0 ;%
(n=0)
0 ;%
(n=0)
13.9 ;%
(n=11)
13.9 ;% 67.1 ;%
(n=11) (n=53)
Light box
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
7.6 ;%
(n=6)
12.7 ;% 72.2 ;%
(n=10) (n=57)
Large-handled writing or painting tools
2.5 ;%
(n=2)
27.8 ;% 27.8 ;%
(n=22) (n=22)
13.9 ;% 25.3 ;%
(n=11) (n=20)
Adaptive scissors
12.7 ;% 17.7 ;% 27.8 ;%
(n=10) (n=14) (n=22)
7.6 ;%
(n=6)
30.4 ;%
(n=24)
Larger-sized materials
(e.g., larger shape cutouts)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
29.1 ;% 24.1 ;%
(n=23) (n=19)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
31.6 ;%
(n=25)
Materials stabilization
(e.g., tape or Dycem)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
17.7 ;% 26.6 ;%
(n=14) (n=21)
12.7 ;% 36.7 ;%
(n=10) (n=29)
Internet pictures or clipart
instead of drawing
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
10.1 ;% 16.5 ;%
(n=8) (n=13)
10.1 ;% 61.0 ;%
(n=8) (n=47)
Stamps instead of writing or drawing
0 ;%
(n=0)
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
19.0 ;%
(n=15)
13.9 ;% 58.2 ;%
(n=11) (n=46)
Slant board
0 ;%
(n=0)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
13.9 ;%
(n=11)
10.1 ;% 60.8 ;%
(n=8) (n=48)
Computerized drawing or painting programs
0 ;%
(n=0)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
11.4 ;%
(n=9)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
Communication devices
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
7.6 ;%
(n=6)
12.7 ;% 69.6 ;%
(n=10) (n=55)
Student uses alternate body part
(e.g., brush held in mouth)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
11.4 ;% 74.7 ;%
(n=9) (n=59)
Battery-operated painting device (e.g., Spinart) or
similar
0 ;%
(n=0)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
84.8 ;%
(n=67)
Single switch computer activity
0 ;%
(n=0)
0 ;%
(n=0)
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
79.7 ;%
(n=63)
Physical
67.1 ;%
(n=53)
Other: recorded instructions, projectors, interactive white board activities, iPod/iPad, student response system,
(several listed devices for hearing loss)
strategies for using AT 71.4 % disagreed or strongly disagreed for university
preparation and 68.8 % for training or support from the school system. Only a
few participants (n=4; 5.1 %) indicated they have taken a university course on
AT in addition to other courses which prepared them to work with students
who have physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities.
Participants were asked to select from a list all reasons that AT is not used more often
in their classroom. The most frequent responses, as displayed in Table 6, were (a)
limited availability of AT or limited funds to purchase AT (65.8 %), (b) limited
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
651
Table 5 Art educators’ perceived knowledge and skills and reported preparation for using types of Assistive
Technology (AT)
Levels of perceived knowledge and preparedness for using AT to increase art capabilities for students with
physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities
Extremely
Somewhat
Medium
extensive
extensive
Somewhat Extremely
minimal
minimal
Knowledge of types of AT
available for students with PVSMD
5.1 %
(n=4)
10.1 %
(n=8)
31.6 %
(n=25)
34.2 %
(n=27)
16.5 %
(n=13)
Ability to select and use AT devices
to increase student capabilities in art
5.1 %
(n=4)
2.5 %
(n=2)
34.2 %
(n=27)
32.9 %
(n=26)
22.8 %
(n=18)
Level of agreement regarding preparedness by university and LEA
Strongly
agree
Agree
Disagree
Neither
agree
or
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Felt university coursework adequately
prepared for knowledge and strategies
for implementing AT
2.5 %
(n=2)
15.2 %
(n=12)
10.1 %
(n=8)
31.6 %
(n=25)
38.0 %
(n=30)
Felt training or support from school system
adequately prepared for knowledge and
strategies for implementing AT
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
13.9 ;%
(n=11)
11.4 ;%
(n=9)
32.9 ;%
(n=26)
34.2 ;%
(n=27)
5.1 ;% of respondents (n=4) said they have taken an AT course
knowledge about AT (51.9 %), (c) limited time to learn and implement AT (31.6 %)
followed by limited personnel to support the use of AT (29.1 %) and limited need for
AT (29.1 %).
Supports from Special Education Personnel
The survey contained questions about the frequency of support from special education
personnel to address the fifth research question (see Table 7). Regarding support from
special education teachers, 76.6 % of art teachers reported sometimes, often, or almost
Table 6 Reasons AT is not used
Reason
%
N
Limited availability of AT or limited funds to purchase ATa
65.8
52
Limited knowledge about AT
51.9
41
Limited time to learn and implement AT
31.6
25
Limited personnel to support the use of AT
29.1
23
Limited need for AT
29.1
23
Limited space to store AT
15.2
12
OTHER: culture at school of assistant doing work for student, no student has needed AT for ceramic projects
a
AT Assistive Technology
652
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
Table 7 Supports from special education personnel
Frequency of support from special education personnel
Almost
always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Frequency of collaboration with special education
teacher about students with PVSMD
11.4 ;%
(n=9)
20.3 ;%
(n=16)
41.8 ;%
(n=33)
20.3 ;%
(n=16)
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
Frequency of receiving IEP or accommodation/
modification information
35.4 ;%
(n=28)
22.8 ;%
(n=18)
16.5 ;%
(n=13)
17.7 ;%
(n=14)
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
Frequency of support/training on use of
AT from special educators
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
2.5 ;%
(n=2)
16.5 ;%
(n=13)
26.6 ;%
(n=21)
50.6 ;%
(n=40)
Frequency of support/training on use of AT
from other personnel (e.g., AT specialist, PT, OT)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
2.5 ;%
(n=2)
12.7 ;%
(n=10)
27.8 ;%
(n=22)
51.9 ;%
(n=41)
Support from paraprofessionals
Almost always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Paraprofessionals assist art teacher in
gaining knowledge of how to adapt projects
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
10.1 ;%
(n=8)
24.1 ;%
(n=19)
19.0 ;%
(n=15)
17.7 ;%
(n=14)
Paraprofessionals assist art teacher in gaining
knowledge of AT devices and implementation
of devices
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
7.6 ;%
(n=6)
15.2 ;%
(n=12)
17.7 ;%
(n=14)
35.4 ;%
(n=28)
Paraprofessionals provide the amount of support
needed to make art meaningful for students
with PVSMD
15.2 ;%
(n=12)
15.2 ;%
(n=12)
24.1 ;%
(n=19)
13.9 ;%
(n=11)
8.9 ;%
(n=7)
Paraprofessionals provide too much support
and undermine my instructional strategies
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
3.8 ;%
(n=3)
19.0 ;%
(n=15)
16.5 ;%
(n=13)
34.2 ;%
(n=27)
Paraprofessionals make the art project with little
input from student with PVSMD
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
5.1 ;%
(n=4)
25.3 ;%
(n=20)
22.8 ;%
(n=18)
19.0 ;%
(n=15)
Paraprofessionals make their own art
projects while in my classroom
6.3 ;%
(n=5)
1.3 ;%
(n=1)
21.5 ;%
(n=17)
13.9 ;%
(n=11)
34.2 ;%
(n=27)
always receiving students’ IEPs or information about accommodations and modifications and 75.3 % said they sometimes, often, or almost always collaborate with the
special education teacher. As for receiving support and training about AT, only
20.8 % responded sometimes, often, or almost always from the special education teacher and 16.9 % from other special education personnel (e.g., AT
specialist, occupational therapist). Art teachers also were asked to rate the
frequency of certain types of support from paraeducators or teaching assistants.
Over half of art teachers (55.8 %) reported that paraeducators sometimes, often,
or almost always provide the amount of support needed to make art meaningful
for students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities while 27.3 %
said that paraeducators sometimes, often, or almost always provide too much
support and undermine the teacher’s instructional strategies. Paraeducators were
reported 40.3 % as sometimes, often, or almost always assisting the art teacher
in gaining knowledge about how to adapt projects and 24.7 % about knowledge
and implementation of AT devices. About one third of art teachers said that
paraeducators sometimes, often, or almost always make art projects with little
input from students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities
(36.4 %) or make their own art projects during art class (29.9 %) (Table 8).
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
653
Table 8 Attitudes toward students with physical, visual, severe, and multiple disabilities and toward further
training
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
74.7 %
(n=59)
19.0 %
(n=15)
2.5 %
(n=2)
0%
(n=0)
1.3 %
(n=1)
58.2 %
It is important for students with
(n=46)
PVSMD
to participate in the social aspects
of an art class
32.9 %
(n=26)
5.1 %
(n=4)
0%
(n=0)
1.3 %
(n=1)
It is important for students with
PVSMD to create art that is
attractive and looks the same as
peers’ work
6.3 %
(n=5)
6.3 %
(n=5)
24.1 %
(n=19)
31.6 %
(n=25)
29.1 %
(n=23)
Self-efficacy for teaching
students with PVSMD
about art
10.1 %
(n=8)
41.8 %
(n=33)
36.7 %
(n=29)
7.6 %
(n=6)
1.3 %
(n=1)
Enjoy working with students
who have PVSMD
38.0 %
(n=30)
41.8 %
(n=33)
13.9 %
(n=11)
2.5 %
(n=2)
1.3 %
(n=1)
It is important for students with
PVSMD
to participate in the process of
creating art
Interest and willingness to acquire additional training / implement other strategies
Very
Willing / Somewhat
willing/
interwilling /
interestested
interested
ed
Minimally
willing /
interested
Not at all
willing /
interested
Willing / interested in learning more 39.2 %
strategies and accommodations to (n=31)
allow greater participation by
students with PVSMD
43.0 %
(n=34)
11.4 %
(n=9)
2.5 %
(n=2)
1.3 %
(n=1)
Willing to implement
new strategies
or accommodations
43.0 %
(n=34)
40.5 %
(n=32)
8.9 %
(n=7)
2.5 %
(n=2)
2.5 %
(n=2)
Willing / interested in learning more 34.2 %
(n=27)
about AT that would
allow greater
participation by students with
PVSMD
41.8 %
(n=33)
17.7 %
(n=14)
2.5 %
(n=2)
1.3 %
(n=1)
Willing to implement
new AT solutions
40.5 %
(n=32)
12.7 %
(n=10)
5.1 %
(n=4)
2.5 %
(n=2)
35.4 %
(n=28)
In the optional space to provide comments about supports from special
education, 68.8 % of the art teacher participants responded. Many of the
comments were reflective of a passion for working with students who have
disabilities; e.g., BMy special education kids are some of my most fulfilling
moments as a teacher.^ Some of the comments reflect positive experiences with
collaboration such as, BI collaborate with the [special education] teacher at my
school on a near daily basis. We bounce ideas off one another as to how to
effectively teach her students when they come to art class.^ However, many of
654
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
the comments reflected dissatisfaction with the way students with disabilities
are served in the art classroom; some reasons cited include large overall class
sizes, lack of time and support for collaboration, and lack of enough support
for students within the art classroom.
Attitudes
The final research question addressed attitudes of art teachers toward teaching students
with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities and their interest and willingness to
receive more training for working with these students. Large percentages of art teachers
agreed or strongly agreed that (a) they enjoy working with students who have physical,
visual, severe, or multiple disabilities (81.8 %), (b) they believe it is important for these
students to participate in the process of creating art (96.1 %), and (c) they believe it is
important for these students to participate in the social aspects of an art class (93.5 %).
About 60 % (62.3 %), disagreed or strongly disagreed that it is important for the art
projects created by students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities to be
attractive and look the same as the work of their peers without disabilities. Although
not about attitude, per se, a question about self-efficacy was included in the same
section of questions. About half (53.2 %) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel
effective in teaching students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities.
Most art teachers (84.4 %) responded that they were willing or very willing to learn
more strategies and accommodations to allow greater participation by students with
physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities in their classrooms with 85.7 % being
interested or very interested in receiving more training in this area. For AT, 77.9 %
responded they were willing/interested or very willing/interested in learning and
implementing new AT solutions that would allow greater participation for these
students in the art classroom.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine art educators’ use of adaptations, including
AT, and their reported supports from special education personnel to meet the needs of
students with physical, sensory, severe, and multiple disabilities in the art classroom.
This study updates and extends Guay (1994) by addressing specific types of adaptations, with an emphasis on AT devices, used by art teachers to support learning the art
curriculum for students with significant disabilities. Furthermore, the study supports
findings in the broader research on collaborative efforts and general education teachers’
attitudes for inclusion of students with disabilities (Alquraini and Gut 2012; Carter et al.
2009; Copley and Ziviani 2004; Gal et al. 2010; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996).
The first two research questions address types and frequency of use of adaptations,
including AT. It is encouraging that almost 70 % of art teachers reported providing
projects which are similar to those of peers with accommodations or modifications for
students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities. However, the only
accommodation with a high percentage of reported use (>75 % sometimes, often, or
almost always) was help with materials management and the only others reportedly
used by over half of the respondents were extended time and hand-over-hand/hand-
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
655
under-hand assistance. It is not surprising that materials for stabilization, large-handled
writing or painting tools, and adaptive scissors are used by more of the art teachers
who responded than other types of AT, but even these devices were only reported
as being used sometimes, often, or almost always by approximately half of the
participants. These findings suggest adaptations that might make art more meaningful for this population of students are being underused. This is consistent with
research about the use of AT in broader environments for students with physical
disabilities (Coleman 2011; Campbell et al. 2006; Østensjø et al. 2005) and severe
disabilities (Alquraini and Gut 2012; Carter et al. 2009; Copley and Ziviani 2004;
Gal et al. 2010).
This is discouraging given the importance of adaptations and AT discussed by
Alquraini and Gut (2012): B…accommodations and adaptations can be useful and
supportive to collaborative teams in schools to assist students with severe disabilities
to access and make progress in the general education curriculum… AT can play a
significant role in assisting students with severe disabilities to be successful in inclusive
settings^ (p. 54–55). It is also discouraging that approximately 70 % of art teachers
report assessing students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities based on
effort or participation while barely more than half use modified rubrics. Although
reasons for this cannot be gleaned from these data, higher percentages based on
participation and effort rather than more objective assessment methods (e.g., rubrics)
might indicate lower expectations and/or lower accountability for the success of these
students in the art classroom. Additionally, no relationship was found between the
number years of teaching or the number of students with physical, visual, severe, or
multiple disabilities art teachers had taught. These findings align with Pianta et al.
(2007) in that years of teaching did not guarantee classroom opportunities for students.
The third and fourth research questions specifically addressed teachers’ preparedness for using AT and reasons for not using AT. Given the low response rates for AT
devices, it is not surprising that art teachers reported not being knowledgeable or
feeling prepared about AT. In the larger data set (Cramer et al. 2015), most art teachers
reported only taking one introduction to special education class and receiving some
instruction about working with students who have physical, visual, severe, or multiple
disabilities in an art methods course. Overall, however, it seems reasonable to suggest
that art teachers need more training on AT that can increase meaningful participation for
students with significant disabilities and/or special education teachers, who often take
an AT course, need more training in how to collaborate with art teachers and
paraeducators so that AT devices gain more widespread usage in the art classroom.
Limited knowledge about AT was stated by over half of the participants, exceeded only
slightly by limited availability of AT devices or limited funds to purchase AT. Lack of
knowledge and lack of availability seem to work hand-in-hand. If few people are
knowledgeable about the types of devices available and how to implement the use of
devices, then money will not be prioritized for purchase of AT. These barriers to the use
of AT align with previous research. For example, Copley and Ziviani (2004) found lack
of training, lack of staff support, negative staff attitudes, inadequate AT assessment,
insufficient funding, difficulties procuring and managing equipment, and time constraints to be barriers to AT use for students with multiple disabilities. A related
question is which person—art educator or special educator—is responsible for providing adaptations? Ultimately, if a student’s IEP states he or she is to receive AT to
656
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
support art instruction, it should be provided, but, by whom? The fifth research
question addressed supports from special education.
Despite insistence in the literature regarding the importance of collaboration to
promote successful inclusion (Carter et al. 2009), about one-fourth of art teachers
reported rarely or never collaborating with special education teachers about students
with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities with the majority reporting
collaboration as happening Bsometimes.^ Most did report receiving IEP or
accommodation/modification information, indicating that special educators are not
well-prepared to collaborate with art teachers and may feel providing the basic documentation is enough. Overwhelmingly, art teachers reported not receiving support and
training about AT from any special education personnel (teachers, paraeducators,
related services professionals). The findings regarding paraeducators echo some of
the sentiments expressed by Guay (2003). This is disturbing given that one of the
primary benefits of collaboration is to increase the meaningfulness and quality of
instruction when including students with significant disabilities in general education
(Westling and Fox 2009).
Though direct comparisons to Guay’s (2003) study are not possible, findings were
similar in that some art teachers felt paraeducators provided adequate support and some
felt too much support was provided. This is consistent with research regarding the use
of paraeducators in inclusive settings in several countries. Over- or under-reliance on
paraeducators in inclusive classrooms can yield educational environments that do not
provide the best support for students with disabilities (Giangreco and Broer 2005;
Giangreco et al. 2011). With the rise in numbers of paraeducators being employed
(Giangreco and Broer 2005), it is important to examine the possible benefits and
detriments of having paraeducators work in inclusive settings, including art
classrooms. Stevenson and Carter (2014) state:
Not only may aides not have a positive effect, there are a number of undesirable
effects that have been reported from both the US and the UK, such as interference
with teacher/student and student/student relationships. The lack of positive impact from the employment of teacher aides may be related to their inadequate
preparation and training and related inability to deliver quality instruction, to
reduced teacher/student interaction when an aide is present and to the tendency of
some teachers to relinquish responsibility for the student to the aide. (p. 146)
It is clear that more training is needed for paraeducators, special educators who supervise
paraeducators, and for art educators (Causton-Theoharis and Burdick 2008; Giangreco
et al. 2011). Ultimately, system-wide planning, optimization of resources, and ongoing
evaluation would be used to ensure that students with disabilities are receiving the best
supports possible when instructed in inclusive settings (Giangreco et al. 2011).
Another issue found in this study is related to production of works of art. About onefourth stated that paraeducators sometimes make art projects without input from
students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities and one-fifth reported
that paraeducators sometimes make their own art projects in the art classroom. The
comments of art teachers in this study seem to support Causton-Theoharis and
Burdick’s (2008) qualitative study of paraeducators in art classrooms, who suggest that
paraeducators can close the gate to artmaking by interfering with physical access,
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
657
interrupting authenticity and altering art production. Derby (2013) suggests art education research on disabilities has revealed issues regarding the paraeducator and warns
that the Bproblem has grown with the increase of paraeducators in art classrooms^ (p.
377). The results surrounding supports from special education seem to indicate that
more training is necessary for special educators in the area of collaboration with art
teachers and preparation of paraeducators specifically to work with students in the art
classroom given the importance of Bprocess over product,^ personal perspective and
Bmeaning making^ within the artmaking experience.
In responses to items addressing the final research question, art teachers overwhelmingly indicated positive attitudes toward students with physical, visual, severe, or
multiple disabilities and a willingness to increase their knowledge about and use of
additional adaptations including AT. This aligns with previous studies demonstrating
generally positive attitudes toward inclusion (Gal et al. 2010; Scruggs and Mastropieri
1996). This bodes well given research demonstrating that teachers’ attitudes toward
students with disabilities and toward inclusion are crucial in whether or not inclusion is
successful (Chow and Winzer 1992; Gal et al. 2010; Hastings and Oakford 2003; Pivik
et al. 2002). Since there were high levels of positive attitudes, it seems that the low
usage of appropriate adaptations is not due to art teachers not caring about students with
physical, visual, severe and multiple disabilities and their ability to access the art
curriculum. Thus, it must be assumed that the problem lies in teacher preparation and
training in collaboration as already indicated above.
As with any study, there are limitations that may impact applicability of these results.
First, by nature, survey research may not reflect actual practices as much as respondents’ beliefs. Second, the survey was distributed online through national or state-wide
associations, there was no information available to estimate the original participants or
initial respondents; thus, the response rate was not calculable as the total number of
eligible individuals was not estimable. Third, although emails were sent to large
numbers of listserv participants, only 77 teachers completed the entire survey. The
findings may have been different given a larger sample. Finally, the survey was not
constructed in a way that clearly demonstrated differences between students based on
different types of disabilities. In other words, the survey did not ask teachers to
specifically address only issues and technology for students with physical disabilities
or only students with visual impairments. Therefore, disaggregation of information by
disability type was not possible.
More research is needed to determine appropriate adaptations, including personal
supports, accommodations and modifications, and AT, that may increase access to the
art curriculum for students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities. Future
research may include students with disabilities not specifically addressed in this study.
Particularly, research is needed to address collaboration between special educators and
art educators and training for paraeducators and how these professionals can best
support the needs of students with significant disabilities in the art classroom.
Conclusions
These findings seem to suggest that students with physical, visual, severe, or multiple
disabilities are not always receiving supports that make art class as meaningful as it
658
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
could be by allowing them increased independence and participation. Based on these
results, teacher training programs in art education need to incorporate more instruction
in providing meaningful assignments, assessments, and adaptations. Teacher training
programs in special education need to incorporate more instruction on (a) how adaptations, including AT, can be used in the art classroom to make experiences more
meaningful, (b) effective practices for collaborating with art teachers, and (c) methods
for training paraeducators to provide adequate supports in the art classroom. In
addition, more collaborative research needs to take place to develop new ways to
ensure that all people may participate in the experience of creating and responding to
the world around them. Derby (2013) proposes that, by omission of Bsustained
research^ (p. 377) in art education for individuals with disabilities, we are failing to
serve. Access to art may provide access to self-expression not otherwise afforded to
individuals with physical, visual, severe, or multiple disabilities. Wexler (2011) writes,
Making decisions is the ongoing process of artmaking. Out of all the colors on the
palette, we choose one. We may not be able to explain why we make that choice,
but something pulls us toward one color above another, just as we are pulled
toward the people, ideas, and places in our lives. Once the choice has been made,
a new response is formed directly from our action on the material…We are
motivated to make more choices as each choice adds to the complexity of the
evolving schema, and the canvas the meeting place of our internal and external
reality. This favoring of one object in the world over another defines who we are.
The ability to make such choices and then deal with the consequences of further
choices is a key reason that making art promotes awareness of our priorities and
intentions, important ingredients in self-knowledge. (p. 23)
It is essential that the field of education begins to acknowledge the importance of
quality art instruction for students with physical, visual, severe, and multiple disabilities. Efforts must be taken to ensure that art teachers, special education teachers, and
paraeducators have adequate training, time for collaboration, and appropriate tools,
including assistive technology, so that art instruction yields meaningful benefits for all
students.
Ethics Statement All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
IRB at University of Tennessee approval #8326B.
References
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe
disabilities: literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27, 42–59.
Bolin, P. E. (2006). Drawing on the past for insight and direction: ten considerations in legislative and policy
development for art education. Studies in Art Education, 47, 326–343.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
659
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning instruction with
academic content standards: finding the link. Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
31, 309–321.
Burdick, C., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2012). Creating effective paraprofessional support in the inclusive art
classroom. Art Education, 65, 33–37.
Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for
teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 26, 3–13.
Carey, D. M., & Sale, P. (1994). Practical considerations in the use of technology to facilitate the inclusion of
students with severe disabilities. Technology and Disability, 3(2), 77–86.
Carter, N., Parter, M. A., Jackson, A., & Marchant, M. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative
planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54, 60–70.
Causton-Theoharis, J., & Burdick, C. (2008). Paraprofessionals: gatekeepers of authentic art production.
Studies in Art Education, 49, 167–182.
Center for Applied Special Technology (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.cast.org/udl/index.html.
Chow, P., & Winzer, C. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of a scale measuring attitudes toward
mainstreaming. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 52, 223–229.
Coleman, M. B. (2011). Successful implementation of assistive technology to promote access to curriculum
and instruction for students with physical disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related
Services, 30, 2–22.
Coleman, M. B., & Heller, K. W. (2009). Assistive technology considerations. In K. W. Heller, P. E. Forney, P.
A. Alberto, S. J. Best, & M. N. Swartzman (Eds.), Understanding physical, health, and multiple
disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.
Coleman, M. B., & Cramer, E. S. (2015). Creating meaningful art experiences with assistive technology for
students with physical, visual, severe, and multiple disabilities. Journal of Art Education, 68, 6–13.
Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Carter, E. W., Guth, C., Presley, J. A., Williams, C. R., & Fowler, S. E. (2004).
Increasing access to general education: perspectives of participants in a high school peer support program.
Remedial and Special Education, 25, 342–352.
Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple
disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11, 229–243.
Cramer, E. S., Coleman, M. B., Park, Y., Bell, S. M., & Cole, J. (2015). Art educators’ knowledge, attitudes,
and experiences working with students who have physical, sensory, severe, or multiple disabilities.
Studies in Art Education. (in press)
Derby, J. (2013). Nothing about us without us: art education’s disservice to disabled people. Studies in Art
Education, 54, 376–380.
Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Rieth, H. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and
recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8(2), 62–80.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Kroener, J. (2013). High-quality supports for students with disabilities. Principal
Leadership, 14, 56–59.
Gal, E., Schreur, N., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities: teachers’ attitudes and
requirements for environmental accommodations. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 89–99.
Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: are
we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10–26.
Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Suter, J. C. (2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on
paraprofessionals: field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 22–38.
Guay, D. M. (1994). Students with disabilities in the art classroom: how prepared are we? Studies in Art
Education, 36, 44–56.
Guay, B. L. (2003). Paraeducators in art classrooms, issues of culture, leadership, and special needs. Studies in
Art Education, 45, 20–39.
Guay, B. L., & Gerlach, K. (2006). Clarifying roles for paraeducators in the art room. In B. L. Gerber & D. M.
Guay (Eds.), Reaching and teaching students with special needs (pp. 177–188). Reston: National Art
Education Association.
Hastings, R. P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special
needs. Experimental Education Psychology, 23, 87–94.
Heller, M. A. (2000). Touch, representation and blindness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heller, M. A., Brackett, D. D., & Scroggs, E. (2002). Tangible picture matching by people who are visually
impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 349–953.
Hourigan, R. (2014). Intersections between school reform, the arts, and special education: the children left
behind. Art Education Policy Review, 115(2), 35–38.
660
J Dev Phys Disabil (2015) 27:637–660
Loesl, S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on art therapy in the schools: art therapy+schools+
students=? Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 27, 54–55.
Loesl, S. D. (2012). The adaptive art specialist: An integral part of a student’s access to art. In S. M. Malley
(Ed.), The intersection of arts education and special education: Exemplary programs and approaches
(pp. 47–68). Washington, DC: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
National Core Visual Arts Standards (2014). http://www.arteducators.org/research/nccas.
Nyman, A. L., & Jenkins, A. M. (Eds.). (1999). Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs.
Reston: National Art Education Association.
Østensjø, S., Carlberg, E. B., & Vøllestad, N. K. (2005). The use and impact of assistive devices and other
environmental modifications on everyday activities and care in young children with cerebral palsy.
Disability and Rehabilitation, 27, 849–861.
Penketh, C. (2014). Putting disability studies to work in art education. International Journal of Art & Design
Education, 33, 291–300.
Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2007).
Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional
Children, 69, 97–107.
Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: raising expectations for students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 22(194–196), 213.
Ree, K. G., & Kanny, E. M. (1993). The use of computers in school system practice by occupational
therapists. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 13, 37–55.
Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2004). Access to the general education curriculum. In C. H. Kennedy & E.
Horn (Eds.), Including students with severe disabilities (pp. 55–56). Boston: Allyn & Beacon.
Ryndak, D. L., Margaret, M. A., Orlando, A., & Delano, M. (2009). Access to the general curriculum: the
mandate and role of context in research-based practices for students with extensive support needs.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 199–213.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: a
research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
Shih, C. M., & Chao, H. Y. (2010). Ink and wash painting for children with visual impairment. British Journal
of Visual Impairment, 28, 157–163.
Stevenson, J., & Carter, M. (2014). The work of teacher aides in Australia: an analysis of job advertisements.
International Journal of Special Education, 29, 145–153.
Stumbo, N. J., Martin, J. K., & Hedrick, B. N. (2009). Assistive technology: impact on education, employment, and independence of individuals with physical disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30,
99–110.
Taylor, M. (2005a). Access and support in the development of a visual language: arts education and disabled
students. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24, 325–333.
Taylor, M. (2005b). Self‐identity and the arts education of disabled young people. Disability & Society, 20,
763–778.
Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wexler, A. J. (2011). Art and disability: The social and political struggles facing education. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Wexler, A. J., & Derby, J. (2015). Art in institutions: the emergence of (disabled) outsiders. Studies in Art
Education, 56, 127–141.
Young, G. C. (2008). Autonomy of artistic expression for adult learners with disabilities. International Journal
of Art & Design Education, 27, 116–123.