Technology Support Services in Postsecondary Education: A Mixed Methods Study
Abstract. Technology has a profound effect upon the lives of students with disabilities.
This mixed methods longitudinal analysis of technology supports began with nationally
represented surveys followed by a qualitative cross case analysis and a longitudinal study
of one site across four levels (coordinator, supervisors, support staff, and students) that
underwent a 40% budget reduction. Results from all three phases clearly indicate that
assistive technology was highly valued and supported by the participants in the study.
The survey revealed that providing assistive technology was a top priority, the cross case
analysis indicated that appropriate technological services and training reduced student
dependency, and the longitudinal analysis across four levels revealed the coordinators
priority to improve technology by updating hardware and software, training and
reconfiguring staff, and collaborating with departments across campus continued to
improve student success despite reduced funding and staff.
Introduction
Technology as a modern apparatus has numerous benefits and drawbacks.
Proponents argue that technology equalizes or even liberates. Opponents say technology
is a crutch, limiting imagination, and perpetuating compulsion. For many, technology is
the only reason that they have survived. According to Gamble, Dowler and Orselene,
technology supports can be positive or negative depending upon the individuals’ view of
the world and how they envision the way they interact with society [3]. Seymour extends
this view by focusing upon the relationship between social factors and self identity which
can influence how assistive technology is embraced or rejected: “the self-identity of
disabled people is informed by social factors: it is revealed in the user’s fears and joys, in
their sense of autonomy, competence, independence, and in their insecurities and
despair…This information holds the key to people’s attitudes and decisions about
technology” [7]. In order to determine how technology is valued, postsecondary
stakeholders’ perspectives of services were addressed in this three phase longitudinal
mixed methods study which examined how technology supports the lives of students with
1
disabilities. Determining how technology is viewed required exploring the opinions of
those who use and provide technology within the social context of the environment where
the supports are offered. Technology has enormous potential to equalize without
degrading the lives of students with disabilities in terms of mobility and active
communication. Participants were particularly vocal about social stigmatization
indicating that technology is one of the few tools to break down barriers allowing them to
wholly interact within society.
Postsecondary Technology Supports
Over the past decade several empirically based studies have been conducted to
determine the benefits of technology as a support for students with disabilities. Most
focused upon primary and secondary education [2] while a few examined how
technology was used in postsecondary environments [6,8]. This three phase study
analyzed how technology is provided and embraced in postsecondary education. Phase-I
was the statistical analysis of data from 1067 repeatedly administered national surveys
from disability support coordinators. Phase-II included three purposefully selected
exemplary support service sites with 17 interviews of coordinators and supervisors.
Phase-III interviewed 23 individuals from four levels at one institution. The final analysis
in this study incorporated the findings from all three phases as a way to draw out and
express relevant conclusions related to technology in postsecondary education.
Phase-I Survey Methods
Phase-I statistically analyzed 1067 surveys using exploratory factor analysis [4] to
determine if items grouped into the constructs. Reliability was assessed and regression
was used to determine if technology was significantly different between 2-year and 4-
2
year institutions and over two points in time. Multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to determine if institution type and time exhibited main or
interaction effects.
Survey Results
Principal component analysis revealed that twenty-five items adequately loaded
into four factors including Assistive Technology. Regression revealed there was a
difference when institution type and survey years were compared, two-year and four-year
institutions were significantly different in Assistive Technology but not over time.
Multivariate analysis revealed no interaction between institution type and time and only
the main effect for institution type (F=18.50, 4 df, p=.000). Two-year and four-year
institutions differ on the level of technology supports provided.
Cross Case Methods
The qualitative cross case analysis [9] in Phase-II emerged in part from inherent
survey limitations, the inability to explore how technology was perceived and valued.
The research questions used for Phase-II were: (1) How are technology supports provided
to students with disabilities in exemplary postsecondary institutions? (2) How does
leadership, staff cohesion and collaboration relate to technology supports in
postsecondary institutions? Seventeen interviews generated 436 pages of raw transcripts
that when initially analyzed revealed 22 open codes used to create reports that helped
formulate six major dimensions. This paper focuses specifically on technology as a
support for postsecondary students in two categories, innovative techniques and barriers.
Cross Case Results
3
The three colleges all embraced technology as a means of providing access for
students with disabilities. Although the sites were remarkably similar with regards to
software and hardware, differences in legislation that drove funding was markedly
different. The cross case analysis revealed that funding and legislation had a direct effect
upon the sophistication of technology, how often it was updated, and if there was staff to
train and support students (see Table 1). Most revealing was how technology was used.
At El Camino College, JawBone middleware was used to connect software such as
Dragon Naturally Speaking, Joz, and Handi-Word for students with low vision.
According to the technology supervisor “some students who do not type fast or have
limited use of their hands can use Handi-Word. So now a student who has a hard time
using their hands and cannot see can use voice recognition. They can also use Jawbone to
perform voice commands, and have Joz read material back to them. By using multiple
programs linked by middleware, the possibilities increase exponentially. Dragon,
JunText, Joz and Handi-word can all be linked and then they can be used with word
processing and spreadsheet programs like Microsoft Word and Excel.”
El Camino was also the only institute to use switching devices such as Easy-Keys
for students. The technology supervisor indicated that Easy-Keys “is just a basic switch
for retainers, for your chin, your foot, it is a constant control. If someone is able to blink,
they can use this technology.” The technology trainer for the High Tech Center stated
“with switching technology you can control, you can type, it has word-prediction,
mouse-controls, everything you can do on any other computer all linked with the switch
technology. I have seen some of our students with physical disabilities that can actually
type faster using this technology than actual keyboards; it’s pretty amazing what it can
4
do.” According to the technology supervisor “We have Pen-Mouse that uses infrared
technology for on-screen keyboarding that can be linked through Jaw-Bone to word
prediction software. Students can use this infrared technology with a head mouse, typing,
word prediction, online access.” The infrared hardware and software which costs between
two and three thousand dollars is excellent technology for those who do not have limb
control. Unfortunately, learning to use infrared software to make the keyboard bigger or
smaller, make it to click faster or slower or have a customized alphabetic keypad requires
intensive training, especially for a student who has never typed before.
In summary, technology support services varied considerably, even at exemplary
sites. Many influences effected technology supports including funding, commitment,
training, dedication, time, and leadership direction. All three coordinators had a high
regard for technology and encouraged staff and students to use it whenever possible and
clearly El Camino’s coordinator placed technology as the highest priority.
Phase-III Longitudinal Methods
Phase-III longitudinal analysis emerged after California reduced funding for
postsecondary education by 40%. This reduction was devastating to assistive
technologies which are often viewed as supplementary. By examining El Camino
longitudinally, one could better understand how funding affected technology services
from the perspectives of the coordinator, supervisors, support personnel and students.
Phase-III was driven by the following two research questions: (1) How has technology at
an institutional level changed as a result of declining funds? (2) Are there differences in
the way students and staff view the effectiveness of technology support services?
5
The longitudinal phase relied upon 23 interviews digitally recorded, and transcribed
generated 406 pages of transcripts used as sources of information to create 24 open codes
[1] used with NVivo qualitative software. Code reports were then generated to determine
the relationship between codes and as a way to examine similarities and anomalies
amongst the interviews. This selective level of analysis resulted in the four core
categories [5] for this study operationally defined as “Changes, Leadership, Technology
and Interpreters”.
Longitudinal Results
The coordinator indicated that after the budget reduction “technology was a low
priority statewide when compared to mandated disability services”. When funds were
reduced to postsecondary institutions, “money slated for technology improvements were
diverted to pay for personnel and other disability related services.” Unlike other
coordinators in California, El Camino placed assistive technology as a top priority. “I
always had some money set aside from the categorical dollars to put towards the High
Tech Center until the severe cuts happened. Now I rely upon donations and alternative
funding to offset costs to keep the technical side maintained. “Each department is
working to become proficient in technology so that they can better accommodate and
serve the students.” The counselors, the learning disability specialists, interpreters,
mobility specialists, even secretarial support have a good understanding of the various
technologies that are available across campus.
The most striking change to technology after the budget reduction was that
students were no longer trained individually, they were taught to use technology in
groups which provided opportunities to practice technology in the context of completing
6
assignments for classes through trial and error with support. The technology specialists
indicated that software like Digital Text, Kurzweill 3000, and Dragon Naturally Speaking
are wonderful tools but are expensive and require considerable time for training.
Ultimately, the students are the clientele and consumers of assistive technology in
postsecondary education. Their views corroborated what the coordinator, the supervisors,
and staff said about how important assistive technology is as at reducing barriers. Further,
students indicated that the High Tech Center was successful at maintaining services
despite drastic financial constraints. These findings added credibility to several emergent
themes. One student with visual, gross, and fine motor disabilities stated “being able to
get around campus and learning all the technology offered by the new computer
programs has made life easier”. El Camino was clearly supporting students’ technology
needs. “I come in to the Special Resource Center. This helps because I don't have a
computer at home that can read the material to me, so that's a problem. The only way that
I can use a computer with a scanner is to do it here. I use Dragon Naturally Speaking, I
listen to Kurtzweil 1000 and Jaws, and use the scanner with books.”
Another student said “I have my own Gordie which is like a pair of goggles with a
control box which is connected to the goggles with LCD screens that are over the eye.
The unit has a camera in the front and so it really enlarges the images. And I've got a
toolbox that varies the contrast so I can magnify things.” “Learning about technology
helped me get a job. And the text program in Jaw's latest edition is helping me pass my
classes. This is helping me to build up my self-confidence to become a better self
advocate.”
7
One student with virtually no body control and is blind summed up the
importance of technology “Being able to get around campus and the technology offered
by the new computer programs makes my life a little more independent. Certainly that
may be the case for all disabled individuals, but especially for me. I think all around they
are supporting the students well. I'm learning Dragon Naturally Speaking, and I listen to
Kurtzweil as well as Jaws.”
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to gather information about technology services
nationally, explore the impact of assistive technology at exemplary postsecondary
institutions, and determine how technology services changed as a result of budget
constraints over time. The statistical analysis revealed that two-year institutions offered
more technology hardware, software, training and access than their four-year
counterparts. The cross case analysis revealed that technology services were affected by
funding and two sites with disability specific support had more staff, equipment,
facilities, and time available for students requesting technology supports. The
longitudinal study revealed that despite a 40% budget reduction, services were
maintained by streamlining practices, reorganizing the format, and changing the content
of technology training and services which resulted in more efficient and successful
assistive technology for the students. This was only possible by completely transforming
how assistive technology was provided.
Results from all three phases combined clearly indicate that assistive technology
was highly valued and supported by all participants. Each of the exemplary sites had
coordinators who promoted technology training and support as a useful tool for providing
8
access and improving academic performance. Technology as a priority instigated by the
coordinator and supervisors carried over to the staff and students who in turn had high
expectations for mastering the tools that helped support their education.
References
[1] K. Charmaz, Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis; Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2006.
[2] T. Christ and R. Stodden, Advantages of developing survey constructs when
comparing educational supports offered to students with disabilities in postsecondary
education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22 (1) (2005), 23-31.
[3] M. Gamble, D. Dowler and L. Orslene, Assitive technology: Choosing the right tool
for the right job, Journal of vocational rehabilitation 24 (2006) 73-80.
[4] J. Hair, R. Anderson, R. Tatham and W. Black, Multivariate data analysis with
readings (3rd ed.); Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1992.
[5] Y. Lincoln and E. Guba, Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative
research; (191-214); Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 2005.
[6] K. Roberts and R. Stodden, The use of voice recognition software as a compensatory
strategy for postsecondary education students receiving services under the category of
learning disabled, Journal of vocational rehabilitation 22 (1) (2005) 49-64.
[7] W. Seymour, ICTs and disability: Exploring the human dimension of technological
engagement, Technology and Disability 17 (2005) 195-204.
[8] M. Sharpe, D. Johnson, M. Izzo and A. Murray, Journal of vocational rehabilitation
22 (1) (2005) 3-11.
9
[9] S. Sze and S. Valentin, Self concept and children with disabilities, Education 127 (4)
(2007) 552-557.
10