'Technology and education\r'

'Introduction: deterioration and applied scienceAccording to the U. S. break up of Commerce, more than half of entirely Ameri tails single-valued function the profit in slightly guidance, further â€Å"persons with a impair manpowert be only if half as likely to imbibe find to the lucre as those without a constipation… [a]nd while just chthonic 25% of those without a check do never handlingd a individualised estimator, close to 60% of those with a baulk f wholly into that category.” In addition â€Å"[a]mong those with a stultification, people who have impaired lot… have even natural depressioner rate of Internet access and argon little likely to physical exertion a computing device regularly than people with hearing and mobility problems” (National Tele inter cartroads and grooming Administration, 2000, p. xv).Cyndi Rowland, director of the wind vane Accessibility in Mind (WebAIM) project at do State Universitys Center for Persons with Disabilities, c boths for a â€Å" internal solution” to the problem of in approachability, especially â€Å"if we are to abide by civil rights legislation, federal official rulings, and common ethics” (Rowland, 2000, p. 10). Understanding the situationicularized require and concerns of students with disabilities may aid educators, data engineering designers, and pedagogicsal institutions to ensure that students with disabilities, peculiarly those who are blind or visually impaired, are not left foot in this technological â€Å"revolution.”The Internet and the weave have lead an integral part of higher grooming, transforming the educational experiences of all  students. In 1997, the World Wide Web crime syndicate (W3C), the international body that oversees the protocols and operations of the Internet, created the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI is responsible for promoting web functionality for people with disabilities and establishing availableness guidelines. In this senesce of figurer engineering, galore(postnominal) a(prenominal) of the tools take ined to enable students with disabilities to declare equity in education and beyond already exist. For those involved in educational institutions, these tools can provide opportunities and indep destroyence, eliminating the obstacles and barriers that many of the current systems still enable.A review of the lit related to attitudes and early(a) barriers that people with disabilities must(prenominal) contend with e really day at school and at work, the integration of electronic figurer applied science in postsecondary education, and the needs and concerns of students with disabilities, in particular those who are blind or visually impaired, may provide roughly insights for future policies and guidelines regarding access and use of ready reckoner technologies for students who are blind or visually impaired.Technology: Enhancing Modern Educati onExperiences of people with visual impairments in the workplace and their use of data processor engineering and the Internet was the focus of a soft canvass conducted in Australia by Williamson, Albrecht, Schauder, and diverge (2001). Primarily through focus throng inquiry, the look intoers presented the perceived benefits and concerns of the asks participants. Most agreed that the Internet enabled them to participate in an information and communication format that is becoming a base source for many people. Many alike saw the Internet as alter them to be less reliant on others and, thitherfore, facilitating an adjoin in their own privacy.However, some were concerned just about a diminution in genial contact and an increase in isolationism. An excess concern was that thither would be a decline in the quality of services from such(prenominal) entities as the government and banks because more is being through online. Training was viewed as fine to successfully apply t he Internet and figurer technology. This, it was believed by many, was the key to achieving equality in the workplace, to that degree many felt it was a low priority by agencies and workplaces. Cost was overly viewed as a barrier to accessing figurers and the Internet.With divers(a) Internet advances, more individuals in all sectors of the community are working from home.  For visually impaired members of community the Internet has the probable to free them from the restrictions they have experienced in the past while seeking to obtain employment. â€Å"Once the challenges of access have been surmounted, [visually impaired] users can take their places in the digitalized workforce” (Williamson et al., 2001, pp. 693-4).With computer technology becoming a part of all college students educational experiences, how are postsecondary schools preparing students for a computer-integrated future? To determine how the use of several(a) technologies affect student nobbleing, Shu ell and Farber (2001) conducted a take away of 728 perceive undergraduate and graduate students at a large northeastern university, where they establish that, in general, students perceived the use of computer technology in their courses to be in truth beneficial. Students also believed that the use of communication technology brought an increase in their sense of involution in a course.Eighty-eight percent of the strain indicated that their use of computer technology patroned them learn materials and skills, and 75 percent indicated that using computer technology improved the quality of fundamental interaction with their instructor. Students also viewed the use of dynamic computer presentations and the Internet in lectures very favorably; it kept their interest, and the students believed that it improved their learning.    Students also lucky electronic forums as a way to interact with their peers (e.g., email, listservs, and freshlysgroups) and believed that the use of these forms of computer technology increased the quality of these interactions.Another interesting determination in this ruminate was that students who take careed themselves to be more independent tended to respond more favorably to these technologies and the learning benefits associated with them. adept theme of this take away was the appreciation that students had of the ability for computer technologies to enable independent learning. When serving the needs of students with disabilities, independence is a key factor to consider.Lewis, Coursol, and khan (2001) examined the use and effect of computer technology on student growth and education. They surveyed 124 sight undergraduate students who attended a regional public institution in the Midwest. Technology choices, which included use of email, the Internet, and mul quantifydia, were based on technology trends in higher education.Results indicated that the majority of students were comfortable with computer techno logy, using such tools as email and the Internet for twain academic and cordial purposes. Both men and women spent about the same inwardness of time on email, class assignments on the computer, playing computer games, and shopping on the Internet. However, women spent significantly fewer hours surfboard the Internet than men did.Consistent with Shuell and Farber (2001), Lewis et al. (2001) also substantiate that students believe the use of email increases their frequency of communication with staff, which, in turn, enhances the talent-student human relationship and enables power to be more accessible. The issue of accessibility was discussed in this report and how on that point is a need for higher educational institutions to verbalize this issue, which the authors indicate to be a amicable problem that has significant economic and social implications. They point to the need to recognize that in that location are some students, including those with disabilities, who may be at a disadvantage when a course requires the retrieval of materials from the web.The use of computer technology has become an accepted and pass judgment component of every students postsecondary educational experience. To snap off understand the use and effectiveness of these technologies, all of the studies utilise in this paper that centre on computer technology in higher education examined one or more aspects of the integration of these technologies into the educational system. The Arant (1996) memorise focused on the use of the Internet and the World Wide Web in higher education.Employing both qualitative and quantitative methods (phone interviews and a survey), it concluded that, while using online components to traditional courses did not support the spare belief that online education saved time and money, it did change the way in which courses were taught, with additional online portions being incorporated into courses. For students who are visually impaired or blin d, this could result in additional barriers.Computer Technology and Visually damage StudentsIn an extensive two-year study in Canada, Fichten, Barile, and Asuncion (1999) investigated the computer, information, learning, and adaptive technology needs and concerns of Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities. Of the findings from this study, computers were found to be critical to the success of students with disabilities, and the vast majority of students, disregarding of gender, age, program of study, or type of disability, could and did use computer technologies to help them succeed. An important fall inment that emerged from this study was that students often â€Å"cross-used” technologies. For ex vitamin Ale, while students with visual impairments are expected to use entomb reader software, students with learning disabilities also used this software.The students in this study considered computers as â€Å"electronic curb cuts,” enabling technologies that allow students with disabilities to remedy prepare for and participate in the information-based economic system of tomorrow. Fichten, et al. (1999) urged postsecondary education institutions to design for accessibility and to consider the needs of students with disabilities to begin with making purchases.  What the authors pick out as â€Å"troubling” is â€Å"the absence, in many cases, of planning for access” for students with disabilities by postsecondary institutions (Fichten et al., p. 179). As some technological barriers fall, others are late erected as new technologies continue to become part of a students educational experiences. One mesmerism the authors had for government funding bodies to help raise awareness of these issues was to take accessibility issues into consideration when reviewing grant applications and to create incentives for businesses to develop and market technologies that are accessible to all students. The authors wrote: The enor mous potential of computers to remove barriers to students with disabilities and concerns over barriers posed by limitations in access were central issues noted by respondents in all categories in all phases of the research (p. 180).Shaw and Giacquinta (2000) used a questionnaire that was very conservatively developed, field tested, and revised several clock before being used for this study. The stype Ale consisted of 412 sighted graduate students. This study was very well thought out and documented.   The authors suggested that faculty integrate more computer technology into their curricula (e.g., with the use of such tools as Blackboard, WebCT, and course web pages). They did not, however, take into consideration the ramifications of that suggestion as it applies to students who are blind or visually impaired.   Unfortunately, unless having been asked to consider it, most faculty do not think about students who are blind or visually impaired (or who have any other di sability) when they begin to integrate technology into their curriculum.Shuell and Farber (2001) piloted a questionnaire and discussed it inside two focus groups before using it for the study. Their sample was composed of 728 sighted undergraduate and graduate students.   Both qualitative and quantitative data showed a railroad tie between active, participatory learning and the lordly comprehension of students regarding technology as a learning tool; they also affirm that the use of technology made the classes bet more personal to the students.However, the authors caution that the discernible relationship found in their study between a positive recognition of computer technology by students and students authentic learning is still unclear. Lewis et al. (2001) used an author-constructed survey, which they describe as â€Å"a self-report, forced-choice survey.” One of the problems with this study is that a self-report is subject to response bias, although the resu lts of this study were consistent with the others regarding a positive perception and use of computer technology by students in postsecondary institutions. Both Shuell et al. and Lewis et al. recommended that future research focus on the impact of technology on student learning. Lewis et al. also recommended the need to examine the use of technology among specialized groups, such as students who are Hispanic, African American, and commuters.ConclusionGiven the state of existing literature in the area of postsecondary students who are blind or visually impaired, combined with the overwhelming integration of computer technology into the academic environment, there is still a need for a more substantive exploration into how postsecondary institutions are supporting and serving the best interests of these students. Disability scholars Susan R. Jones and Julie intellectual point out the relationship between individuals who have a disability and how society views people with disabilitie s. They assert that disability is a universal issue, and yet there is no single disability experience.With a focus on the prejudices, discrimination and disgrace experienced by people with disabilities and their responses to their disabilities, Jones (1996) and Smart (2001) define disability as a socially constructed phenomenon that combines the experiences of those living with a disability together with their environments. Goggin and Newell (2003) further state that â€Å"in the name of inclusion” society builds disability into digital technologies, arguing that disability has been constructed in the technological world of computing and computer networks and that there is a need to critically analyze the ways in which it is constructed within contemporary society.ReferencesArant, Jr., M. D. (1996, August). Going online to teach journalism and mass communication.      (ERIC Document Reproduction go nary(prenominal) ED399596)Fichten, C, Barile, M., & Asuncio n, J. V. (1999). learnedness technologies:Students with        disabilities inpostsecondary education [Montreal: Final Report to the Office of      Learning Technologies]. Adaptech Project,Dawson College. (ERIC Document        Reproduction Service No. ED433625)Goggin, G. & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction of disability in            new media. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Jones, S. R. (1996). Toward inclusive possibleness: Disability as social construction. NASPA           diary, 33(4), 347-354.Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College students @ tech.edu: A study of comfort and the use of technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 625-631.National Telecommunications and information Administration. (2000). fall through the    net: Toward digital inclusion. A report of Americans access to technology t ools. Retrieved walk 18, 2009, from             http://www.ntia.doc.gOv/ntiahome/fttn00/Falling.htm#6Rowland, C. (2000, October). Accessibility of the internet in postsecondary education:    Meeting the challenge. Paper presented at the everyday Web Accessibility      Symposium 2000, San Antonio, Texas. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from     http://www.webaim.org/articles/meetchallenge/Shuell, T. J., & Farber, S. L. (2001). Students perceptions of technology use in college          courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 119-138.Shaw, F. S., & Giacquinta, J. B. (2000). A survey of graduate students as end users of           computer technology: New roles for faculty. Information Technology, Learning, and      Performance Journal, 18(1), 21-40.Smart, Julie (2001). Disability, Society, and the Individual. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Aspen Publ ishers.Williamson, K., Albrecht, A., Schauder, D., & Bow, A. (2001). Australian perspectives on the            use of the internet by people who are visually impaired and professionals who work             with them. Journal of Visual trauma & Blindness, 95(11), 690 †701.\r\n'