Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Art Educators’ Use of Adaptations, Assistive Technology, and Special Education Supports for Students with Physical, Visual, Severe and Multiple Disabilities

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 “never” working collaboratively with a special education teacher and most reported collaboration happens only “sometimes.” 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdick, C., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2012). Creating effective paraprofessional support in the inclusive art classroom. Art Education, 65, 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Causton-Theoharis, J., & Burdick, C. (2008). Paraprofessionals: gatekeepers of authentic art production. Studies in Art Education, 49, 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11, 229–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Kroener, J. (2013). High-quality supports for students with disabilities. Principal Leadership, 14, 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, D. M. (1994). Students with disabilities in the art classroom: how prepared are we? Studies in Art Education, 36, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guay, B. L. (2003). Paraeducators in art classrooms, issues of culture, leadership, and special needs. Studies in Art Education, 45, 20–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, R. P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Experimental Education Psychology, 23, 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A. (2000). Touch, representation and blindness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hourigan, R. (2014). Intersections between school reform, the arts, and special education: the children left behind. Art Education Policy Review, 115(2), 35–38.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69, 97–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22(194–196), 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2005b). Self‐identity and the arts education of disabled young people. Disability & Society, 20, 763–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2009). Teaching students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, A. J. (2011). Art and disability: The social and political struggles facing education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, A. J., & Derby, J. (2015). Art in institutions: the emergence of (disabled) outsiders. Studies in Art Education, 56, 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. C. (2008). Autonomy of artistic expression for adult learners with disabilities. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 27, 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Mari Beth Coleman, E. Stephanie Cramer, Yujeong Park & Sherry Mee Bell

  2. 416 Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville, TN, 37996-3442, USA

    Mari Beth Coleman

Authors
  1. Mari Beth Coleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Stephanie Cramer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yujeong Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sherry Mee Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mari Beth Coleman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coleman, M.B., Cramer, E.S., Park, Y. et al. Art Educators’ Use of Adaptations, Assistive Technology, and Special Education Supports for Students with Physical, Visual, Severe and Multiple Disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil 27, 637–660 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9440-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9440-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation