Advertisement

Evaluating ICT Based Learning Technologies for Disabled People

  • Marion Hersh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8548)

Abstract

This paper discusses the need for an evaluation framework specifically for (ICT-based) learning technologies for disabled learners and demonstrates the limitations of existing approaches based on the evaluation of assistive technology or learning technologies for non-disabled learners. It presents elements of the first full such evaluation framework comprising a set of evaluation principles and aims and three evaluation methodologies. It has a wide range of applications including (i) stand-alone and comparative evaluations of ICT-based learning technologies for disabled people; (ii) identifying gaps in provision or the need for modifications; (iii) supporting the design and development of new technologies; (iv) supporting learners in making informed choices about appropriate learning technologies; and (v) supporting the policy process and determination of the future research agenda, including by evaluating the impact of various measures on the effective implementation and use of ICT learning technologies for disabled learners.

Keywords

Evaluation ICT learning technologies aims principles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kukulska-Hulme, A., Traxler, J. (eds.): Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Routledge (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Motiwalla, L.F.: Mobile Learning: A Framework and Evaluation. Computers and Education 49(3), 581–596 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hug, T.: Didactics of Microlearning: Concepts, Discourses and Examples. Waxmann Verlag (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hersh, M.A., Leporini, B.: Accessibility and Usability of Educational Games for Disabled students. In: Gonzalez, C. (ed.) Student Usability in Educational Software and Games: Improving Experiences, pp. 1–40. IGI Global, Hershey (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oliver, M.: An Introduction to the Evaluation of Learning Technology. Educational Technology and Society 3(4), 20–30 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson, B.: Evaluation of Learning Technology Implementation. In: Evaluation Studies, pp. 22–25 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson, K., Goldfinch, J.: How to Add-Value. In: Evaluation Studies. Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, pp. 4–12. Herriot-Watt University, Edinburgh (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tolmie, A., Boyle, J., Stobie, I.: Evaluating the Use of Computer Mediated Communication Resources by Trainee Educational Psychologists. In: Mogey, N. (ed.) LDTI Evaluation Studies, pp. 31–38. Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tergan, S.-O.: Checklists for the Evaluation of Educational Software: Critical Review And Prospects. Innovations in Education and Training International 35(1), 9–20 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Power on! New Tools for Teaching and Learning, Office of Technology Assessment Gov-ernment Printing Office, Washington DC (1988)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Squires, D., McDougall, A.: Choosing and Using Educational Software: A Teacher’s Guide. Falmer Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A Guide to Local Evaluation, Report no. HE/L61, London: Evaluation Development and Review Unit, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations and the Employment Department (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sommerlad, E.: A Guide to Local Evaluation, Report no. HE/L62/1186, London: Evaluation Development and Review Unit, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations and the Employment Department (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harvey, J.: The LTDI Evaluation Cookbook. Learning Technology Dissemination Initiative, Glasgow (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliver, M., Conole, G., Kewell, B.: An Overview of an Evaluation Toolkit for Learning Technology Use. In: Dooner, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the IEE Colloquium, Exploiting Learning Technology: Issues for Learners and Educators, London (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehrmann, S.: The Flashlight Project: Spotting an Elephant in the Dark (1997), http://www.technologysource.org/article/flashlight_project__spotting_an_elephant_in_the_dark/ (accessed November 6, 2013)
  17. 17.
    Ehrmann, S.: Studying Teaching, Learning and Technology: A Tool Kit from the Flashlight Programme. Active Learning 9, 36–39 (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hersh, M.A., Johnson, M.A.: On Modelling Assistive Technology Systems Part I: Modelling Framework Technology and Disability 20(3), 193–215 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fuhrer, M.J., Jutai, J.W., Scherer, M.J., Deruyter, F.: A framework for the Conceptual Modelling of Assistive Technology Device Outcomes. Disability and Rehabilitation 25(22), 1243–1251 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scherer, M.J., Craddock, G.: Matching Person and Technology (MPT) Assessment Process. Technology and Disability 14, 125–131 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B.: The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An Overview and Recent Progress. Technology and Disability 14, 101–105 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Day, H., Jutai, J.: Measuring the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices; the PIADS. Canadian J. Rehabilitation 9(2), 159–168 (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jutai, J., Day, H.: Psychosocial Impact Of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS). Technology and Disability 14, 107–111 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noreau, L., Fougeyrollas, P., Vincent, C.: The LIFE-H: Assessment of the Quality of Social Participation. Technology and Disability 14, 113–118 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jutai, J.W., Fuhrer, M.J., Demers, L., Scherer, M.J., DeRuyter, F.: Towards a Taxonomy of Assistive Device Outcomes. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehab. 84(4), 294–302 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Edyburn, D.L., Smith, R.O.: Creating an Assistive Technology Outcomes Measurement System: Validating the Components. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits 1(1), 8–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coster, W.J., Mancini, M.C., Ludlow, L.H.: Factor Structure of the School Function Assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(4), 655–677 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hersh, M.A.: Methodologies for the Categorisation and Evaluation of ICT-Based Lifelong Learning for Disabled People (2013), http://web.eng.gla.ac.uk/assistive/pages/inclusive-learning-conference/enable-deliverables.php
  29. 29.
    Black, P., William, D.: Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education 5(1), 7–74 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boud, D., Falchikov, N. (eds.): Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning For the Longer Term. Routledge (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J.: Peer Learning and Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24(4), 413–426 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuller, M., Healey, M., Bradley, A., Hall, T.: Barriers to Learning: A Systematic Study of the Experience of Disabled Students in One University. Studies in Higher Education 29(3), 303–318 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B.: Assessment Perspectives: Perspectives on Assessment of Learning Disabled Students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3–13 (1979)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Hersh
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations