Advertisement

Learning Differences and Digital Equity in the Classroom

  • Jutta Treviranus
Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter addresses digital equity in the classroom for students with learning differences, as well as the role of technology in the provision of equitable education for the full diversity of students. The chapter discusses the evolving opportunities and challenges that information technology in the classroom presents to students with learning differences and their teachers.

To meaningfully understand this topic requires an understanding of the complex context, the forces at play, and their relation to students with learning differences. Among the forces at play are policies, regulations, the accessibility movement, technical trends, instructional design strategies, educational publishing, open education resources, pedagogical trends, quality control approaches in education, and governance of formal education. The chapter highlights the benefits to all students of designing the classroom experience for students with learning differences.

Keywords

Inclusive design Inclusive education Accessibility Open Education Equity Diversity Inclusion 

References

  1. Achieve. (n.d.). Achieving the common core. Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.achieve.org/achieving-common-core.
  2. Ainscow, M., & Cesar, M. (2006). Inclusive education ten years after Salamanca: Setting the agenda. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, J., Ford, K., Richards, J., & Spellman, J. (2010). User agent accessibility guidelines (uaag) 2.0. W3C Working Draft. WWW Consortium (W3C).Google Scholar
  4. Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340602100204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, K. (2016). How disability helped change Microsoft’s design principles for Cortana and Bing. onMSFT. Retrieved from onMSFT website: https://www.onmsft.com/news/disability-helped-change-microsofts-design-principles-cortana-bing.
  6. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age : Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Brunet, T., & Ramachandran, P. (2016). Accessible and inclusive content and applications. In Mobile application development, usability, and security (Vol. 54). IGI Global, Hershey PA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Buehler, E., Hurst, A., & Hofmann, M. (2014). Coming to grips: 3D printing for accessibility. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers & accessibility, Rochester, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L. G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2008). Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. WWW Consortium (W3C).Google Scholar
  10. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly January 2007. (2007).Google Scholar
  11. Dixon, S. (2005). Inclusion–Not segregation or integration is where a student with special needs belongs. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée éducative, 39(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
  12. Domingo, M. C. (2012). Review: An overview of the internet of things for people with disabilities. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(2), 584–596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2011.10.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epp, T. (2003). (Re) Claiming adulthood: Learning disabilities and social policy in Ontario. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23(2), 88–100.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick, S. (2014). Setting its sights on the Marrakesh Treaty: The US role in alleviating the book famine for persons with print disabilities. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 37, 139.Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg, J. S., & Cole, B. R. (2002). Quality management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance. The Quality Management Journal, 9(4), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackl, A., Treviranus, J., & Roberts, A. (2004). IMS access for all meta-data XML best practice and implementation guide v. 1.0, final specification. Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/accmdv1p0/imsaccmd_bestv1p0.html.
  17. Jacobs, S. (2002). The electronic curb-cut effect Retrieved 24 Feb 2017, from http://www.icdri.org/technology/ecceff.htm.
  18. Jacobs, I., Gunderson, J., Hansen, E., & Wc, I. J. (2000). User agent accessibility guidelines 1.0. WWW Consortium (W3C).Google Scholar
  19. Karam, M., Branje, C., Nespoli, G., Thompson, N., Russo, F. A., & Fels, D. I. (2010). The emoti-chair: An interactive tactile music exhibit. Paper presented at the CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  20. Khetarpal, A. (2014). Information and communication technology (ICT) and disability. Review of Market Integration, 6(1), 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuang, C. (2016). Microsoft’s radical bet on a new type of design thinking. Fast Company. Retrieved from Fast Company website: https://www.fastcodesign.com/3054927/the-big-idea/microsofts-inspiring-bet-on-a-radical-new-type-of-design-thinking.
  22. Lumen Learning. (2014). The 5 Rs of designing and OER course. eCampus News. Retrieved from eCampus News website: http://www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/oer-course-design-475/.
  23. National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills, Pellegrino, J. W., Hilton, M. L., National Research Council (U.S.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council (U.S.), Board on Science Education, & National Research Council (U.S.), Center for Education, & Board on Testing and Assessment. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Petrides, L., Jimes, C., Middleton-Detzner, C., Walling, J., & Weiss, S. (2011). Open textbook adoption and use: Implications for teachers and learners. Open Learning, 26(1), 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ptolomey, J. (2011). Government information and services: Accessibility and the digital divide. In P. Garvin (Ed.), Government information management in the 21st century: International perspectives (pp. x, 232 p.). Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Richards, J., Spellman, J., & Treviranus, J. (2015). Authoring tool accessibility guidelines 2.0 (ATAG). https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20. WWW Consortium (W3C).
  28. Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (1st ed.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Stienstra, D., Watzke, J., & Birch, G. E. (2007). A three-way dance: The global public good and accessibility in information technologies. The Information Society, 23(3), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomson, R., Fichten, C. S., Havel, A., Budd, J., Asuncion, J. (2015). Blending universal design, e-learning, and information and communication technologies. In Universal design in higher education: From principles to practice (pp. 275–284). Harvard Education Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  34. Treviranus, J. (2000). Adding haptics and sound to spatial curriculum. Paper presented at the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2000 I.E. International Conference on.Google Scholar
  35. Treviranus, J. (2014a). Leveraging the web as a platform for economic inclusion. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(1), 94–103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Treviranus, J. (2014b). The value of the statistically insignificant. Educause Review, 49, 46–47.Google Scholar
  37. Treviranus, J. (2016). Life-long learning on the inclusive web. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
  38. Treviranus, J., & Hockema, S. (2009). The value of the unpopular: Counteracting the popularity echo-chamber on the Web. In Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009 IEEE Toronto International Conference (pp. 603–608). IEEE. Toronto.Google Scholar
  39. UN General Assembly. (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: resolution/adopted by the general assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106. http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2018.
  40. Weigel, V. B. (2002). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology’s untapped potential to enrich higher education (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Welles, B. F. (2014). On minorities and outliers: The case for making big data small. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–2, 2053951714540613.Google Scholar
  42. Whitehouse, G. (2008). The blind reader’s right to read: Caught between publishers, the law and technology. Logos, 19(3), 120–128.  https://doi.org/10.2959/logo.2008.19.3.120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD UniversityTorontoCanada

Section editors and affiliations

  • Therese Laferrière
    • 1
  • Paul Resta
    • 2
  1. 1.Université LavalQuebecCanada
  2. 2.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations