Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Siti Asjamiah Binte Asmuri, Lead Educational Therapist, Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS)
The use of technology in schools is fast becoming commonplace. Accelerated developments were evidently witnessed during the pandemic school closures when school activities had to be converted online. The appeal of technology lies in its ability to support teachers in facilitating both learning and assessment for their learners and for learners to better access the curriculum. Digital tools aided by advanced broadband networks allow teachers to automate processes such as the checking and marking of students’ work, integrate platforms and applications through a seamless interface and engage their learners in play and immediate feedback through the use of gamification features. The “use of digital technologies for the purposes of enhancing formal or informal educational assessment for both formative and summative purposes” is termed Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA) by Timmis et al. (2016, p.2). When TEA is carefully utilised to curate and design learning activities and assessments, it has the potential to change how students and teachers interact and improve the experience of learning and teaching, to promote greater participation and collaboration among learners and to provide them with opportunities to learn at their own pace and monitor their own progress, instilling personal accountability and independence. It is therefore not surprising that technology and the array of tools offered in the market are increasingly perceived by many educators who grapple with managing diversity in their physical classrooms, as offering a glimmer of hope to reach out to their learners, especially those with special educational needs (SEN) (Black & Simon, 2014).
In Singapore, close to 20,000 such learners attending primary and secondary mainstream schools have been diagnosed with mild to moderate learning and developmental disabilities or learning disorders such as dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and mild autism spectrum disorders, as well as disabilities such as sensory or physical impairments (Elangovan, 2023; Yong & bte Asmuri, 2021; MOE, 2018). In general, these learners demonstrate varying degrees of difficulties in spoken and/or written language, social communication, motor coordination and executive dysfunctions such as poor working memory, concentration and personal organisation. Nonetheless, they are considered to benefit from participation with their typically developing peers in the mainstream school curriculum and learning environment as these would offer them the best opportunities for growth (IDEA, 2004; Snowling et al., 2020; Germanò et al., 2010; Jackson et al., 2010; MOE, 2018). Although their learning differences may impose barriers that affect school performance and place them behind their peers, access to specialised instruction and targetted support by trained Special Educational Needs (SEN) Officers and teachers, as well as assessment accommodations are necessary to help them close achievement gaps, build competencies and realise their potential (Becta, 2003; Daud, 2019). These efforts align with the national strive to promote inclusive practices in schools, with more purposeful and increasingly deliberate attempts made to accommodate students with special educational needs in mainstream schools. This means that teachers would, therefore, need to plan for, teach and evaluate all students in a manner that is appropriate to meet their needs, regardless of their circumstances (Chambers, 2020)
Awareness and acceptance of learner differences in schools, which place greater emphasis on supporting and catering to the needs of individual learners, are recognised as a prerequisite for the development of a more inclusive and cohesive society (Lee, 2004; Teng & Goy, 2016; Walker & Musti-Rao, 2016). Increased recognition of learner variance has also provided a strong impetus for the emergence of new educational frameworks guiding pedagogical practices that seek to address the diversity of learners’ needs. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL), for example, provides guidelines and suggestions on how educators could provide learners with multiple means of engagement, representation and expression, to ensure meaningful access to and participation in learning opportunities by all learners. One of these means is leveraging the use of technology (CAST, 2018). Even before the conceptualisation of UDL, educational settings worldwide have seen an increasingly pervasive use of educational technology, with escalated advances made particularly during the pandemic school closures. It saw the emergence and increased awareness of the availability of an array of accessibility and assistive tools with well-defined purposes to enhance the interaction of learners with SEN with the designed online learning materials (Chambers, 2020). According to SG Enable (2023), accessibility refers to products, services and environments, including digital spaces, that are purposefully designed to be used by everyone, with or without disability. Some examples of digitally-designed accessibility tools include captions and subtitles, screen readers – also known as Text-to-Speech applications, and screen magnifiers that cater to individuals with vision problems, reading difficulties and those located in areas with poor visibility among others. Assistive devices refer to any device – hardware or software, that is designed to enhance, maintain, or improve the functional abilities of individuals with disabilities so that they could participate fully and engage actively in school and community activities. Apart from screen readers and magnifiers, voice recognition software, audiobooks and calendar reminder applications are examples. Adaptive devices and equipment are specially designed or enhanced versions of existing tools to help individuals with disabilities interact with them more productively. Examples of adaptive devices are Braille-embossed keyboards and elevator buttons. Educators began to see the potential of smart technologies in serving and supporting learners with SEN, both in learning and assessments.
Technology has also seen itself making significant contributions to assessment processes to help teachers improve instructional methods and enhance SEN students’ learning (Elmahdi et al.,, 2018). A number of studies have documented how user-friendly and fun game elements and rewards embedded in online learning and assessment software and tools such as quizzes and polling of subject-related questions, could engage the less motivated learners with special needs. Teachers are now able to adjust and customise task requirements such that learners could have reasonable time to respond to questions or review material multiple times at their own pace and time before submitting a response. Assessment data could then be obtained by both students and teachers to provide real-time feedback on their learning and progress. Some examples of such tools include Quizizz, Socrative, GoFormative and Plickers. The features of these tools allow all learners, even those who are shy or lacking in self-confidence, equal opportunities to participate without the fear and embarrassment of being identified for giving erroneous or delayed responses. Technology thus, presents possibilities for teachers to address possible psychological and social-emotional barriers some learners (not just SEN learners) might face with assessments, when such opportunities may be far and between in physical and face-to-face classes (Williams et al., 2006; Elmahdi et al., 2018).
The allure of technology lies also in its potential to address and possibly eliminate some of the physiological and cognitive barriers faced by SEN learners such as reading and attentional difficulties, hence making the learning and assessment experience less frustrating and more personalised, and enabling them to have a better chance at levelling the playing field with their typically-developing peers in learning and assessment tasks. As mentioned earlier, learning differences (LDs) that are common and supported by specialised personnel in mainstream schools include dyslexia and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)(MOE, 2023). Among the difficulties associated with these LDs are poor word decoding, recognition and spelling, poor reading comprehension, pattern glare and visual distortion disorders (e.g. swirling text and shadowed vision), sustaining attention and long-term memory retention. See annex for examples of accessibility tools and digital learning software that can be explored to support SEN learners in learning and assessment tasks.
Technology-enhanced feedback
A key element of the learning and assessment experience that contributes to learner performance is the provision of meaningful, actionable, personal and timely feedback. Defined as information that is provided to learners to address learning gaps, feedback that is effective enables learners to self-reflect, work towards achieving desired learning outcomes and take ownership of their own learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). The most common mediums of feedback have been written and oral, where in the latter, a dialogic interaction between learner and teacher is preferred to provide opportunities for questioning and clarification, hence promoting student thinking and learning. Handwritten or typewritten feedback on its own may not be sufficient to facilitate the engagement of learners with SEN with feedback. It has little impact especially for students with dyslexia and language impairments if they are unable to decode, process and comprehend it to motivate follow-up action. Learners with ADHD may also pay little or no attention to it if teachers do not follow up with dialogue. Furthermore, learners with poor memory may not be able to recall details of what had been shared even when they are engaged in oral or dialogic feedback if these are not recorded for their future reference. The experiences of dyslexic learners with feedback during the pandemic school closures have demonstrated the need for teachers to differentiate their feedback approach (Yong & bte Asmuri, 2021). Realistically, however, this could be a time-consuming effort. Feedback engagements for SEN learners might have to take on a different approach. Technology could be explored to address that.
The rise of digital learning has encouraged many teachers to seek creative ways to use technology to enrich their communication with learners, especially now that almost every learner in Singapore mainstream schools owns smartphones and is generally comfortable using technological devices. Teachers can capitalise on the use of audio functions in text messaging applications such as WhatsApp or Telegram to share and clarify feedback. Digitally recorded feedback provides SEN learners with the option and flexibility to replay it repeatedly and at their own pace, for their own reference.
In asynchronous learning environments such as SLS, feedback that is typewritten on digital devices can be supported with audio feedback. MOTE (https://youtu.be/w9Z9vzoQtSs), for example, is a tool that can be downloaded as a Chrome extension to enable teachers to leave their voice comments or feedback on learners’ work done on any of the Google tools such as Google Docs and Google Slides, as well as email. Free accounts allow audio recordings for up to 30 seconds each time. Teachers need to ensure that the audio feedback given is as concise and purposeful as possible within the time frame. HyperMote options are also available where teachers can highlight specific sections of text they want to add their comments to without having to click on the Comment function in the online document. Audio recordings of feedback can be stored for up to a year. Learners who have difficulty reading typewritten feedback can listen to the audio feedback as many times as they want to in that period.
Alternatively, another option to consider is Screen Pal (https://youtu.be/6-PEL_IxpMg), an audio-visual screen recorder application that is also downloadable for free and can be added as a Chrome extension. It enables teachers to provide personalised feedback to students by capturing their screen, webcam, or both and adding audio feedback to make it clear and meaningful to learners.
Besides these applications, feedback in online environments also comes in the form of automatically generated information with pre-set commentaries, usually generated in online quizzes (Jensen et al., 2021, p. 2).
Despite the variety of options available, it must be noted that the effectiveness of feedback in the online environment has not been sufficiently studied. The use of technology has often been assumed or misconceived to be making feedback delivery and processes more effective. Its capacity to engage SEN learners with online feedback information and translate that to better performance over time would demand further investigation. In our efforts to integrate technology with pedagogy and embrace new and emerging technologies in our engagements with our diverse learners online, we also need to consider how well our SEN learners are comprehending the online feedback given and what they do with it, while we continue to work on fine-tuning our composition of feedback and exploring different ways of automating it. With greater emphasis now placed on the role of feedback in developing student agency, we will need to see how this would also play out for SEN learners in the online environment.
Conclusion
There is no denying the capacity of sophisticated digital technologies in improving administrative processes for teachers in gathering learner performance data and the pedagogical affordances they are capable of offering to make learners’ assessment experiences more personalised, instantaneous and engaging (Oldfield et al., 2012). Evidence of its potential to address some of the cognitive, social-emotional and psychological barriers faced by SEN learners are also surfacing.
While the world of educational technology is full of promise, possibilities and opportunities, it also presents a whole new world of ambiguities that may make the tasks of designing learning and assessments more complex, especially if we are all moving towards including ALL learners. The use of educational technology should include other considerations beyond adopting them as quick-fix solutions and mere substitution of functionality. Learners’ access, competencies and inherent challenges related to the use of devices and applications should also be ongoing considerations in our assessment and evaluation of their capacity to add value to all learners. Perhaps it is also time that the use of digital technologies could be leveraged to motivate us to think about how they could be offered as alternative means of assessment to accommodate learner choices and differences and rethink how summative assessments can be administered to encompass various other skills and competencies such as communication and collaboration skills.
The future challenges of TEA are, therefore, in addressing the conflicting ideals of personalising and enhancing the assessment experience and reducing the social divide associated with learner differences.
References
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). (2003). What the Research Says about ICT supporting special educational needs (SEN) and Inclusion. Becta.
Black, W. R., & Simon, M. D. (2014). Leadership for all students: Planning for more inclusive school practices. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 9(2), 153-172.
CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Chambers, D. (2020), “Assistive Technology Supporting Inclusive Education: Existing and Emerging Trends”, Chambers, D. (Ed.) Assistive Technology to Support Inclusive Education (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 14), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 1-16.
Daud, S. M. B. (2019). Perspectives of Mainstream Students with Special Educational Needs on Inclusion. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 6(2), 186-223.
Denton, T. F., & Meindl, J. N. (2016). The effect of coloured overlays on reading fluency in individuals with dyslexia. Behaviour Analysis in Practice, 9, 191-198.
Elmahdi, I., Al-Hattami, A., & Fawzi, H. (2018). Using Technology for Formative Assessment to Improve Students’ Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 17(2), 182-188.
Elangovan, N. (April 7, 2023). The Big Read in short: Strides made but gaps remain in special needs education. TodayOnline. Retrieved on 9 May 2023. https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-short-strides-made-gaps-remaion May 23 special-needs-education-2146136
Enabling Village (Jan 6, 2021). Five Gadgets that Enable Lives. https://techable.enablingvillage.sg/news/five-gadgets-that-enable-lives. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/big-read-short-strides-made-gaps-remain-special-needs-education-2146136
Germanò, E., Gagliano, A. and Curatolo, P., 2010. Comorbidity of ADHD and dyslexia. Developmental neuropsychology, 35(5), pp.475-493.
Hattie, J. & Timperly, H. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77, N.1, pp. 81-112.
IDEA. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
Jackson, L, Ryndak, D., & Wehmeyer, M. (2010). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 175-195.
Jensen, L. X., Bearman, M., & Boud, D. (2021). Understanding feedback in online learning–A critical review and metaphor analysis. Computers & Education, 173, 104271.
Lee, H. L. (2004). Let’s Shape Our Future Together. Swearing in Speech by Prime Minister. Lectured conducted from Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/overseasmissio n/tokyo/press_statements_speeches/2004/200408 /press_200408_5.html
Ministry of Education. (2018). Professional Practice Guidelines for the Psycho-Educational Assessment and Placement of Students with Special Educational Needs. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/special-education/files/professional-practice-guidelines.pdf
Ministry of Education (2023). Special educational needs support at mainstream primary schools. Retrieved on 9 May 2023 https://www.moe.gov.sg/special-educational-needs/school-support/primary-schools
Oldfield, A., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Timmis, S. (2012). Assessment in a digital age: A research review. Bristol: University of Bristol.
SG Enable 2023, SG Enable website, Singapore government, accessed 23 May 2023, https://www.sgenable.sg/your-first-stop/accessibility-assistive-technology/accessibility
Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C. and Nation, K., 2020. Defining and understanding dyslexia: past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), pp.501-513.
Sweeney, T., West, D., Groessler, A., Haynie, A., Higgs, B., Macaulay, J., Mercer-Mapstone, L. and Yeo, M., 2017. Where’s the transformation? Unlocking the potential of technology-enhanced assessment. Teaching and Learning Inquiry.
Teng, A. and Goy, P. (2016) Children with moderate to severe special needs to be part of Compulsory Education Act, Straits Times. Retrieved on 09 May 2023 from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/children-with-moderate-to-severe-special-needs-to-be-part-of-compulsory
Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A. (2016). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: Opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 454-476.
Walker, Z., & Musti-Rao, S. (2016). Inclusion in high-achieving Singapore: Challenges of building an inclusive society in policy and practice. Global Education Review, 3(3).
Williams, P., Jamali, H. R., & Nicholas, D. (2006, July). Using ICT with people with special education needs: what the literature tells us. In Aslib Proceedings. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yong, T. H., & bte Asmuri, S. A. (2021). Dyslexic children’s experience of Home-Based Learning during school closures: 4 case studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 8(2), 190-217.