Post on 04-Apr-2015
description
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting
Sean J. Sweeney Framingham State College: Systemic Change- Curriculum, Instructional Technology and
Professional Development Fall 2007
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………...3 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..4 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTERS
I. Introduction, Research Questions, Definitions, Limitations, and Hypothesis ........ 6
II. Review of the Literature ...................................................................................... 8
III. Method…………………………………………………………………………….19
IV. Results……………………………………………………………………………..23
V. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………36 REFERENCES
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 3
List of Figures
Figure 1 Reported Percentage of Direct Time Utilizing Technology………………..24
Figure 2 Reported Percentage of Consultation/Preparation Time Utilizing Technology
…………………………………………………………………………………25
Figure 3 Reported Resources Used for Direct Therapy……………………………...26
Figure 4 Reported Resources Used for Preparation/Consultation………………......27
Figure 5 Respondent Access to Technology………………...…………………………29
Figure 6 Types of Professional Development Reported……………………….……...30
Figure 7 Specific Technology Tools of Interest to Respondents…………...…………32
Figure 8 Professional Development Activities Suggested by Staff……………..…….34
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my instructor, Professor Romeo Marquis, for his guidance and feedback
throughout the research process. Thank you to my department chair, Meta Millen, who viewed
my data collection efforts as valuable to the entire department. Thank you also to the wonderful
Speech and Language Pathologists in my department without whose participation this project
could not have been completed.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 5
Abstract
The integration of instructional technology among Speech-Language Pathologists working in
public schools has been hampered by issues surrounding equipment availability, the role of
technology in direct instruction, and appropriate venues for professional development, areas that
this study sought to clarify. The study consisted of a review of existing literature on these topics
as well as a survey of a speech and language department in a suburban school district in the
Northeast region of the United States. It was hypothesized that the sampled population of SLPs
would closely resemble previously surveyed populations of professionals in terms of low
percentage of time utilizing technology. It was further hypothesized that this population would
benefit from increased use of communications technologies and Web 2.0 tools such as a wiki to
provide instruction and exemplars of instructional technology specifically related to speech and
language. Results indicated that this department was more advanced than hypothesized in terms
of frequency and varied uses of technology. However, it was found that the sampled SLPs were
hindered by inadequate access to technology and other work setting-related issues such as
limited utilization of available professional development opportunities and the need for self-
advocacy when working across multiple buildings. Respondents were generally positive and
open to the idea of systemic technology integration, and suggested professional development
models and topics that, given their hectic, multi-site work schedule, could be addressed through
existing models as well as use of use of a collaborative website to provide instruction and
exemplars of technology integration relevant to their clinical needs.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 6
I. Introduction
Practitioners in the field of Speech-Language Pathology who work in school settings are
tasked with the challenging goal of improving students’ general language skills while helping
them to access curriculum content and meet both Individualized Education Plan (IEP) objectives
and state standards. Though technology tools can provide greater access to information and
activities and ultimately reduce preparation time needed to help Speech-Language Pathologists
(SLPs) accomplish this task, research has suggested that technology tools are underutilized by
these professionals. This study is designed to research the status of technology integration
among SLPs working in schools, collect data on technology use, professional development,
attitudes and suggestions regarding technology among a sample of SLPs, and suggest possible
solutions to facilitate increased technology integration in the sampled group of professionals.
Research Questions and Hypothesis
Research Question 1: To what degree is technology integrated in the direct therapy and
consultative activities of a sample of school-based SLPs, and how does this sample compare to
previously surveyed populations?
Research Question 2: What are the barriers to increased technology integration in terms of
availability of equipment and technology tools, professional development experience, and
practitioner attitudes toward technology integration?
Research Question 3: What interventions or programming would facilitate systemic change and
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 7
technology integration across this population of SLPs for furthering of student achievement of
IEP goals and curriculum standards?
Hypothesis: The sampled population of SLPs will closely resemble previously surveyed
populations of professionals in terms of low percentage of time utilizing technology. This
population would benefit from increased use of communications technologies and Web 2.0 tools
such as blogs or wikis to provide instruction and exemplars of instructional technology
specifically related to speech and language.
Definitions, Limitations & Delimitations
Technology, for the purpose of this study, is defined as use of computers, applications,
and peripherals to further teaching and learning. This is distinct from the term technology as used
in science and technology benchmarks, which refers to the study of scientific developments and
the manufacture of useful devices that affect human quality of life.
Technology integration refers to the teaching of technology skills in the context of
projects, activities and instruction related to curriculum topics, usually within the general
classroom setting. Systemic integration is integrated across all professionals, grade levels and
settings within a district.
Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) are professionals specializing in the assessment
and treatment of speech and language disorders and disabilities. SLPs work in many settings
including hospitals, clinics, and schools; in the school setting, SLPs work primarily with students
diagnosed with communication disabilities impacting their academic performance who require
specialized instruction as outlined by an Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 8
Direct therapy or direct service refer to the time periods and activities prescribed by the
IEP in which the SLP works directly with students in individual, small group or classroom based
sessions to address their IEP goals and objectives, which align in developmentally appropriate
ways with state educational standards for achievement.
Consultative, Indirect, or Preparatory Service refer to the time periods spent gathering
and creating materials for use in direct therapy, creating visual supports, educational materials, or
activities for use by teachers or paraprofessionals within the classroom setting or parents within
the home setting, or communicating with teachers, parents and other support staff.
Limitations of this study include time frames, which will not allow for full
implementation and evaluation of proposed solutions to facilitate increased technology
integration. Delimitations of this study indicate that the study will analyze survey results from a
cluster sample of approximately 20 SLPs in one suburban school district in the Northeast region
of the United States who were available to this examiner.
II. Review of the Literature
There are a variety of issues surrounding integration of technology into the daily practice
of Speech-Language Pathologists working in school settings. Among these are an evolving
awareness of peers and their level of technology use in these settings; a number of studies
regarding frequency and nature of this technology use will be discussed. Additionally, it is
helpful to explore the theoretical foundation of school-based interventions and the role that
technology can play in development of speech and language skills. The literature on this topic
also offers specific references to technology tools relevant to SLPs, and these will be discussed
in this section.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 9
How are SLPs using technology in their practice?
As a research-based profession, Speech-Language Pathology, like general education, is
concerned with trends and best practices that are documented in professional literature. A
number of surveys have documented the frequency and nature of computer use by SLPs in public
school settings and noted a general trend of increasing use. Surveys completed by the American
Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) addressing a number of issues, including
technology, found that the number of SLPs reporting use of computers at least occasionally rose
from 57.3% in 1988 to 69.1 in 1991. Looking at this data in a different way and incorporating
their own results, McRay & Fitch (1996) reported “a significant number of public school
personnel who are not using computers,” (McRay & Fitch, 1996, p. 44) with over one-third of
their sample reporting that they never use a computer.
One factor affecting SLPs use of technology in the school setting is the training they
undergo both in graduate school and in continuing professional development. McRay & Fitch
(1996) found a link between computer use and length of time since the respondent’s last degree,
with SLPs who had attended graduate school recently being more likely to use technology.
Additionally, the area of technology-related professional development was found to be weak
across the nation, with 71% of the respondents expressing the need for moderate to extensive
training in the use of technology. McRay & Fitch concluded that graduate training programs
have not specifically included instruction on using technology, and posed the question of “who
should be responsible for ensuring that public school speech-language pathologists are trained to
use existing technology?” (McRay & Fitch, 1996, p.44)
Lack of training is only one factor affecting the use of technology by public school SLPs.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 10
Cochran & Masterson, in their article “NOT Using a Computer in Language Intervention: In
Defense of the Reluctant Clinician,” sited the following significant factors: limited access to
computer resources, lack of training, concern that students will be intimidated by the computer,
worry over the amount of time necessary to teach students to use the computer, and doubts
regarding the efficacy of computer activities (Cochran & Masterson, 1995). Though a number of
these issues can be addressed by effective professional development with instruction in how to
engage students in effective technology use, the availability of equipment is often noted to be a
singular and significant problem. In a survey by ASHA in 2006, 26% of respondents identified
limited access to technology as their greatest professional challenge; that number decreased to
16% in 2004 (American Speech-Language Hearing Association, 2006). Other studies have noted
that up to 37% of school-based SLPs have no computers available for them to use (McRay &
Fitch, 1996). Given the expense of such equipment, the availability of computers remains a
significant factor in technology integration: “The conclusion drawn…is that most public school
speech-language pathologists do not have budgets that will support the acquisition of the
hardware and software necessary to integrate into a clinical program” (McRay & Fitch, 1997, p.
135).
When SLPs do have technology available to them, there are wildly varying approaches to
using it. McRay & Fitch (1997) found that SLPs did not view their computers as versatile tools
with many functions, but rather used them in a “one-dimensional” way to accomplish a single
clinical task. Many of the respondents used computers only to play games for reinforcement,
score standardized tests, write reports and forms, make communication boards, generate
Individualized Education Plans, or make awards. It should be noted that none of these functions
are truly in the spirit of technology integration, which involves putting the technology in the
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 11
hands of the student as a learning tool.
What is the theoretical foundation for technology use in the practice of Speech-Language
Pathology?
Speech-Language Pathologists are naturally concerned about treatment efficacy, which
begins with treatment practices having a solid foundation in evolving theory regarding language
development and education. One issue in using technology in speech and language interventions
involves recent changes in treatment models and corresponding theory about how learning takes
place. The movement toward inclusion of all students has influenced SLPs’ use of technology to
facilitate design of learning situations so that all students can access the curriculum.
Additionally, it has been suggested that the dawning of the “digital age” has actually changed the
manner in which all students learn, and that teaching methodologies should evolve accordingly.
SLPs have in some cases been resistant to using computers in their treatment because
they see the computer as replacing them in their role of shaping and reinforcing the students’
speech and language (Cochran & Masterson, 1995). This fear could be based in a somewhat
limited view of how speech and language therapy should be conducted, as well as a restricted
understanding of how computers can be used in therapy. As it originally was conceived, the
practice of speech and language pathology was based in behavioral models such as those
outlined by B.F. Skinner. Under such models, the clinician would engineer a learning situation
with carefully controlled variables in order to elicit a specific desired response, for example, an
accurately produced /s/ sound or a complex sentence, and then reinforce the target response in a
process of conditioning (Hewitt, 2000). This process can, in fact, take place with many
computer programs; with some drill-and-practice software and websites, students can practice
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 12
targets and earn virtual tokens or other reinforcements for desired responses. However, SLPs are
reasonable in questioning whether they should be using such programs regularly in direct therapy.
Drill-and-practice software seems more designed for training the student to use the program
independently or with minimal support, and then scheduling continued use with the teacher’s or
paraprofessional’s supervision.
Though the behavioral model of therapy, often associated with medical settings, still has a
place in school settings, its use has faded with an increasing emphasis on integrated service
delivery. Coufal (2002) describes this “paradigm shift” as encompassing four themes: meaningful
intervention goals closely tied to the curriculum, avoiding isolated and incremental skill
development within behaviorist models in favor of more holistic treatment, using evidence-based
and theoretically grounded methods, and ensuring that intervention strategies align with
functional goals. This movement is based in a social interactionist rather than a behaviorist
model, a model which focuses not on learning through stimulus and response but through
meaningful use of language with mature communication partners, such as the SLP, teacher, or
parent. Coufal notes that this model fits well with the increasing emphasis on discourse, as
understanding and formulating language above the level of the sentence is noted to be a key to
success in school.
The theoretical grounding that shapes professional practice, including the
importance of discursive processes that were widely researched in the 1980
[aligns with] the increasing emphasis on oracy and literacy. The burgeoning
literature on social interaction at home and in school as an appropriate context for
language learning and learning through language have propelled the practicing
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 13
speech-language pathologist to move out of the isolated treatment setting of
traditional service delivery models into the contexts of home and classroom.
(Coufal, 2002, p.2).
The social interactionist model is distinct from the processes emphasized by Skinner and
more akin to the concepts around teacher/therapist “mediation” and “scaffolding” described in the
work of Vygotsky. Westby (2002) describes how computer activities can present a context in
which, according to Vygotskian principles, “the individuals who are more knowledgeable about
the topic to be learned carefully scaffold the mediated instruction so that it is within the range in
which children can perform the task with assistance, but not independently” (Westby, 2002, p.77).
As such, computers can do more than provide drill-and-practice activities in which the clinician is
largely irrelevant. They can provide a vital context, as can a storybook or other language-based
activity, for the SLP to scaffold the students’ comprehension of and completion of the activity, as
well as their ability to express the ideas behind the activity at the discourse level.
Another strong rationale for using technology in speech and language interventions is
technology’s solid link to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). As described
by Rose & Meyer (2002), UDL grew from architectural principles in which buildings began to be
designed for all users from their inception, rather than being retrofitted in a reactive manner:
Legislation mandating universal access led to extensive retrofitting with ramps,
elevators, talking signs, and other access devices. But retrofitting is expensive,
often aesthetically disastrous, and usually inadequate in many ways. Universal
design provided a new and better approach. Architects realized that by
considering the needs of their buildings' potential users at the outset, they could
subtly integrate universal accessibility into the fabric of the building's design.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 14
Universal design challenges architects to innovate, often improving aesthetics and
functionality (Rose & Meyer, chap. 4).
Because technology provides often-easy access to more multisensory, multimodal, and
interactive learning activities, it has been viewed as a key element of UDL. Since the population
serviced by SLPs can be limited in all functions of language-listening, speaking, reading,
writing, instruction often needs to include stimuli other than text. Researchers have sited the
importance of presenting to our students a “universal curriculum.”
The learning material or curriculum is not limited to text but, rather, is
significantly more inclusive. A universal curriculum combines rigorous content
and supplemental educational experiences, such as authentic learning, with online
resources, software programs, digital content, and video resources (Abell, Bauder,
& Simmons, 2005, p.83).
According to the principles of UDL, SLPs therefore can find in technology an important means
of modifying curriculum concepts so they can be accessed by students with learning disabilities.
Another factor underlying the use of technology in speech and language intervention is
the growing sense that the way our students learn students has changed because of their constant
exposure to multimedia and digital technologies. Prensky (2001) writes about our students as
digital “natives” who have been immersed in technology since their birth; we, on the other hand,
as their teachers, are “immigrants” who often have trouble understanding their language, culture,
and beliefs, in addition to their apparent difficulty in paying attention to traditional classroom
teaching.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 15
It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer
volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information
fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further
and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of experiences
lead to different brain structures, “ says Dr. Bruce D. Berry of Baylor College of
Medicine…it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed –
and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not
this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have
changed (Prensky, 2001).
As a result of this purported change in students’ learning style, we are likely to find that our
interventions are likely to be more successful if they integrate our students’ native “language”:
the language of technology.
What specific applications of technology should SLPs be using?
As indicated above, SLPs can be wary of using technology in their direct therapy,
perhaps because they have only been exposed to drill-and-practice computer activities in which
the computer plays the role of the SLP. In such activities, the computer may control the level of
difficulty of stimulus items, provide cues to the student, and reinforce in various ways. It is true
that overseeing such activities is likely not the best use of time for a master’s level clinician.
However, because these computer-based activities could still be of great benefit to students with
language disabilities, it may be helpful to use them to supplement rather than replace direct
therapy time. Schery & O’Connor, in a response to an earlier study, elaborated on this idea of
using technology as a consultative tool.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 16
The question is certainly not whether computers can replace clinicians in
delivering communication training to children with severe disabilities; there is
virtually no danger of that….If computer technology can be used to provide
carefully paced and pre-selected vocabulary and language targets with
demonstrated efficacy, the possibility of having paraprofessionals deliver this
more routine aspect of language training becomes the next issue. If computer
training can be provided effectively by paraprofessionals, the clinician, as the
professional communication specialist, can spend more time in the challenging
task of diagnostic teaching to determine appropriate goals and training approaches
for each child (Schery & O’Connor, 1993, p.180).
Technology can also be used for consultation and session preparation by SLPs to create
customized and curriculum-based materials. Though a wealth of language materials are
available commercially, they often teach skills in isolation and are not linked to the context of
the curriculum. Cochran & Masterson (1995) note that with basic procedures and technology,
clinicians can create customized worksheets, utilize clip art, and generate visual supports
including but not limited to communication boards. There is additional support for creating
materials that use personal, functional, and real-life images accessed via the Internet or with the
use of digital photography as “an effective and efficient means to create natural contexts for
communication” (Coufal, 2002, p. 40).
Regarding direct therapy, we have seen references to technology being used as a context
for naturalistic, functional communication between the SLP and student, or between students in a
cooperative group. For SLPs, this often must involve thinking outside the box, using a greater
range of contexts or materials than have previously been considered to be related to speech and
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 17
language. Lieberth & Martin (1995) advocate that clinicians use software that was not designed
specifically for clinical use; this flexibility in materials selection can also be applied to use of
Internet sites not designed specifically for speech and language therapy. Rather than a specific
clinical purpose underlying its design, SLPs should look for a software program or website with
potential for creating a context for communication and the scaffolding and cueing that facilitate
achievement of IEP goals.
Activities often include a software program or game that functions as the topic, or
focus, of conversation between the client and clinician. For example, the clinician
and child might create a picture from existing graphics libraries, write or narrate a
story, make a sign or greeting card, or solve a puzzle. In this way, the computer
provides an important part of the shared context the clinician and child experience
during treatment, whereas traditional functions such as recording responses and
providing linguistic models are still carried out by the clinician (Cochran &
Masterson, 1995, p.5).
Activities that establish a context could include use of websites or software that provide
access to interactive and/or animated stories to target development of higher-level discourse
language and literacy skills (Westby, 2002). In addition to targeting comprehension of narrative,
computer programs such as KidPix can be used to provide visual scaffolding necessary to help
students construct their own stories and write text (Coufal, 2002, Lieberth & Martin, 1995).
Additional visual supports to build discourse skills can be found in concept mapping
software such as Inspiration or Kidspiration. These programs help students, with the support of
the SLP or teacher, create interactive graphic organizers representing the flow of ideas within a
topic. Though not created specifically for clinical use by SLPs, these concept-mapping programs
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 18
target core skills outlined in curriculum standards and often selected as goals on Individualized
Education Plans: categorizing, sequencing, storytelling, stating cause and effect or main idea,
and so on. The visual nature of the programs promotes access and language use at a greater
range of developmental levels: “Even the preliterate child can benefit from the graphic
representations of language made possible by use of software such as Inspiration” (Coufal, 2002,
p. 3).
For students who are able to read, accessing text-based or hyperlinked websites can
provide an alternative to using traditional text as a context for therapy. Coufal (2002) notes that
Internet use to access text or other resources fosters students’ ability to “comprehend, question,
investigate, create meaning, express and defend their ideas” (Coufal, 2002, p. 41). Internet use
to access text can also be a “hook” that increases students’ motivation to interact around
curriculum materials and concepts; there are numerous studies showing that students make
comparable gains, are more engaged, and prefer conditions in which computers are used over
traditional picture-based or text-based therapy (Cochran & Masterson, 1995).
Resources that foster interactivity between the student and computer, student and SLP, or
between students in a cooperative group also align with social-interactionist theories of language
development. Simulation games such as SimCity or similar websites can be used as a context for
developing higher-level discourse and language organization skills (Westby, 2002). Interactive
Resources that SLPs were previously urged to develop themselves using early hypertext
programs such as Hypercard (Lieberth & Martin, 1995) are now readily and freely available on
the Internet, with more visual support and graphics than SLPs could possibly have incorporated
into a Hypercard “stack.” Interactive websites such as BBC Schools allow students to access
abstract curriculum concepts and demonstrate achievement of standards through visual supports
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 19
and virtual experiences.
Technology-based applications give students access to worlds and environments
that are inaccessible, too expensive, or too dangerous in a classroom setting;
enable students with disabilities to experience laboratories and field trips at their
own pace; and allow them to repeat the experience as many times as necessary.
Further, they present content matter in a variety of modalities, thereby addressing
the diverse learning styles of students (Smedley & Higgins, 2005, p 41).
In addition to interacting with the computer and SLP, students can be prompted to
interact with each other to complete curriculum-based projects, and thereby target both academic
language and social skills. WebQuests are one model of such project-based learning; created by
teachers, these web-based units are available free on the Internet. They often pose an open-
ended and real-life problem related to curriculum concepts, and require students to work together
in groups, usually with assigned roles, to pose solutions based on the research they obtain from
resources embedded in or linked to the WebQuest (Westby, 2002).
III. Method
This section will describe the surveyed group, detail survey questions, and describe data
collection and analysis methods and procedures.
Sample Selection
The participants in this study were 19 Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) from a
suburban school district. The SLPs are organized in a department under a chairperson within the
district and service all elementary and secondary schools. Though many of the therapists work
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 20
only at one school, a number are required to divide their time to service the needs of students
across several schools.
Measures
Measuring SLPs current use of technology
Data were collected regarding SLPs' self-reported use of technology. The survey asked SLPs to
report their current access to computers, software and other technology equipment. The
therapists were also asked to report the percentage of time using technology during direct therapy
time, defined as time spent working directly with individual students or groups of students in or
out of the classroom setting. Additionally, SLPs reported the percentage of time using
technology during preparation and consultation time, defined as time spent gathering and
creating materials for use in direct therapy, creating visual supports, educational materials, or
activities for use by teachers or paraprofessionals within the classroom setting or parents within
the home setting, or communicating with teachers, parents and other support staff. In addition to
the amount of time spent using technology, SLPs were also asked to report frequently used
websites and software used for direct therapy and preparation/consult time.
Measuring Professional Development Participation, Attitudes and Interests Regarding
Professional Development and Technology.
Respondents were asked to report professional development activities in the past four
years that related to technology integration. In order to characterize respondents’ attitudes
toward the value of technology integration, they were asked to make a statement regarding the
relationship between technology integration and student achievement of IEP goals. Additionally,
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 21
to guide recommendations for improving systemic professional development, respondents were
surveyed to gauge levels of interest in specific technology tools, as well as suggestions to
facilitate department-wide technology integration specifically related to speech and language.
Design and Procedures
Design
The sample in this study consisted of 19 respondents of the SLP department within this
district.
Procedure
The data collection procedure was conducted following the steps below:
Step 1. A survey was created based on frameworks established by Framingham State College
regarding professional development and systemic change, including the concepts of technology
integration, student achievement and implementation of professional development to affect
change across all schools, levels, and departments.
Step 2. The survey was distributed to all members of the speech and language department during
a department meeting, with a request to return responses within two weeks via email or
interdepartmental mail.
Step 3. Responses were collected and data were organized for quantitative and qualitative
measures. Quantitative measures included number of therapists reporting time spent in
direct/consultative use of technology at each percentage point (0-90%) as well as range, mean,
and mode. Frequently used technology tools were also categorized and the number of
respondents using tools in each category was calculated. Reported technology integration-related
professional development activities were also categorized and the number of respondents
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 22
participating in each category was calculated. Respondents were asked to describe their access
to technology, which was characterized as adequate, adequate with use of personal equipment, or
inadequate. Qualitative information gathered included respondents’ statements regarding
technology tools of interest for further professional development and suggestions for models of
technology-related professional development. Statements regarding participants’ view of the
relationship between technology use and student achievement of IEP goals were also elicited and
coded as positive, negative or neutral.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 23
IV. Results
In this study, a survey regarding technology use, professional development, and attitudes
and suggestions to facilitate technology integration was administered to the Speech and
Language department of a suburban school district in the Northeast region of the United States.
Nineteen responses were received and analyzed for quantitative and qualitative data.
Research Question 1: To what degree is technology integrated in the direct therapy and
consultative activities of a sample of school-based SLPs, and how does this sample compare to
previously surveyed populations?
Determining Participating SLPs Current Use of Technology
Survey participants were asked to estimate the percentage of time they use technology
while engaged in direct therapy and consultation/preparation activities. Reponses were tabulated
and charted to display data, and mean, mode and range were determined. Responses indicating
technology use less than 10 percent of the time were grouped into a “<10” category; the number
5% was used as an estimate when calculating means. Responses regarding use of technology in
direct therapy ranged from 0-70% of the time, with a mean response of 26.8% of the time; the
modal response was 20% of the time. Responses regarding use of technology in
consultation/preparation activities ranged from 0-100% of the time, with a mean response of
48.2% of the time; the modal response was 90% of the time.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 24
Figure 1
Reported Percentage of Direct Time Utilizing Technology
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 25
Figure 2
Reported Percentage of Consultation/Preparation Time Utilizing Technology
Respondents were also asked to indicate the specific technology tools they use most for
direct therapy and consultation/preparation activities. These responses were grouped into
categories and the number of therapists referencing each category was tabulated and charted.
Results are displayed below.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 26
Figure 3
Reported Resources Used for Direct Therapy
Results indicate that the surveyed group of SLPs is most frequently using technology
with students to access images and drill-based games online, as well as animated storybooks.
The use of images and drill games is most closely aligned with Skinnerian viewpoints of therapy
described earlier in this report, as these resources are generally used to work on smaller elements
of language such as speech sound practice, vocabulary, or other elements of less-contextual
language that are specifically reinforced. The use of animated storybooks and PowerPoint
suggests use of technology to develop discourse, as associated with Vygotskian principles in
which these resources are used to help students comprehend and develop more lengthy and
complex language with scaffolding by the clinician. Other tools with the potential to develop
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 27
discourse such as multimedia software, interactive websites and concept mapping software are
reported to be used less frequently.
Figure 4
Reported Resources Used for Preparation/Consultation
Regarding the use of technology in preparation and consultation, results indicate that
many in the surveyed group were not specific about how they use technology in this manner,
with almost 50% of the sample reporting no favorite resources. Of the reported resources used,
the most frequent category included websites or software used for printing materials and
worksheets, with sources of images for printing being another reported category. A number of
respondents also mentioned the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA)
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 28
website, which can be used to locate information for parents and teachers and conduct research
on specific disorders, issues specific to school settings, and evidence-based practice.
Viewing these responses as a whole, across the service delivery models of direct and
consultative service, this sample of SLPs tended to use technology for multiple purposes. This
can be seen in their reference to using several different categories of technology tools in their
responses. For example, some respondents referred to using multiple and varied tools such as
sources of images, PowerPoint, and interactive websites. Viewing their responses, 16/19
respondents (85%) used the computer for varied purposes within direct and consultative service
delivery models.
Research Question 2: What are the barriers to increased technology integration in terms of
availability of equipment and technology tools, professional development experience, and
practitioner attitudes toward technology integration?
Identifying Barriers to Increased Technology Integration
Participants were asked to describe their current access to technology, their professional
development experience related to technology over the past 4 years, and their feelings about the
relationship between technology integration and student achievement. Regarding the availability
of technology, responses were categorized in the following manner: adequate, adequate with use
of personal equipment, or inadequate. The personal equipment category included responses of
participants that referenced use of their own laptops at school. Equipment availability was
characterized as “inadequate” if the respondent indicated it was “old” or that they had “limited
access.” Two respondents referred to laptop carts in their building that they did not know if they
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 29
could access. A summary chart of responses regarding technology access is displayed below.
Figure 5
Respondent Access to Technology
Participants were asked to list the professional development activities related to
technology that they had engaged in over the past four years. Responses were categorized and
the number of responses in each category was tabulated. Results are displayed below.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 30
Figure 6
Types of Professional Development Reported
Most frequently referenced categories of professional development included two in-
service trainings run by members of the department on using the software program Boardmaker
to access images and create communication boards, as well as a training on expository text
resources on the Internet. A number of respondents also mentioned attending trainings within
their individual schools on various software programs such as iPhoto or FirstClass. Four
department members had attended iCamp or Windows Camp, one element of the district’s efforts
at fostering systemic technology integration across all levels. These activities consisted of
weeklong summer institutes with lessons on integrating various technology tools through hands-
on practice. An equal amount of respondents reported engaging in no professional development
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 31
related to technology at all in the past four years.
Respondents were additionally asked for a statement of their opinion of the relationship
between technology integration and student achievement of academic standards and
Individualized Education Plan goals. These responses were coded and characterized as positive,
neutral, or negative. Two participants did not respond to the question; none of the respondents
mentioned only negative opinions of technology integration. Of the total responses, 11, or 58%,
were coded as positive and indicated that technology plays a strong role in student achievement.
Examples of positive statements include the following:
“IT IS COMPLETELY ESSENTIAL. It provides yet another modality for the student to
integrate information, many of my students are so motivated by the computer. It is a tangible
way that they can be successful with a finished product. It is also an easy way to connect real-
life and meaningful experiences to the curriculum.”
“It’s an area to be explored…I think that it is important to integrate the technology in order to
allow my students to improve their overall communication skills.”
“If I had more access to technology and better software, I’d integrate it into my sessions. I think
technology would greatly enhance student achievement.”
“I think it helps immensely- the students I work with are highly interested in using the computer
and other technology. My students are visual learners and could benefit from all different types
of technology.”
Reponses were coded as neutral if they mentioned both positive and negative aspects of
technology integration, expressed uncertainty, or referenced using technology more indirectly
with students. Of the total responses, 5, or 26%, were coded as neutral. Examples of neutral
statements included the following:
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 32
“Can’t say. I don’t use it that much.”
“Many students who are comfortable using the computer for academic/research work accomplish
their goals in a shorter time period. However, many students are reluctant to use the computer for
this purpose and wish to use it just for games.”
“I am not confident that with [students not using technology for assistive communication
purposes] there is a direct connection between use of technology and achieving goals, however it
does motivate and enhance the therapy program.”
Research Question 3: What interventions or programming would facilitate systemic change and
technology integration across this population of SLPs for furthering of student achievement of
IEP goals and curriculum standards?
Identifying Professional Development Activities to Facilitate Department-Wide Technology
Integration
Participants were asked to identify technology tools that they are already aware of and
would like to know more about. Responses were very varied and reflected wide knowledge of
tools that are available. Responses are displayed below.
Figure 7
Specific Technology Tools of Interest to Respondents
PowerPoint
Don’t know
Reading comprehension programs or sites
“Interested in learning or being exposed to all areas of technology. Generally do not have
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 33
time to use software in groups”
“Digital Camera-iPhoto”
“I would love to use the net more”
“Making spreadsheets, digital photography, PowerPoint presentations”
“Not sure what is out there, so maybe an in-service on what’s available and how to
implement the tools in direct therapy.”
“Websites that show how to articulate sounds, or sites like mind reader that students
could use on their own.”
“Always looking for new websites and software to do the job more efficiently and take
less home to prep.”
“Quia and other sites that have on-line activities for kids to use, especially pertaining to
expressive language”
“Anything that is user-friendly and practical. Writing software such as Clicker5. Want
to grow skills with Classroom Suite, Intellitools. Use of software that is on the computer
already.
“Any and all! Studyguides.”
“Any that would be helpful”
“Intellitools, any websites with already-made teaching tools.”
Participants were also asked how they felt professional development would best be
delivered, i.e. what activities would help to facilitate department-wide technology integration.
Results were categorized and the number of respondents referencing each category of
professional development activities was tabulated. Results are displayed below.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 34
Figure 8
Professional Development Activities Suggested by Staff
The most frequently referenced category was that of department-based workshops or in-
service trainings, reflecting positive experiences in past department-based meetings. This
response also highlights the need for professional development that is customized to the needs
and daily activities of the SLP, rather than general educators. The group of respondents also felt
strongly that access to technology equipment was key to more frequent department-wide use of
technology. Responses also reflected an awareness of resources of technology knowledge within
the department, access to which could be facilitated by activities such as increased modeling and
communication among staff, development of a technological means for sharing activities such as
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 35
an “activity exchange” website, and mentoring. Department members additionally sought clear
and practical instruction through use of hands-on practice and specific links to student goals and
objectives.
VI. Discussion
This study was designed to examine a sample of Speech-Language Pathologists’ current
use of technology, relationship with technology integration and technology-related professional
development, and suggestions to foster increased integration. The first research hypothesis
stated that this sample of SLPs would look similar to previously surveyed populations in terms of
frequency of technology use and applications of technology to their practice. As compared to
McRay & Fitch’s 1996 finding that over one-third of their sample never used computers at all,
this study finds very significant progress in increased technology use, with respondents reporting
use of technology in direct work with students about one-third of the time, and in consultation
and preparation about half of the time. This study differed from previous studies in that it did
not take into account computer use for administrative functions, such as writing Individualized
Education Plans, because in the sample populations’ setting, technology use for that purpose is
mandated. This study also had more interest in characterizing SLPs’ use of technology for
different purposes, the data for which would perhaps direct future professional development.
With regard to viewing technology as a multidimensional tool, this sample also is significantly
more advanced than in previous surveys. Where this study found that 85% of respondents used
technology applications in multiple categories, McRay and Fitch (1996) found a significant trend
towards technology being used for a single purpose.
This study showed a tendency within the sampled population to use technology more for
Skinnerian/behaviorally-modeled activities, such as drill-and practice activities. Using
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 36
technology in this manner, with the skilled therapist leading or supervising an activity that is
mostly driven by the computer, often leads to confusion over the SLP’s role and the value of
his/her presence within that type of activity, as indicated in the literature. Should SLPs expand
their viewpoint of how technology can be used in direct therapy, they would be able to relegate
drill-and-practice activities to paraprofessionals, parents or the students themselves, as “assigned”
by the SLP in a consultative role. The SLPs surveyed would benefit from training in use of
technology in the wider range of applications suggested by the literature and in a Vygotskian
model, with the technology and SLP establishing a context for an activity within the student’s
Zone of Proximal Development, and the SLP providing scaffolding to assist the student to
complete the activity.
With regard to barriers to increased technology use among this population, availability of
equipment remains a significant issue in terms of facilitating department-wide integration.
Approximately 50% of the sample did not have adequate access to technology to use with
students or to further their own professional development. A number of therapists referenced the
presence of carts of laptops in their schools, but did not know if this technology was truly
available to them. In addition, department meetings have highlighted the unresolved question of
who is responsible for providing technology to the SLPs: the district-wide special education
department or the individual schools in which the SLPs work. It is recommended that both
avenues of funding be pursued, however, SLPs would do well to self-advocate for allocations
within the larger building-based technology budgets. Because SLPs are providing services
toward the academic progress of students within individual schools, and classroom teachers are
often allocated laptops, so too should individual schools play a role in providing adequate
technology tools. SLPs can facilitate this support by being visible technology users, being more
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 37
aware of resources within the school, accessing their building-based technology specialist for
group or individual professional development, and attending technology planning committee
meetings.
This sample of SLPs expressed largely positive attitudes toward the concept of technology
integration, with 58% of responses indicating a positive relationship between technology
integration and student achievement, with an additional 26% with neutral responses, indicating a
willingness to learn more. It does appear, however, that many of the sampled SLPs have not
taken advantage of district-wide efforts to foster systemic technology integration, with only
approximately 20% having attended summer technology institutes, and 25% attending building-
based professional development in technology. Though the group seems most enthusiastic about
department-based trainings specific to speech and language, they might consider accessing other
opportunities that would increase their knowledge and comfort with technology, and also serve to
alleviate equipment access problems.
In addition to increased technology access and department-based in-services, this sample
of SLPs referenced activities to foster systemic integration that emphasized practical application
and modeling, such as hands-on practice, increased communication among staff, use of “activity
exchanges,” mentoring, and clear examples of how technology activities can relate to the
curriculum. Given the configuration of this and many other SLP departments, with therapists
individually servicing schools across the city and generally meeting only monthly, it is difficult
to accomplish this type of professional development with traditional, synchronous face-to-face
meetings. One initiative could be to use this department’s “affinity group” format and convene a
group to focus on technology integration for a period of one or two years. In addition, the use of
Web 2.0 tools, in which users can easily publish and archive communications on the Internet, is
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 38
becoming very popular to facilitate professional development among teachers with busy
schedules. In particular, the use of a wiki, an easily writable web page to which all can
contribute ideas collaboratively, would be one solution that could facilitate department-wide
integration. The wiki could be structured as a venue for sharing of specific technology
applications, with links to resources, software downloads, and specific interactive websites.
Reference to academic standards and/or IEP goals addressed by each activity will help SLPs to
view activities as valuable use of direct therapy time. For more difficult applications, the tool of
“Screencasting” can be used to narrate and visually show how to use the technology skills to
complete the activity. For example, a screencast can be created and linked to the wiki in which
the software program Kidspiration is demonstrated. With the advent of digital video, it would
even be possible to videotape individual lessons and post them to the wiki in QuickTime Movie
format. The use of a wiki will also foster a sense of community among its users, in which all are
able to contribute ideas toward the common goal of systemic technology integration.
This research project illuminates areas that could be researched in further depth, most
notably whether these results are consistent with the technology use of SLPs in other schools or
districts. One further area for research could characterize the impact on the department of the
creation of a wiki. Department members could be issued post-use surveys in which they critique
the quality and relevance of the wiki content, as well as how often they have accessed and
utilized the ideas.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 39
References
Abell, M.M., Bauder, D.K, & Simmons, T.J. (2005). Access to the general curriculum: a
curriculum and instruction perspective for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic.
41, 82-86.
Cochran, P.S., & Masterson, J. J. (1995). NOT using a computer in language intervention: In
defense of the reluctant clinician. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools.
26, 213-222.
Coufal, K.L. (2002). Technology teaching or mediated learning, part I: are computers Skinnerian
or Vygotskian? Topics in Language Disorders. 22, 1-28.
Coufal, K.L. (2002). Technology teaching or mediated learning, part II, 1990s: literacy linkages
and intervention contexts. Topics in Language Disorders. 22, 29-54.
Ghazzawi, Gail. "2006 ASHA Schools Survey Special Report: Workforce and Working
Conditions Trends." asha.org. 2006. American Speech-Language Hearing Association. 25
Nov 2007 <http://www.asha.org/NR/rdonlyres/E69D0B1F-FBA8-488B-A696-
7B3CD3392BBE/0/SpecialWrkgCndtn06.pdf>.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 40
Hewitt, L (2000). Does it matter what your client thinks? The role of theory in intervention:
response to Kahmi. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 31, 186-193.
Lieberth, A.K., & Martin, D.G. (1995). Authoring and hypermedia. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools. 26, 241-250.
McRay & Fitch, J (1996). A survey of computer use by public school speech-language
pathologists. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. 27, 40-47.
McRay & Fitch, J (1997). Integrating technology into school programs. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools. 28, 134-136.
Prensky, M (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, Retrieved November
1, 2007, from www.marcprensky.com
Rose, David, and Anne Meyer. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age. 1st ed. Cambridge:
ACSD, 2002.
Schery, T. K., & O'Connor, L. C. (1993). Reply to Collisson and Long [Letter to the editor].
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 180.
Smedley, T.M., & Higgins, K (2005). Virtual technology: bringing the world into the special
education classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic. 41, 114-119.
Facilitating Technology Integration Among Speech-Language Pathologists in the Public School Setting 41
Westby, C (2002). Computers, culture, and learning. Topics in Language Disorders. 22, 70-87.