Disabled Children and Digital Technologies: Learning in the Context of Inclusive Education 9781350002050, 9781350002081, 9781350002074

Citation preview

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Also available from Bloomsbury Digital Technologies in Early Childhood Art, Mona Sakr Education and Technology, Neil Selwyn Primary Schools and ICT, Neil Selwyn, John Potter and Sue Cranmer

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies Learning in the Context of Inclusive Education Sue Cranmer

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2021 This edition published 2022 Copyright © Sue Cranmer, 2021 Sue Cranmer has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. x constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Charlotte James All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cranmer, Sue, author. Title: Disabled children and digital technologies : learning in the context of inclusive education / Sue Cranmer. Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020031009 (print) | LCCN 2020031010 (ebook) | ISBN 9781350002050 (hardback) | ISBN 9781350002067 (epub) | ISBN 9781350002074 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Students with disabilities–Computer-assisted instruction. | Inclusive education. | Educational technology. | Assistive computer technology. Classification: LCC LC4024 .C73 2020 (print) | LCC LC4024 (ebook) | DDC 004.087–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020031009 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020031010 ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-0205-0 PB: 978-1-3502-1373-9 ePDF: 978-1-3500-0207-4 eBook: 978-1-3500-0206-7 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

For Steve Griffiths

vi

Contents List of Tables Preface Acknowledgements

viii ix x

Introduction 1 1 Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies 15 2 Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion 35 3 The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning and Introducing the Illustrative Project 51 4 Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning 63 5 Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk 91 6 Teacher Perspectives 119 Conclusions and Implications Bibliography Index

133 143 169

Tables 3.1 3.2 3.3 5.1

Description of Study Schools Description of the Disabled Children Description of Teachers UNESCO Digital Literacy Competence Areas and Competencies

59 60 61 93

Preface This book aims to open a debate about disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning within the context of inclusive education. It sits at the intersection of disability studies and digital education. It asks, where is the research that could support disabled children to learn in situ in inclusive ways using digital technologies and why are disabled children’s voices largely missing within these debates? These questions are important for challenging the potential inequalities that can amplify differences between children online and, in turn, undermine some children’s life chances in school and beyond. The book aims to contextualize pedagogy in classrooms within broader debates about inclusion in schools. It will show how change is needed, underpinned by research, to enhance disabled children’s learning experiences with technology in schools. It is definitely not about blaming hardworking and committed teachers, teaching assistants or other key personnel for the current situation but instead aims to carefully consider what is happening on the ground and how the situation might be improved. My interest in this subject draws on my own experiences both as a researcher of children and adult’s uses of digital technologies and as a disabled person. I have over twenty years of experience of researching technology for learning. I was born with dyslexia including Irlen syndrome – unrecognized and unsupported when I was at school – and acquired repetitive strain injury as an adult. Both older and newer technologies enable me to write, including supporting me to write this book. I use screen masking software (currently Read&Write), coloured filters on phones and tablets, overlays and filters in prescription glasses alongside Dragon Naturally Speaking voice input software. The book is influenced by perspectives drawn from disability studies that seek to improve disabled children’s and adult’s lives. When I was planning the research project that this book draws on, an expert in disabled children’s childhood studies offered the following advice: ‘Don’t parachute in’. I have taken this advice and sought to understand the complexities of the developments in disability studies, to bring these together with developments in the field of digital technologies. I very much hope that I have done justice to this important topic. Sue Cranmer

Acknowledgements There are many people to thank for their support in producing this book. First, a sincere thanks to all the young people, teachers and parents who have supported my work through agreeing to take part in research carried out over the last twenty years. This has been about the uses of digital technologies in general and, more recently, about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning. Thank you to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences for funding this project. I would also like to thank Maggie Lackey, who did such a great job of transcribing the data from this and other projects. My appreciation also goes to Mark Richardson and Kim Bown at Bloomsbury Academic for their kind encouragement and support in writing this book. I have been fortunate to be encouraged and supported in my research and writing by many colleagues and friends over a number of years. In particular, I would like to mention and extend thanks to Shakuntala Banaji, Roger Blamire, Adele Botha, Kelly Coate, Karen Evans, Sarah Eagle, Rebecca Fish, Lyndsay Grant, Patrick Kermit, Natasha Kersh, Cathy Lewin, Sonia Livingstone, Hannah Morgan, Carlo Perrotta, John Potter, Alan Roulstone, Katherine Runswick-Cole, Neil Selwyn, Karin Tusting, Joanne Wood and Terry Waller. A particular note of thanks goes to David Buckingham who encouraged me to do a PhD in the first place and then provided such inspiring and effective mentorship during the process. I would like to extend my appreciation to Michael Kelly who convinced me that I could achieve so much more in life than I had ever expected. I am hugely grateful for the support and friendship of colleagues I work with in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University. A particular note of thanks to Jo Warin for mentoring the writing of this book and also to Paul Ashwin, Carolyn Jackson and Jan McArthur for their key support. I am also grateful to others who encouraged and supported the writing of this book: the late Steve Dempster, Kathryn Doherty, Ann-Marie Houghton, Alice Jesmont, Alison and Chris Marlow, Rebecca Marsden, Don Passey and Murray Saunders. Friends and family have been supporting my writing in many and varied ways; in particular I would like to thank Fiona and Simon Allen, Kate Domaille

Acknowledgements

xi

and Solomon Hughes, Trish Griffiths, Sandra Hastie, Jo Mehat and Richard Savage, Azam Mullick, Julie and Michael Savage. Last but never least, it is difficult to describe the many ways that Steve Griffiths has contributed to this book. For over twenty years, Steve has been both my husband and my best friend. He has generously cheered me on with every new project and step of my career even when it involved yet another house move. There are not enough thanks in the world, Steve.

xii

Introduction

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies This book sits at the intersection of disability studies and digital education and, as the title says, it is about disabled children, digital technologies and learning within inclusive education. It is intentionally and purposefully child-centred and aims to open a debate about disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning within the context of inclusive education. Disabled children’s digital lives remain largely unexamined. This has led to a limited understanding of how disabled children use digital technologies. We know very little about disabled children, and social and digital inclusion, yet there is the possibility that digital technologies may amplify inequalities between children and undermine their opportunities. Digital technologies such as computers, laptops and mobile devices greatly impact every aspect of children and young people’s lives, and research has often kept pace with this. A developing and sustained evidence base has emerged, particularly in high-income countries, to understand the impact in relation to generic children and young people’s uses and experiences of digital technologies (Bond, 2014). Yet, while the field has been steadily growing, associated concerns with disabled children’s lives remain uncharted. It is important, therefore, that we examine how disabled children can access the same online opportunities as their peers. A key aspect of disabled children’s lives is how they are included in schools both to access the curriculum and to learn to socialize. The book asks: What opportunities are disabled children able to access through their uses of digital technologies for learning? What factors influence disabled children’s uses and experiences? How do disabled children develop the digital skills and competencies they need generally and to stay safe online? How can schools and teachers support disabled children to benefit from using digital technologies? How can disabled children and teachers use digital technologies to support learning and inclusion? These are important questions I will carefully consider

2

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

over the following chapters. I will draw on international evidence along with an illustrative project carried out with disabled children in England in order to situate the questions within the current realities of provision of digital technologies for children in mainstream schools. This is essential in order to situate disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning within a grounded context. Indeed, the focus here is very much on disabled children and their uses and experiences with digital technologies to understand their online activities, not on the technologies per se. While digital technologies inevitably change, institutional structures such as schools may be slower to shift. This means that the ideas in this book will continue to have resonance. Before moving to discussion of why the topic is important, a brief word on terminology.

Introducing Disabled Children As noted earlier, this book is about disabled children, digital technologies and learning within inclusive education. It is child-centred; therefore, it is crucial that the children at the core of this book are introduced clearly before moving forward to define digital technologies and inclusive education. Children are often identified by their age and assumed stage of development. This is problematic given that childhood is socially constructed and many children vary from what is assumed to be typical. For example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) (United Nations, 1989) defines children as being under the age of eighteen and while there are some variations between countries, eighteen is usually the age at which the law confers the status of adulthood. While recognizing that this risks essentializing age or development as the key factor by which to group children, it is widely recognized in policy particularly around schooling. Reluctantly, therefore, I will define children and young people in the book as mainly being under eighteen while recognizing the inherent limitations of this particular clustering. Children and young people in the book will mostly be termed ‘children’ or ‘young people’ rather than ‘children and young people’ for simplicity and brevity. Disability is perhaps even more problematic to define. Within the book, I use the term ‘disabled children’ in place of the seemingly more child-centric ‘children with disabilities’. This is a deliberate choice that aims to underscore the importance of the social model of ‘disability’ born out of the British

Introduction

3

Disabled People’s Movement in the 1970s (Campbell and Oliver, 1996) and used widely today by disabled academics and activists. The social model considers ’disability’ to be the consequence of the social, economic and political systems that impact disabled people’s lives (Oliver, 1996). It is different from the medical model of ‘impairment’ based on individual condition and instead views ‘disability’ as based on the ‘collective experience of disablement’ (Oliver, 2004, p. 8). Even so, I am aware that grouping children by one factor such as ‘disability’ is tricky and I remain recognizant that there are a variety of social contextual approaches to disability with much discussion about where ‘disability’ resides across the continuum between impairment and disability (Shakespeare, 2013). Keeping these points in mind, I aim to avoid labelling children by impairment or impairments within the book unless it is essential to draw out a more nuanced analysis or I am referring specifically to the illustrative project carried out with visually impaired children (see Chapter 3). Other children who are not disabled will be referred to as ‘generic’ children within the book. A familiar term within inclusive education settings and policy is ‘special educational needs’. However, this does not align well with the social model of disability given its inherent association with individual diagnostic models and expectations of being ‘special’ and having ‘need’ (Benson, 2014). Consequently, the term ‘special educational needs’ (SEN) is rejected as a means to describe disabled children, except when describing policy or quoting verbatim. The term ‘inclusive education’ should ideally describe access to and participation for all children in schools that have worked to remove barriers to learning related to ‘characteristics assigned significance by the dominant culture in their society’ (Ballard, 1999, p. 2). These markers include disability, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or other potential sites of disadvantage such as poverty; together with the intersections of these (Culham and Nind, 2003; Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014). Typically, however, inclusive education has been used to describe the process of teaching children with and without disabilities alongside each other in ‘mainstream’ schools, as is the focus of this book. Consequently, the term ‘mainstream’ works to identify some spaces as accessible to some children and inaccessible for others (Hodge and RunswickCole, 2013). I will use the word ‘mainstream’ then with hesitancy to describe schools where disabled children learn alongside generic children and to draw a distinction between these schools and ‘special schools’ or ‘units’ that aim to support disabled children.

4

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Defining Digital Technologies There is a growing convergence between mainstream technologies such as computers, laptops, mobile devices and assistive technologies at the time of writing this book. On the one hand, mainstream digital technologies include computers, laptops, mobile devices and the Internet. These are technologies that combine hardware and software to enable children to ‘produce, manipulate, store, communicate, and/or disseminate information’ (Selwyn et al., 2010, p. 4). On the other hand, some aspects of mainstream technologies’ uses also converge with what has conventionally been called assistive technology (e.g. the Braille Notetaker, a device for taking notes with built-in braille keyboard; SuperNova magnification and screenreader software installed on computer). Technologies such as mobile devices can provide easy access to software that can support some disabled children’s learning. An example would be built-in cameras that allow visually impaired children to take a photo and enlarge it to their own specification. Second, digital technologies have their own accessibility features built in that enable disabled children to access what they need for learning in a single device (Goodwin, 2012; Haßler et al., 2016). Specialist assistive technologies are outside the scope of this book except where they overlap with uses of ‘mainstream’ digital technologies. ‘Mainstream’ in the context of digital technologies in the book refers to technologies used by children with or without disabilities. The mainstream digital technologies referred to in the book mainly include the following: 1. Hardware (e.g. desk top computers, laptop computers, laptop/tablet hybrid, interactive Whiteboards); 2. Personal mobile devices (e.g. tablet computers, mobile phones, iPod Touch); 3. Personal mobile devices for music/games/camera (without phone capability) (e.g. Apple iPod Touch, Samsung Galaxy Player); 4. Games consoles and handheld games machines (e.g. Sony PlayStation, Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo); 5. Software packages (e.g. word-processors, spreadsheets, presentations); 6. Content available via the Internet (e.g. webpages, web-based services); 7. Communication applications (e.g. email, Skype, Zoom). (Adapted from Selwyn et al., 2010, pp. 3–4)

Introduction

5

In addition to mainstream digital technologies, specialist assistive technologies will be included when they overlap with mainstream technologies and are useful for drawing a full picture of the situation. Examples include: 1. Specialist assistive hardware (e.g. Braille Notetaker, for taking notes with built-in braille keyboard); 2. Specialist assistive software (e.g. SuperNova magnification/screenreader installed on computer).

Why Focus on Disabled Children, Digital Technologies and Inclusive Education? There is much evidence to show that digital technologies greatly impact children’s lives through uses of computers, laptops and mobile devices (Bond, 2014). Many aspects of childhood are influenced including schooling, leisure and social activities, friendships and the need to develop the skills and competencies in order to stay safe online (Ferrari, 2012). Yet, as I noted earlier, the research base considering disabled children’s digital activities is limited (European Schoolnet, 2014; Passey, 2013; Söderström, 2009a). The focus of this book, therefore, is on how disabled children use digital technologies in situ, on the ‘state of the actual’ (Selwyn, 2011). This is in place of examining specific educational interventions intended to enhance disabled children’s learning or research that views digital technologies as assistive technologies rather than as broader mechanisms for learning (see Lidström and Hemmingsson, 2014, for example, in Chapter 4). While these studies are useful, the focus is important because I will be examining what is happening daily on the ground in schools to understand contemporary disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning. This is needed to address an important gap in knowledge, and it is important to ensure that all children are able to benefit from the opportunities enabled by digital technologies. This is particularly significant in inclusive education to ensure that children can access both the curriculum and learn to socialize with their peers. The limited research base in relation to disabled children’s uses of digital technologies is initially puzzling. However, less so if you consider that research about or preferably with disabled children and young people is scarce in general (McLaughlin et al., 2016). Disabled children are often excluded from generic children’s research (Connors and Stalker, 2007). They are often omitted from

6

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

research where other social markers such as gender, ethnicity or social class are included (Watson 2012). In addition, there has been very little focus given to intersectionality to take account of other areas of diversity such as ethnicity and gender (Ytterhus et al., 2015). Research that does exist in general has tended to focus on disabled children as ‘service users’, dependent on others for support and assistance, rather than seeking to understand their everyday lives (Davis, 2004). Accounts have tended to draw on parent, carer and professional views rather than talking to and listening to disabled children themselves to understand their perspectives, experiences and preferences. Some authors note that research is particularly limited that fosters inclusion and participation in multiple settings including educational environments (Ytterhus et al., 2015). Consequently, there has been something of a shift in recent years to listening to disabled youngsters’ voices (Ytterhus et al., 2015) and to challenging the lack of research which takes account of the views of disabled children (McLaughlin et al., 2016). This change has been brought about by the emergence of the social studies of childhood (James and Prout, 1997), the focus being on sociocultural understandings of disability within disability studies (Shakespeare, 2013) and the human rights agenda. UNICEF has estimated that there are 93 million disabled children in the world, with numbers possibly higher; indeed WHO estimates the figure to be between 93 and 150 million (WHO, 2011). Childhood disability is more common in lowand middle-income countries than in high-income countries, as the result of poor living conditions, socio-economic exploitation and war or natural disasters (Barnes and Mercer, 2005; Stalker et al., 2012). Moreover, disabled children are notably among the poorest members of society. In some countries they are less likely to have access to schools, medical services or indeed to have their voices heard (UNICEF, 2018). Accordingly, the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) and UNICEF (2018) have called for more research to ‘empower people living with disabilities and remove the barriers which prevent them participating in their communities; getting a quality education, finding decent work, and having their voices heard’ (p. 5). It has been argued that taking an interest in and respecting disabled children’s interests is an essential stage needed to determine what is important for disabled children in their lives and to contribute to their empowerment (Ytterhus et al., 2015). As a backdrop to this, human rights legislation has been a key driver to ensure the equal distribution of both individual and material resources globally. It is needed because society operates in ways that exclude some members of society from equal claims to the social and economic opportunities in everyday

Introduction

7

life (Ward, 2013). Legislation has explicitly included upholding the rights of disabled children and disabled adults internationally (Egilson et al., 2015). Key actions are the UN CRC (United Nations, 1989), and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) (United Nations, 2006). Both conventions have approaches that align well with the social model of disability. They imply that when the quality of disabled people and children’s lives fall short of universal human rights standards, this should not be assumed to be as the result of the disability but is instead a human rights issue (Bickenbach, 2001; Egilson et al., 2015). The UN CRC (United Nations 1989) was groundbreaking in supporting children’s rights, ratified by 193 nations (Egilson et al., 2015). It represented a marked shift in considering children to have their own human rights both as subjects and, importantly, as participants in both actions and decisions that impact them (Ytterhus et al., 2015). The following articles have particular relevance to the arguments set out here in relation to carrying out research with disabled children and inclusive education. Article 7 states that ‘“the best interests of the child” should be a primary consideration in all decisions and actions directed towards them’ (Egilson et al., 2015). Article 12 outlines that children have a right to be listened to in all decisions affecting them. Some authors see this as a reflection of the shift in how children, including disabled children, are viewed generally in terms of their rights and responsibilities in childhood (Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014). In addition, the legislation strengthens arguments for inclusion and non-discrimination against children on grounds that include disability, ethnicity, gender, language, refugee status, religion and importantly that the state needs to act to protect these rights within learning environments (UNESCO, 2005). Article 2 states that all children have the right ‘to receive education without discrimination on any grounds’ (p. 14). Moreover, Article 23 explicitly outlines that disabled children should have ‘effective access to and receive education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development’ (p. 12). Ahuja et al. argue, therefore, that three principles underpin education founded on rights approaches: access to free, compulsory education; inclusion, equality and non-discrimination; and the provision of quality education in content and process (UNESCO, 2005). To move forward on policy and practice, participants at the Salamanca World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality organized

8

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

by UNESCO developed the ‘Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education’ (1994). This is considered to be one of the most influential international documents developed in relation to disabled children. It included the statement that ‘regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all’ (1994 Salamanca Statement, Art. 2). Thereby, the statement established that inclusive education had broad societal benefits in human, economic and political terms (UNESCO, 2005) (discussed in more depth in Chapter 2). More recently, the UN CRPD (United Nations, 2006) has renewed the emphasis on children’s rights and the right to put forward their perspectives on issues impacting their lives (Egilson et al., 2015). The convention is one of the most ratified pieces of legislation and came into force in 2008. It gave particular attention to children and women adding emphasis to the need to address inequalities for disabled children across the world. Article 3 places particular attention on disabled children by stating that there should be ‘respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities’ (United Nations, 2007, p. 5). Moreover, Article 7 outlines that disabled children are entitled to ‘all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children’ (p. 7–8). Even so, as has been pointed out by a number of authors, human rights cannot be straightforwardly addressed given the different interpretations of what constitutes children’s rights and the lack of a unified perspective. In addition, children’s rights change according to the ‘fundamental values, ideas and views of each society at a particular time’ (Egilson et al., 2015, p. 24). This point is particularly germane in the case of disabled children’s uses of digital technologies given that they change over time according to children’s ages, interests, situations and technological innovation. Moreover, as James (2011) argues, children may have rights but it is not clear whether they can exercise their rights in their daily lives. Nevertheless, while there may still be some way to go, the agreed international framework does have potentially positive implications for disabled children in terms of society in general and disabled children’s rights and opportunities in particular (Stalker et al., 2012). In recent years, a call has gone out to extend children’s digital rights. Coincidentally, as has been pointed out, the UN CRC was adopted in 1989, the same year that Sir Tim Berners-Lee enabled development of the World Wide Web. Berners-Lee has reiterated earlier calls for an Internet bill of rights. These were initially made at the Internet Governance Forum during a United Nations

Introduction

9

conference in Athens in 2006 (BBC News, 2006). Berners-Lee again called attention to this during the celebrations to mark twenty-five years of the World Wide Web in 2014 (BBC News, 2014). Even so, it has been pointed out how little attention has been given to children’s rights within calls for an Internet bill of rights (Livingstone et al., 2017) with even less consideration of disabled children’s rights (Alper and Goggin, 2017; Mallett and Runswick, 2014). Livingstone and Third have called for children’s ‘participation rights’ to bring together the child, children’s rights and the digital to ensure that all children can access the online opportunities within a protective, safe, private and developmental space (Livingstone et al., 2017). They argue that little time or thought has been given to children’s well-being within governance in relation to the Internet with the exception of online sexual abuse. The Internet continues to be conceived of as mainly a resource for adults in relation to ‘provision, regulation and ideology’. Protectionist legislation has often been introduced to safeguard children that has failed to consider how regulation can ’unthinkingly curtail’ children’s online participation space (Livingstone et al., 2017). At the same time, genuine concerns for children’s uses of the Internet remain unaddressed. To take one key example, privacy, algorithms are being used to collect huge amounts of data from children bringing forth surveillance or ‘dataveillance’ into children’s lives and challenging previous generations’ assumptions about privacy and the ‘intimate space of a child’s life’ (Lupton and Williamson, 2017). This is in addition to the ‘seeming refusal of companies to provide comprehensible terms and conditions or childaccessible rights of redress’ (Livingstone and Third, 2017, p. 659). On top of this, worried parents may also erode their own children’s privacy through surveillance of their children’s online activities. Evidently, children’s rights are important whether they relate to children’s on or offline arenas. Existing legislation makes clear that action needs to be taken to protect the child’s ‘best interest’, ensure the equal distribution of human and material resources, counter discrimination and support inclusion including developing educational systems that are inclusive. A key argument within both the UN CRC (United Nations, 1989) and the UN CRPD (United Nations, 2006) is that children have a right to be heard on matters that affect them. In addition, calls for an Internet bill of rights highlight the need for legislation to take further account of life within the digital age generally. Moreover, research and policy need to take further account of how children are negotiating the Internet as a mainly configured adult space. Building on these arguments, I will argue that research is needed that brings together disabled children and digital technologies within the context of inclusive

10

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

education. The context of schooling is essential given that it is a key aspect of children’s lives. There has been a firm commitment to inclusive education since the signing of ‘The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education’ (UNESCO, 1994). The UN CRPD emphasizes children’s entitlement to attendance of mainstream schools. Moreover, technology is advocated strongly in human rights legislation to support inclusive education (United Nations, 2006). While there is a global shift to inclusive education, it is impossible to say how many disabled children are currently educated within mainstream schools (WHO, 2011). Terms such as ‘special needs education’ and inclusive education are not universal definitions. For example, ‘special educational needs’ may comprise a broader group of children than disabled children thereby including children who have experienced disadvantage through poverty or war. Countries have various models for educating disabled children in special schools, integrated schools and inclusive schools. Some countries have high numbers of disabled children who do not attend school at all (UNESCO News, 2017). UNESCO has reported that in some low-income countries, disabled children are less likely to attend schools. The results of studies from Cambodia (2014), the Maldives (2009) and Uganda (2011) show that disabled children of primary age are more likely to be excluded from school (UNESCO, 2017). In Cambodia, for example, half of disabled children do not attend school compared to one in fourteen generic children. By contrast, in a high-income country like the UK, all children are entitled to a school place. This includes disabled children who often overlap with children considered to have ‘special educational needs’, as defined in policy documentation, and entitled to be ‘educated effectively in a range of mainstream or special settings’ (p. 28).1 The Department for Education defines ‘special educational needs’ under the Equality Act 2010 as ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’ (DfE, 2011, p. 5). ‘Long-term’ is considered to be ‘a year or more’ and ‘substantial’ is defined as ‘more than minor or trivial’. Since 2014 when the Children and Families Act became law, some disabled children are assessed as eligible for an education, health and care (EHC) plan if they need more ‘special educational needs’ support than can be routinely provided by the school. Recent figures from 2019 show that 1,318,300, 14.9 per cent of school children, have ‘special educational needs’ in England, an increase https​:/​/as​​sets.​​publi​​shing​​.serv​​ice​.g​​ov​.uk​​/gove​​rnmen​​t​/upl​​oads/​​syste​​m​/upl​​oads/​​attac​​hment​​_data​​/file​​ /3988​​15​/SE​​ND​_Co​​de​_of​​​_Prac​​tice_​​Janua​​ry​_20​​15​.pd​f

1

Introduction

11

in the number for the third consecutive year. Within this number of children, 3.1 per cent have EHC plans.2 In state-funded primary schools, 14 per cent of all children are recorded as having ‘special educational needs’ (51 per cent of all children with SEN); in state-funded secondary schools, 12 per cent of all children have ‘special educational needs’ (31 per cent of all children with SEN). These figures are similar for academies. In state-funded special schools there are 120,000 children, 9 per cent of all pupils with SEN. Seven per cent of children with SEN attend independent schools. What these figures demonstrate therefore is the importance of mainstream schools for disabled children given the high numbers of children attending them. Research has shown, however, that inclusive education remains underdeveloped globally in mainstream schools where it is supposed to be evident (Cameron, 2014). Classroom pedagogies are typically designed to meet the needs of generic children and, thereby, often need adaptation and mediation by teaching assistants and other ancillary staff before disabled children can access the curriculum (Webster and Blatchford, 2018). It is essential therefore that the situation changes so that class teachers are enabled to accept primary responsibility for the learning of all the children in the class (Jordan et al., 2009). Digital technologies may be able to help. They may be able to offer disabled children opportunities to learn along with their peers in unprecedented ways in order to access the curriculum (European Schoolnet, 2014). Research shows that this is particularly the case when inclusive digital pedagogies are adopted (Cranmer, 2017). The term inclusive digital pedagogies describes teaching and learning activities whereby class teachers have designed lessons for all children from the outset using digital technologies, thereby facilitating independent access to the curriculum for disabled children. This highlights, therefore, why it is important to understand the role of digital technologies within mainstream schools and to explore how disabled children are using and experiencing them within mainstream inclusive education.

Outline of the Book and Approach In the book I aim to understand how disabled children use and experience digital technologies for learning within the context of inclusive education. I will draw on international and interdisciplinary perspectives in order to situate https​:/​/as​​sets.​​publi​​shing​​.serv​​ice​.g​​ov​.uk​​/gove​​rnmen​​t​/upl​​oads/​​syste​​m​/upl​​oads/​​attac​​hment​​_data​​/file​​ /8142​​44​/​SE​​N​_201​​9​_Tex​​t​.doc​​x​.pdf​

2

12

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

disabled children’s individual uses and experiences of digital technologies within the context of inclusive education. This approach requires a mapping of the territory, taking a multidimensional approach to consider the complexity of the relationship between disabled children, digital technologies and inclusive education. This approach will enable exploration of previous research about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies in mainstream schools. To begin this process, I will introduce various approaches that have been developed and can be used to consider disabled children’s uses of digital technologies. In particular, I will show how theory within the social studies of childhood, the social model of disability, disability studies and critical disability studies renders it essential that we carry out research with disabled children and provide opportunities to listen to their voices. Building on this, the second part of the chapter then describes key theories that have been developed to explore the social uses of technology within context. This is needed to make sense of disabled children’s relationships to digital technologies; and to enable the taking of a grounded approach to understanding the role of disabled children’s learning with digital technologies in the context of inclusive education. I then highlight how new materialist perspectives might benefit research in the future. Finally, I bring the different perspectives and approaches together to show how disability studies approaches influence the ways that disabled children’s uses of digital technologies are understood within the book. In Chapter 2, I continue to draw on existing theory to emphasize the importance of social inclusion in disabled children’s lives and, specifically, the relevance of inclusive education. The purpose of this is to examine critically the context of mainstream schools for disabled children by comparing policy with practice. I will then introduce digital inclusion as a framework through which to analyse disabled children’s individual uses and experiences alongside generic children’s digital experiences. Chapter 3 will carefully consider how disabled children’s uses of digital technologies can enhance learning within mainstream schools and explore whether digital technologies can contribute to the development of more inclusive schools. Within this chapter, I also outline children’s formal, informal and non-formal learning in schools to set the scene for exploring learning in the book. This is relevant because schools offer important opportunities for disabled children to make friends and to learn to socialize beyond the formal curriculum. Finally, in this chapter, I will set out the illustrative research project before moving to outline the results from this project in the following three chapters. I will describe how disabled children, young people and their teachers

Introduction

13

were engaged in participatory research and the classroom observations that took place to explore learning activities in contemporary contexts. Chapter 4 considers three of the elements of the digital inclusion framework: children’s access, types of engagement and attitudes to digital technologies within the context of mainstream schools (Helsper, 2012, Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Selwyn, 2006). The fourth element, digital skills and competencies, will be examined in Chapter 5. In Chapter 4, I set out international evidence alongside findings from the illustrative project with disabled young people to show what is happening on the ground. I argue that it is not only important to understand disabled children’s uses but, crucially, also to identify the gaps in research that urgently need to be addressed in order to build a comprehensive picture of disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies. In Chapter 5, I examine digital skills and competencies, the fourth element of the digital inclusion framework, and critically consider global policy. I then examine the international research evidence in relation to young people’s skills and bring this together with the results from the illustrative project. This will provide accounts of generic young people’s and disabled young people’s skills development. Again, the chapter will conclude by identifying the gaps in research that need to be addressed in relation to disabled children. In Chapter 6, I shift the focus from research with disabled children to that of their teachers and other members of the support team to understand how inclusive education challenges schools. I bring this together with research about the challenges for teachers of using digital technologies and developing more innovative digital pedagogies. These perspectives will be considered in light of findings from the illustrative project to hear the views of class teachers, qualified teachers of vision impairment and teaching assistants within mainstream schools. I will discuss how disabled children are supported in these settings both generally and in relation to using digital technologies for learning. The concluding chapter will then draw together the findings in the book, make suggestions for how schools and class teachers can move forward and, importantly, outline the contribution that researchers can make in supporting schools to do this.

14

1

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Introduction In the previous chapter, I set out the interdisciplinary approach adopted to explore the multifaceted and complex relationship that exists between disabled children and digital technologies. In this chapter, I will continue this discussion by bringing together contemporary approaches to understanding disabled children and digital technologies in order to frame the study and provide a robust foundation for the book. First, it is important to understand why there has been a shift towards challenging the lack of focus on research carried out with disabled children and listening to disabled children’s voices (McLaughlin et al., 2016). Changes have been influenced by key developments within the social studies of childhood (James and Prout, 1997) and disability studies (Shakespeare, 2013) outlined here. Second, the chapter will set out a range of approaches for understanding the social uses of technology. This is an essential part of taking a grounded approach to understanding the relationship between disabled children and digital technologies within the context of inclusive education. Third, I will provide an overview of new material perspectives to show how further research could benefit from these. Finally, I set out how critical disability studies approaches influence the ways that disabled children’s uses of digital technologies are understood within the book.

Understanding Disabled Children Childhood Studies With the emergence of the social studies of childhood in the 1990s, new perspectives arrived in relation to the conceptualization of children and

16

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

childhood. In turn, this provided a foundation for developing new perspectives in relation to disabled children and young people. These were in response to earlier views of children, much criticized within both childhood studies and disability studies (Watson, 2012). Indeed, defining children and childhood has never been straightforward. In the 1960s, Ariès (1962) pointed out that there are many variations in how children and childhood have been defined throughout history. Furthermore, there are differences in how each society defines children when distinguishing children from adults; importantly this can lead to different outcomes for children as the way in which children are conceptualized frames their lives (James, 2011). In addition to these differences, children’s roles have also changed throughout history. Traditionally, children were expected to contribute financially to the economic survival of their families and this meant that ‘strong bodies’ were needed to carry out physical labour (Jensen, 2003). Developments in the nineteenth century in psychology then added recognition of the additional importance of people’s moral, intellectual and emotional welfare. Consequently, by the second half of the twentieth century, predetermined indicators of child development had been determined with monitoring of both physical and psychological markers being widely accepted in order to track the transition to adulthood. During this time, very little attention was given to the child’s social, cultural or historical context until Vygotsky (1986) showed how these factors affected child development (Ytterhus et al., 2015). This shift in emphasis continued in the 1990s when sociologists, geographers, philosophers and anthropologists added their perspectives to the study of children, alongside views drawn from developmental psychology. This reinforced the significant role of society, history and sociocultural context within childhood (Ytterhus et al., 2015). Incumbent within these shifts in perspective was the view that children were no longer viewed as passive ‘nominal ciphers’ developing towards adulthood (Jenks, 1996, p. 10). Instead children were considered to be independent, agentic human beings already engaged in shaping their own experiences, outcomes and lives (McLaughlin et al., 2016). This changed the view of children as being ‘maturing, unfinished beings’ (‘becomings’) to being viewed as actors in their own rights and having their own needs (‘beings’) (Qvortrup, 1994). The change also underscored the importance of paying attention to children’s views and taking their experiences more seriously. As Ytterhus et al. (2015) state: ‘Listening to what children say about their everyday lives and experiences allows new ways of

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

17

theorising and acting based on their understandings in relation to various larger issues of social relations of policy and practices’ (p. 18). The emphasis and recognition of childhood as socially constructed, unlike the biological view that had preceded it, led to the development of a ‘cultural politics of childhood’ (James and James, 2004). Mayall, for example, argues that childhood is inherently relational (2002). Children can be seen as a minority group living their lives in relation to the dominant culture of adults in the same way that other minority groups are subject to a dominant culture. James and James have described childhood as the ‘structural unit’ occupied by children (2004). They state: ‘Put simply, then, the cultural politics of childhood asks about the outcomes for children, who may live very different lives and whose everyday experiences may be quite diverse, of inhabiting a unitary “childhood” that is regulated and ordered by sets of laws, policies and social practices that work to sweep aside any differences between them’ (p. 11). They argue that understanding how social institutions impact children’s lives is crucial. Extending this view, Jenkins argues that cultural politics are key to understanding children’s participation in society in different geopolitical contexts and it is in the negotiation between the child and cultural politics that their identity is produced (Jenkins, 2008). Corsaro calls this process ‘interpretive reproduction’ to describe how children are active participants in shaping their own lives within the constraints of institutionalized practices (Corsaro, 1997). Moreover, other authors point to children’s agency to argue that children can be active participants in shaping the inequalities, hierarchies and exclusionary processes in the spaces they inhabit, often enacting ‘the normalising and marginalising norms of childhood’ (McLaughlin et al., p.16). Carrying out research with children and listening to their views, therefore, may be one of the ways that children can be enabled to challenge inequalities within their own lives and disrupt the processes that exclude them. There is agreement then that conceptualizations of childhood have had important implications for disabled children’s lives particularly in relation to cultural politics and the policy and practice affecting their lives. Both childhood studies and disability studies’ approaches are concerned with children’s rights, participation and connectivity. Children are often recognized as active agents and as the subject of study rather than the object (Watson, 2012). Yet disappointingly, childhood studies have paid little attention to disabled children (Moran-Ellis, 2010). Research with disabled children is underdeveloped and perspectives about disabled children may have resulted from studies carried out with disabled adults rather than children. Therefore it is possible that new

18

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

models are needed to understand disability in childhood (Watson, 2012). These could include new materialist approaches that deliberately cut across different disciplinary borders. It makes sense, therefore, to consider the new materialist turn together in one section later in this chapter rather than within the discrete sections on childhood, disability and technology studies. With this in mind the next section will illustrate how earlier conceptions of children in childhood influenced disabled children and how more recent developments in childhood studies have impacted contemporary perspectives.

Disability Studies The biological bias through which children were viewed until the 1970s assumed that childhood should follow ‘a staged universal, regular and predictable pattern’ (Burman, 2008, p. 41). The focus was on ‘norms’ and this impacted disabled children and young people with negative consequences. Once children had failed to meet developmental goals, they were identified as ‘other’ and judged to be failing (Walkerdine, 1993). Tisdall (2012) calls this the ‘mythical gold standard of “normal” – failing to recognize, for example, that most people have impairments at some point in their lives and capacities vary widely’ (p. 183). Likewise, child development criteria produced a set of standards that worked to create the ‘problem’ of the disabled child (Davis, 1995) and situate them outside of ‘normal’ (Moore et al., 1998, p. 1620). It is not difficult, therefore, to see how standards of normal/abnormal have negatively impacted disabled children’s lives and identified disabled children as inherently problematic. Implicit within these values is the typified notion of the individualized child and an absence of the social context within which they live (Curran and Runswick-Cole, 2014). Disability viewed as ‘abnormality’ has led to research on children within the context of special education (Egilson et al., 2015) that has taken little or no account of disabled children’s childhoods more broadly (Curran and Runswick-Cole, 2014). Instead, much of the early research has framed disabled children as being a burden. Disabled children’s own perspectives are mainly absent from this research and this has produced the effect of objectifying and silencing disabled children (Watson, 2012). Disabled children have been typically depicted ‘as passive and dependent, and research has stressed the causal role of impairment and tended to individualize the problem of disability’ (p. 193). Consequently, interventions were concentrated at the level of individual support. Disabled children and young people were often viewed as incapable, vulnerable and as needing ongoing support. This has reinforced the

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

19

perspective that disabled children and young people could not be actively included in society. Moreover, disabled children’s lives were characterized in terms of social exclusion and marginalization (Ytterhus et al., 2015). As noted by Curran and Runswick-Cole (2014), ironically the focus and assumption of ‘vulnerability’ tend to remove the focus from disabled children and their families’ own concerns and experiences. Disabled children’s childhoods are thereby reduced to meeting and negotiating ‘adverse social conditions’ (p. 126) rather than warranting a challenge to exclusionary processes and inequalities that underpin the valuing of all childhoods equally (Curran and Runswick-Cole, 2014). The development of the social model of disability represented an important shift in how disabled people and children are perceived within society in general. It moved the agenda from a focus on impairments to one that sought to reduce the disadvantages faced by disabled children and adults (Watson, 2012). Attitudes to disability and research perspectives about disability were challenged when the British Disabled People’s Movement in the 1970s conceived of the social model of disability (Campbell and Oliver, 1996). It became a political tool to challenge and explain disability in social terms and to campaign against segregation and exclusion (UPIAS, 1976). Disabled academics have drawn attention to the Marxist materialist basis and fundamental workings of capitalism that underpin commonly held views of disability and impairment challenged by the British Disabled People’s Movement (Oliver, 1990; Thomas, 2004). In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in Britain, the requirement to sell labour meant that those who were not able to work could not support themselves (Thomas, 2004). From this followed enforced dependency, workhouses, institutionalized care and segregated education. Michael Oliver (1990) and Colin Barnes (1991) were instrumental in refining the social model to enable the development of a sociological approach to disability. In the social model, Oliver (1990) and others argue that disability arises because of the way that society is organized and the social relations that construct disabled people’s experiences. In this approach, emphasis is given to social and environmental barriers that prevent disabled people’s participation in society. This means that the deficit or restriction is assumed to be located in the social order, rather than in the individual, thereby turning attention away from the individual towards the social structures that exist within that society. There has been much discussion about the social model since its inception with some authors arguing that there is not one social model of disability but a range of social contextual approaches; and much debate about where ‘disability’ resides across the continuum between impairment and disability

20

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

(Shakespeare, 2013). While recognizing that the British social model is useful for political argument, Shakespeare and others argue that the social model is somewhat basic and unsophisticated, and therefore, too limited as the basis for a theoretical model (Shakespeare, 2006). Disability is complex and multifaceted while the social model is perhaps more one-dimensional and thereby offers only a ‘relatively small window’ (p. 194) through which to consider disabled children’s lives (Shakespeare and Watson, 2010). Contrary to the social model, both Shakespeare and Watson have argued that it is not just the environment that disables people, it is also ‘their bodies’. These traits can lead to limitations such as being in significant pain or having a shorter lifespan (McLaughlin et al., 2016). Moreover, the social model may fail to recognize individual experiences of impairment (Crow, 1996). Indeed Barnes and Mercer (2010) have agreed that the model was never intended as a social theory of disability but more of a ‘pragmatic attempt to identify and address issues that can be changed through collective action rather than medical or other professional treatments’ (Barnes and Mercer, 2010, p. 96). While acknowledging critiques of the social model, it is widely recognized that the social model has been of huge importance to both the development of the Disabled People’s Movement in the UK and the development of disability studies as an academic discipline. It has significantly influenced UK government policy and European Union policy, and is enshrined within the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (United Nations, 2006; Watson, 2012). It has been argued that the social model has been ‘emancipatory’ facilitating the removal of discriminatory practices and barriers and enabling individuals to have more rights and decisions over their own lives (Ward, 2013). In relation to disabled children specifically, the alignment of childhood studies and the social model of disability led to calls for research to reduce the disadvantages disabled children experience (Watson, 2012). At the same time, changes in government policy occurred such as the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1996 that challenged how disabled children had previously been viewed. Research also sought to challenge previously accepted social, cultural and environmental structures, practices and barriers (particularly by adults), which worked to exclude disabled children and position them as tragic victims within their own lives. Importantly, research built around the social model and more nuanced interpretations illustrates the impact of different contexts and situations on disabled children’s lives. Connors and Stalker (2003; 2007), for example, carried out research with children to understand how disabled children experience

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

21

disability. They drew on Thomas’s interpretation of the social model. Thomas argues that ‘the body and embodied states’ (p. 573) are important in framing disability and it is not just a matter of challenging external barriers. She incorporates disability into ‘a relational understanding of disability’ where disability is defined as 'a form of social oppression involving the social imposition of restrictions of activity on people with impairments and the socially engendered undermining of their psycho-emotional well-being’ (Thomas, 1999, p. 3). In contrast to Oliver and others, Thomas argues that impairments can restrict activity and that these limitations are not irrelevant. She terms these ‘impairment effects’ (p. 43) to describe restrictions which are ‘directly associated with or “caused by” having a physical, sensory or intellectual impairment’ (Thomas, 1999, p. 42). Thomas claims that any research needs to take full account of both ‘disability’ and ‘disablism’, a term devised to describe the experience of ‘disability’ within society, in terms of socio-structural barriers (Thomas, 1999; 2007). She argues that this twofold approach is needed to address issues of ‘disablism’ alongside impairment effects (2007). Thomas’s approach enables consideration of what she calls ‘barriers to doing and barriers to being’ (2007), the latter exploring the psychological and emotional impact of impairment. Using this framework, Connors and Stalker show how disabled children experience ‘impairment effects’ (2007). Nevertheless, they found that the larger impact on disabled children is from psycho-emotional effects. These are the ‘barriers to being’ rather than ‘doing’ and include hurtful stigmatizing reactions and experiences of being excluded. Connors and Stalker argue that these have a potentially longer-term impact on disabled children’s identities and well-being. They report that in thinking about disabled childhoods, ‘impairment effects’, ‘barriers to doing’ and ‘barriers to being’ all seem to have a place. Our findings suggest that the last of these may have particular significance during the childhood years, when young people are going through important stages of identity formation, which may lay the foundations of self-confidence and self-worth for years to come. (2007, p. 31)

Given the limited evidence base for research with disabled children, Connor and Stalker’s findings are useful in relation to how disabled children experience childhood. It is also an important study for showing how a more nuanced account of the social model of disability can explore the interplay between both structural and individual issues and the impact of these on disabled children’s lives.

22

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Critical Disability Studies Over the past decade, the emergence of critical disability studies has opened up new debates about the social model and disability. The notion of difference and how it is constructed has been challenged by drawing on postmodern studies, critical race studies and queer theory (Goodley, 2013). This has sought to unpack disability in terms of knowledge and power and to dismantle the binary categories of ‘disabled’ and ‘non-disabled’ and consider how dividing people into these two categories has prevented connections being made between them (Watson, 2012). In addition, these perspectives have challenged why bodies are categorized as different from the norm and society unwilling to welcome difference (Goodley, 2013). Some of this work aligns with Campbell’s (2001; 2008) conceptualization of ‘ableism’: a network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species typical and therefore essential and fully human. Disability then, is cast as a diminished state of being human. (p. 44)

Campbell argues that bodies assessed as anything other than the ‘ideal type’ are assumed to be deficit or diminished in some way so that impairment is automatically viewed negatively. She suggests that we envisage a ‘post-able’ world in which difference is welcomed rather than automatically being viewed inherently as a bad thing (Runswick-Cole and Goodley, 2011). Building on this, Goodley’s perspective is that impairment is constructed by classifications of diagnosis, not due to any inherent property of the body (Goodley, 2013). Classification of impairment is productive of disability itself and takes attention away from the real issue, that of an unwelcoming society. In addition, the problem is growing (Goodley, 2011) with a conception of the ‘normal’ child narrowing and a growth in the number of labels being assigned to increasing numbers of children, in relation to, for example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Timini et al., 2011). Therefore, impairment is a construction within society and a product of discourse, rather than a product of material reality (McLaughlin et al., 2016). The challenge is to switch from the current context to the new ideals. Watson (2012) argues that if categories of impairment and disablement are condensed to discourse, it is difficult to see how then to challenge discrimination and exclusion. Nevertheless, what authors such as Goodley (2009), Goodley and Runswick-Cole (2011), Curran and Runswick-Cole (2013) and Mallett and Runswick-Cole (2014)

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

23

have achieved is to emphasize the urgent need for a change in attitudes from how disabled children are viewed within society generally alongside new approaches to how disabled children are included within research. Goodley argues that in this way ‘we open up the disabled body to consider the careful ways in which parents and their children find possibilities for lives that are clearly worth living’ (2009, p. 269). Curran and Runswick-Cole (2014) argue that these developments justify the development of a distinct disabled children’s childhood studies. They base this on three principles: (a) that the starting point for discussion shifts away from the typical conflation of disabled children with ‘impairment, inequality and abuse’ (p. 1618), (b) that the voices of disabled children are placed firmly at the centre of enquiry with ethical approaches and research designs that can reflect authenticity, and (c) that an appropriate agenda for change is established within this context to challenge the ‘hegemony of the “norm”’ (Davis, 1995). Within disabled children’s childhood studies, the claim to the notion of an idealized ‘normal’ child is rejected and instead there is acknowledgement of disabled children’s ‘“ordinary” and “productive childhoods” and their experiences of inequality, and attempts to widen understandings of children’s identities in a global context’ (p. 1619). They note the limitations of the social model of disability as set out by Tremain (2006) who argues that while it has been widely and usefully adopted, social action has been mainly limited to that of a focus on ‘welfare entitlement’ despite more emancipatory intentions. Moreover, the call to action is global with a stated need to promote ongoing action against poverty. Curran and Runswick-Cole set out the agenda for change to stretch beyond debates in high-income countries. They draw on Grech (2013), who points out that there is little engagement with the ideas of disability studies in low-income countries; nevertheless, disabled children are experiencing poverty in ‘disproportionate and multidimensional ways in the global South’ (Grech, 2013, p. 89). She argues that a unified model of disability is problematic in different spatial, social, cultural and economic contexts particularly when premised on Western individualism. There are calls then for an open dialogue between high-income and low-income countries to enable the emergence of a sustainable global disabled children’s childhood studies approach (Chataika and McKenzie, 2013). These ideas have prompted important new debates within disability studies and many tensions remain as yet unresolved. In recent years, the new materialist turn has prompted further discussion about how these approaches could take these debates forward, considered later in the chapter. Before that, the next part of the chapter will introduce key theories for understanding how

24

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

disabled children relate to digital technologies to frame this important aspect of the book.

Understanding Digital Technologies How we consider the relationship between disabled children, digital technologies and their environment is important. It has become typical to see inflated claims being made about the positive and transformative effects of digital technologies such as computers, laptops and mobile devices on children’s lives. These often assume that the technology leads the child and it is important, therefore, to take a more grounded approach to disabled children’s digital activities within the context of inclusive education that takes a balanced account of the role of the child, technology and environment. The context is important because digital technologies’ uses are part of wider systems and networks (Selwyn, 2012); and are produced by multifaceted and interconnected factors at both micro and macro levels. As Berker et al. point out, ‘between everyday practices and the encompassing cultural and societal structures [. . .] Not los[ing] track of the bigger picture while allowing deep explorations into micro-practices of everyday life’ (Berker et al., 2006). In recent years, new materialist approaches have sought to make these interconnected networks explicit as discussed here. Previous approaches to understanding technology can be categorized into three broad categories: those that privilege the role of technology; those that privilege the role of society; and those that refuse to privilege either (Matthewman, 2011, p. 15). The following are often considered to be the main theories: technological determinism; the social shaping of technology; essentialism and anti-essentialism; the social construction of technology (SCOT); domestication; affordances; feminist approaches and actor network theory (ANT). ANT is an example of a materialist methodology and will be included in the section given it has often been associated with research about technology. Its relationship to new materialist perspectives will then be set out in the following section. Next, a brief overview of key theories will be set out that have emerged in relation to social uses of technology in order to frame the topic.

Technological Determinism In common with earlier studies into media audiences, initial research into uses of technology was dominated by accounts that emphasized ‘effects’ or

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

25

‘impact’ models (McQuail, 1997). These technologically determinist accounts offered narratives through which ‘new technology’ was presumed to impact either positively or negatively on society, replacing what had gone before and producing unsurprising effects assumed to be more or less the same everywhere (Bingham et al., 2001). Determinist accounts have persisted to an extent in academic research. As Selwyn writes, these explanations assume the ‘march of technological progress’ (2016) with inherent benefits and opportunities, ‘thereby vastly oversimplifying the complex nonlinear social, political, economic, cultural and historical processes of technology development and use’ (p. 85). On their way, these accounts tend to obscure the role played by individuals through social agency. Moreover, this works to mask important social differences such as gender, race, class, identity, power and, importantly, for this book, disability. In this scenario, then, any impediments to progress become seen as ‘barriers’ to be removed in order that both the individual and the society can benefit from the new opportunities on offer (Davies and Eynon, 2013). In this relationship, therefore, pressure is exerted on teachers and parents to ‘keep up’ with technology and ‘harness its power’ for young people to learn, become effective citizens and productive members of the workforce.

Social Shaping of Technology It has been argued that determinist accounts of technology are reductive and fail to adequately account for the human dimension of technology (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1999; Williams and Edge, 1996). In response, a range of approaches has emerged under the banner of the social shaping of technology. These approaches tend to consider the organizational, political, economic and cultural factors that underpin both the design and the implementation of use (Selwyn, 2012). Moreover, they also reflect an interest in the influence of diverse social groups on technology use in situ (Bond, 2014; Selwyn, 2012).

Essentialism and Anti-essentialism In the 1990s, Grint and Woolgar (1997) grouped together technologically and socially deterministic perspectives under the terms ‘essentialist’ or ‘antiessentialist’. Essentialist approaches are described as stemming from the ‘technical attributes’ derived from the inner features of the technology (Grint and Woolgar, 1995) thereby neglecting the social aspects of use. By contrast, anti-essentialist approaches take the view that technology has no inherent qualities, and is therefore undetermined and open to interpretation (Selwyn,

26

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

2012). Grint and Woolgar (1997) proposed the idea of technology as an open text that can be configured by particular social groups during development, production and marketing. Therefore, anti-essentialism is a rational response to what Grint and Woolgar view as the ‘residual technicism’ of other theoretical accounts about technology. Nevertheless, anti-essentialist approaches have their shortcomings. A fruit machine cannot be used as a telephone, thereby questioning the notion of technology as an open text (Hutchby, 2001). Even so, anti-essentialist and essentialist approaches can be useful in drawing attention to approaches that acknowledge that technologies can be both shaped and shaping and facilitating and constraining. Moreover, as Lievrouw (2002) points out, in emphasizing society’s influence on technology compared with earlier technologically determinist views, advocates of such approaches have sought to transcend ‘one way’ or linear accounts of technology and society and thereby challenge the idea that progress is unchallengeable or irreversible.

SCOT In SCOT approaches, emphasis is placed on the idea that technology is socially shaped rather than the clear product of the designer. Lievrouw (2002) illustrates how Bijker et al. (1992; 1987) draw on the idea of ‘interpretative flexibility’ to review choices available to designers, developers and users in the process of technological development. Studies taking the SCOT approach often illustrate the notion of ‘obduracy’ and the notion that some devices and systems are harder to adapt than others based on their materiality (Selwyn, 2012). This means that users can interpret the same artefact in a variety of ways (Bond, 2014). Therefore how flexible or otherwise an artefact is will be meaningful in terms of how uses are implemented by different groups of users. Interestingly, SCOT researchers have tended to be more concerned with the processes through which technologies are produced than by shaping and implementation in situ (Winner, 1993).

Domestication A further approach is that of domestication, useful when considering how users embed technologies in their everyday lives (Silverstone et al., 1992; Silverstone, 1993). Silverstone et al. (1992) developed a framework through which to explore the household as ‘moral economy’. In this model, the economic activities of household members are patterned by the values and perceptions of the home and beyond in light of the ‘histories, biographies and politics of the household and

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

27

its members’ (p. 18). In this way, ‘artefacts and meanings, texts and technologies’ cross the unstable boundary of the public and private spheres where they ‘mark the site of the crucial work of social reproduction . . . via the mesh of class position, ethnicity, geography and the rest’ (p. 19). In this way, they show up the importance of digital technologies and how they are interwoven into everyday life, both shaping and being shaped by the environment.

Affordances Another prominent approach to understanding technology uses are theories of ‘affordances’. Some iterations are overly complex (Roulstone, 2016). Even so, Bond explains straightforwardly that different technologies have different features and perform different purposes and roles in everyday life. Building on Gibson’s 1979 formulation of affordances theory, Hutchby argues that ‘different technologies possess different affordances and these constrain the ways they can be read. The physical capabilities of aeroplane and bridge are different and, because of this, they afford different though overlapping ranges of meanings’ (Hutchby, 2001, p. 26). Therefore, in affordances theory, technologies hold ‘perceived possibilities for action, referring to what people perceive and signify during their actual interaction with a technological artefact’ (Vyas et al., 2006, p. 89). This is useful because, as Selwyn (2012) points out, using theories of affordances in this way enables the consideration of the facilitative and constraining aspects of particular technologies without adopting essentialist characteristics.

Feminist Approaches The feminist approach seeks to uncover and reflect on the gender patterns that permeate technological artefacts and devices in everyday life. Ravneberg and Söderström (2017) argue that artefacts are often seen as genderless and neutral, or are unquestioningly accepted as either masculine or feminine artefacts. Feminist approaches set out to make explicit and question hidden cultural norms related to gender in technological development thereby identifying opportunities for future innovations. As Wajcman points out, gender ‘profoundly affect[s] the design, development, diffusion and use of technologies’ (Wajcman, 2004, p. VI). Even so, technologies are also shaped by users in relation to gender (van Zoonen, 2002). Feminist theorists tend to focus on the apparent marginalization of women from technological development and use, particularly to challenge inequalities of opportunity for women in industry based on gender (Selwyn, 2012).

28

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

ANT ANT is the final approach discussed here. It is a form of materialism that sets out a non-dualistic model of the relationship between technology and society (Prout, 1996). Initiated by Bruno Latour in 1987, ANT development is based on the idea that technology cannot be understood as either human or technical because the resulting dynamics and relationships are the outcome of both being woven together (Latour, 1987). Rejecting debates of structure and agency, ANT does not separate out society and agency but instead views them as aspects of the same phenomena (Bond, 2014). Advocates of this perspective (Latour, 1993; Law and Hassard, 1999) argue that the world cannot be straightforwardly divided up into the material and the social (Bingham, 1996). ANT analyses the elements that are bound together in a network – both artefacts and people – and how the network itself is constituted and shaped by their mutual engagement (Lee and Brown, 1994). Underpinning the approach is the belief that ‘society is produced in and through patterned networks of heterogeneous materials in which the properties of humans and non-humans are not self-evident but rather emerge in practice. In other words, “the social and the technical always co-develop” (Holloway and Valentine, 2003, p. 13). For this purpose, Latour (2005) advocates following the ‘actors’ to reveal their activities and thereby show how the social structure is created. Artefacts are also assumed to have agency. Therefore, ANT has been influential in trying to overcome the linear causality issue given that this approach rejects both technologically and social constructivist arguments (Lievrouw, 2002). Even so, some authors argue that outputs from using ANT approaches have been both overly descriptive and stubborn in ascribing equality to all actors (Selwyn, 2012). Different approaches to understanding the social uses of technology are set out in the chapter to broadly frame the perspective taken in the book. The next section will discuss contemporary approaches to new materialism and posthumanism given their relevance to this topic in recent debates. Then I will show how the perspectives of critical disability studies have influenced this investigation of disabled children’s uses of digital technologies in schools.

New Materialism and Posthumanism Given that new materialist perspectives deliberately extend across disciplinary borders it makes sense then to discuss these in more depth within one section. New materialism has been widely debated with relevance to each of the

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

29

areas of this book – childhood, disability and technology studies – with clear commonalities in interpretation. Within childhood studies, for instance, new materialist perspectives are said to shift the focus from agency, seen to be socially produced, to reconsideration of children’s role within the countless networks and dependencies that define their everyday lives (Spyro, 2019). Similarly, within critical disability studies, the aim of such approaches is to shift from the social construction of disability to the social production of disability within human and non-human assemblages (Fox and Alldred, 2015; Goodley et al., 2019). Within technology studies, approaches are intended to make explicit and take account of the systems and networks that digital technologies form part of. Approaches are aimed at recognizing the material while avoiding a return to essentialism by avoiding ‘normal’/‘impaired’ distinctions; they bring with them a wide range of new methodologies (Feely, 2016). Within disability studies, new materialist approaches have resonance as they are seen to address frequent criticisms that render disability as a discourse that neglects the everyday material realities of disabled people’s lives (Barnes, 2012; Shakespeare, 2013). Shakespeare notably comments that ‘critical disability studies writers generally seem much more interested in texts and discourses than in the ordinary lives of disabled people’ (2014, p. 52 in Feely, 2016). Moreover, focussing on ‘culture, language and discourse’ has done a disservice to disabled people by taking attention from the material realities that reinforce disablement (Feely, 2016). Advocates of critical disability studies reject these criticisms and argue that new materialist approaches have been welcomed by academics and have increased the attention that has been given to the ‘body, mind and impairment’ (Goodley et al., 2019). Even so, Feely argues that a rounded approach is needed that considers disabled people’s, and presumably children’s, material environments and their embodied experiences. Embodiment is important here, because, as Flynn argues, often materialist philosophers do not recognize that matter does not just exist outside of the human. Instead it is ‘materialised – made active, lived, felt, thought and enacted – takes place through complex associations between material/discursive, embodied/cultural, human/in-human, fleshy/ technological and individual/societal entities’ (Flynn, 2017). This echoes Fox and Alldred’s (2015) view, drawing on Deleuze and Guattari (1987), that bodies are not only implicated in relationships and assemblages but also influenced by these relationships, summarized here by Goodley et al. (2019, p. 984) as follows: ●●

Bodies are always relational as are other material, social and abstract entities with no distinct ontological status other than produced through their relationships or assemblages.

30 ●●

●●

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies We replace the idea of human agency with the Spinozist notion of affect: meaning simply the capacity to affect or be affected. So affects are always becoming and this refers to a change in the capacities of state of an entity. We attend to the production of assemblages, which are constantly becoming as they territorialise (stabilising an assemblage) or de-territorialise (destabilising an assemblage). (Fox and Alldred, 2015, p. 401).

As noted earlier, useful examples of new materialist approaches are ANT and assemblage theory (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987; Latour, 2005). ANT has already been described in more depth in the section on technology studies given the longer tradition of using ANT in technology research. Feely argues that assemblage theory (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987) is particularly useful for research as it enables ‘oppressive identity categories’ to be challenged while engaging with both the realities of the material and their embodiment (Feely, 2016), thereby breaking down the discourse/matter divide. There are clearly some potential benefits to these approaches and a growing number of examples are steadily emerging. It is also important to consider debates that have a posthumanist orientation given its relevance to new materialism and childhood, disability and technology studies. In the discussion earlier, I sought to make clear that new materialist methodologies are concerned with networks or assemblages that include material embodiment. So, for example, to draw on Fox and Alldred (2015, p. 401), affect is important in ‘the capacity to affect or be affected’, an entity albeit human or non-human. By contrast, posthuman perspectives emphasize the material beyond the human. Posthumanism follows on from classical humanism, the conceptualization of a supposed idealized human, ‘implicitly assumed to be masculine, white urbanized, speaking a standard language, heterosexually inscribed in a reproductive unit and a full citizen of a recognised polity’ (Goodley et al., 2014, p. 343). Haraway’s (1991) writing became key for understanding the porous boundaries between machine-human-animal (Bolter, 2016). As Bolter argues: She [Haraway] offered the cyborg as a contemporary cultural metaphor in order to capture the ambivalent condition of the contemporary human beings, whose bodies are open to forms of technological modification and intervention. Haraway’s cyborg is a rejection and a reconfiguration of the values of the traditional humanist subject. (Bolter, 2016, p. 2)

Posthumanism, therefore, offers a model for considering human relationships with non-human entities and our ‘co-constitutive entanglement’ with digital

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

31

technologies interwoven with the many dimensions of our everyday lives (Adams and Thompson, 2016). Attention to these ideas has been renewed with much debate around Braidotti’s work (2013). Importantly, for disability studies, Braidotti argues that the able-bodied, individual and independent idealized human is a fiction. Instead, humans are interconnected, ‘caught up in the ever growing whirlpool of capital, technology, communication that shift us through real and virtual places and spaces’ (Goodley et al., 2014, p. 344). Moreover, this assumed perfect conceptualization of the human has excluded disabled people and as Braidotti emphasizes, the posthumanist turn can move our thinking beyond ‘lethal binaries’. This enables the opening up of the self to become ‘an extended, distributed, interconnected and relational entity’ as described by Goodley et al. (2014, p. 346); ‘technological mediated to an unprecedented order’ (p. 57). As Goodley et al. suggest, critical disability studies are ‘perfectly at ease with the posthuman because disability has always contravened the traditional classical humanist conception of what it means to be human’ (p. 342). Again, ANT is cited as an example of a methodology which shares many features of posthumanist perspectives and enables the unpicking of relations between interdependent and interconnected human and non-human actors. Adams and Thompson argue that a strength of ANT is that it is open to ‘unique conceptual entry points [that] it creates for more critical questioning of practices’ (Adams and Thompson, 2016, p. 8). There are clearly strong arguments for using new materialist approaches given that such approaches enable the wider systems and networks to be uncovered when disabled children use digital technologies. Even so, a decision was made in this book to remain child-centred, influenced by critical disability studies approaches and particularly the principles of disabled children’s childhood studies (Curran and Runswick-Cole, 2014). The next section will therefore explore how disabilities studies’ perspectives influence how we understand disabled children’s uses of digital technologies within the context of inclusive education as adopted in this book.

Combining Approaches In this book I have drawn on a range of social contextual approaches to disability that aim to challenge the inequalities and disadvantages experienced by many disabled children. New materialist approaches clearly have something to offer for future research in relation to disabled children’s uses of digital technologies. However, that is not to say that this book excludes materiality in its focus. Indeed

32

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

it evidently situates disabled children’s uses of digital technologies within wider networks and systems. While the focus is child-centred, it does not neglect the interconnected and multifaceted aspects of use that unite micro and macro processes while retaining children’s views at its core. I am unapologetic about this given the dearth of previous research that places disabled children at the centre of research. Nevertheless, I recognize that new materialist approaches aim to take account of children’s views while according value to other material factors. Among child-centred approaches, a key influence is work carried out by Curran and Runswick-Cole (2014) that sets out three principles for a distinct disabled children’s childhood studies: that discussion does not readily conflate disabled children with impairment and vulnerability, that disabled children’s voices are authentic and placed at the centre of research designs and that an agenda for change is paramount given the need to challenge the authority of the ‘norm’ (Curran and Runswick-Cole, 2014). These principles have influenced how disabled children’s uses of digital technologies in inclusive education are understood within the book. For example, (a) digital activities should enable all children in the class to learn; (b) disabled children should have the same opportunities as their generic peers; (c) digital activities should be inclusive, not exacerbating differences between children or creating stigma; (d) class teachers should be supported to develop inclusive pedagogical activities using digital technologies; (e) research should be encouraged that explores how disabled children’s uses of digital technologies can enhance their learning and their lives more generally. Nevertheless, I do recognize the immense challenge that this presents, to bridge from contemporary models of how disabled children in mainstream schools are supported to learn. Yet, this shift is greatly needed if disabled children are to benefit fully from uses of digital technologies within inclusive educational settings. Keeping these approaches in mind, the next section will conclude the chapter.

Conclusions In this chapter, I have outlined developments within the social studies of childhood and disability studies, including the important conceptualization of the social model of disability. This is to show how the different approaches have challenged traditional perspectives about how disabled children and their childhoods are viewed. Importantly, drawing on these approaches, I argue that

Understanding Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

33

disabled children have agency, and it is essential, therefore, that they are given opportunities to be listened to on issues affecting their lives. Moreover, this approach may have the capacity to disrupt the exclusionary processes that have been manifest in disabled children’s lives. It calls forth the need for research to be carried out with disabled children to show and challenge the negative impacts of exclusion and stigma on disabled children’s identities and well-being. In addition, perspectives drawn from critical disability studies go further and indeed call for an end to diagnostic models that proponents argue are underpinned by society’s unwelcoming attitude to disabled children and adults. In the chapter, I then set out key theories for understanding the complex relationship between disabled children and digital technologies within the context of inclusive education in order to frame the topic by taking a grounded, balanced approach. I then provided an overview of new materialism and show how further research might benefit from these perspectives to explore across the different disciplinary borders of childhood, disability and technology studies. Finally, I show how critical disability studies approaches influence how disabled children’s uses of digital technologies are understood here. In the next chapter, I examine the importance of social inclusion and the role of inclusive education within disabled children’s lives before introducing digital inclusion as a framework to consider disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning within this context.

34

2

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

Introduction In the preceding chapter, I outlined key approaches to understanding childhood and disability studies alongside digital technologies in order to explain the importance of carrying out research with disabled children and listening to disabled children’s voices. In this chapter, I will introduce the importance of social inclusion generally in disabled children’s lives before moving to a discussion of inclusive education to frame what follows in the book. I will then introduce digital inclusion as a lens through which to analyse disabled children’s individual uses and experiences alongside exploring research about generic children’s uses of digital technologies for learning to provide context.

Social Inclusion While inclusion has become an important aspect of children’s rights legislation and policy, it is not an easy concept to define. It is often used to consider how the environment is able to support individual opportunity as in the Beattie Report (1999). This provides a useful and enduring definition that demonstrates how inclusion is intended to ensure ‘That the needs, abilities and aspirations of young people should be recognized, understood and met within a supportive environment which encourages them to achieve their goals and to make real, measurable progress’ (p. 10). This definition clearly sets out the relationship between the individual’s own agency and their attributes in the context of a ‘supportive environment’. It thereby aligns well with the social model in seeking to identify and address barriers to disabled people’s full involvement in society as equal citizens (Cameron, 2014). It places the onus for change on everyone within

36

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

society, to challenge the oppression created and sustained by discriminatory cultural values that underpin different forms of oppression such as ableism, ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism and social class. Inclusion is, therefore, not a static concept but a dynamic concept that highlights processes in society that disadvantage certain individuals, groups and communities (Tisdall, 2003). Social inclusion forms an important backdrop to disabled children’s everyday lives within multiple settings (Barton, 2004). Hirst and Baldwin carried out a study of the different parts of disabled young people’s lives and found disadvantages in education, employment, income, self-esteem and autonomy, living arrangements, friendships and leisure activities and contacts with health and social services (Hirst and Baldwin, 1994). A concern for disabled children’s experiences of one of these aspects, inclusive education is the focus of this book, explored further in the next section.

Inclusive Education While inclusion has been the focus of major policy for many governments, founded on human rights and enshrined in international laws globally (Pijl et al., 1997), inclusive education is a key aspect of this. This was more recently reaffirmed in Goal 4 of the United Nations ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ in order to ‘Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (United Nations, 2015). Yet, despite numerous national and international policy initiatives that have led to high global prominence, there remains a lack of consensus about what ‘inclusive education’ is. The multiple ways in which it can be interpreted has led to a negative impact on implementation in the past and may limit what is achievable in the future (Haug, 2017). ‘Inclusion’ as a term is used inconsistently and represents very different concepts used in diverse ways by different interest groups (Riddell, 2007). Back in the 1990s, Ballard (1999) argued that inclusive education should work towards providing access and participation for all children. This means that all those experiencing disadvantage in schools through ‘poverty, sexuality, minority ethnic status, or other characteristics assigned significance by the dominant culture in their society’ (p. 2) should be supported through the removal of barriers to learning. This is a broader conception than those who place more deliberate focus on ‘impairment’ such as Barton does in the following definition: ‘Valuing all children irrespective of the type or degree of impairment . . . restructuring the institution to remove barriers so teaching and

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

37

learning take place so all children can be valued for who they are, participate, interact and develop their potential’ (Rieser, 2001, p. 175). In Australia, Europe, North America and the UK, inclusive education has often been rendered into what is called ‘special educational needs’ in educational settings and refers to the process of teaching children with disabilities in classes with generic children with specialist support (Culham and Nind, 2003; Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014). In addition, some schools have added special units that sit beside mainstream schools in an alternative formulation or interpretation of inclusion. Slee argues that the conflation of terms such as ‘inclusive education’, ‘inclusive schooling’ and ‘special educational needs’ has effectively silenced ‘the original manifesto of justice for children and young people with disabilities’ (2018, p. 11). Acknowledging these arguments and drawing attention to some of the limitations in how inclusive education is continually implemented, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities stated the following in 2016:1 The Committee highlights the importance of recognising the differences between exclusion, segregation, integration and inclusion. Exclusion occurs when students are directly or indirectly prevented from or denied access to education in any form. [. . .] Integration is a process of placing persons with disabilities in existing mainstream educational institutions, as long as the former can adjust to the standardized requirements of such institutions. Inclusion involves a process of systematic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organization, curriculum and teaching and learning strategies, does not constitute inclusion. (UN, 2016 in Slee, 2018, pp. 23–4)

Armstrong and Barton (1999) have critiqued inclusive education in a number of other ways. They argue that it occupies the highly contested political territory of competing global agendas and policy frameworks in different settings with many inherent contradictions. For example, they credit the move to inclusion as the outcome of the influence of the social justice concerns and radical politics of the disabled people’s movements to end the segregation of disabled people see www​.u​​n​.org​​/deve​​lopme​​nt​/de​​sa​/di​​sabil​​ities​​/conv​​entio​​n-​ on-​​the​-r​​ights​​-of​-p​​erson​​s-​ wit​​h-​ dis​​abili​​ ties.​​html

1

38

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

and children from society. However, in postcolonial contexts, racial and cultural diversity may be emphasized more in policy to support social integration and cohesion than on the integration of disabled children and adults. Inclusive education rhetoric thereby masks serious issues that need to be addressed, while inclusion policy remains largely ineffective. In some settings, rather than strengthening equality, inclusive education has been diluted into the reductionist aims of ‘school improvement’ (Armstrong, 2005). Moreover, the agenda is sometimes motivated by economic rather than social or educational benefits given that it may be cheaper to educate children in mainstream schools rather than special schools (Armstrong et al., 2010). Others argue that inclusive education is and should not be about just what happens in schools. Barton, for instance, argues that inclusion must be embedded across multiple sites not only within schools (Barton, 2004). He notes that anyone committed to inclusive education is always inherently involved in the struggle to challenge discrimination and exclusion (Barton, 2001). Others point out that inclusive education can be too limiting and that what is important is the building of inclusive communities together outside of school as a means of ‘increasing participation of learners in the culture, curricula and communities of their neighbourhood centres of learning’ (Booth, 2002, p. 138). Moreover, communities should be representative of their ‘rich diversity’ (Moore and Slee, 2012). With these arguments in mind, the next sections will explore how the global drive towards inclusive education has been enacted globally and specifically within the UK as context for the illustrative project carried out with children with visual impairment.

The Global Drive towards Inclusive Education A key driver for inclusive education since the 1990s has been the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994) which places particular emphasis on ‘special needs education’ and states that this is needed to form part of a comprehensive educational strategy alongside new economic and social policies in many countries. The statement adopted specific principles, policy and practice designed to address the need for education for all and is recognized in policy in many different parts of the world. Specifically, the statement sets out that ‘ordinary’ schools need to be reformed to include ‘everybody, celebrate differences, support learning, and respond to individual needs. As such, they [schools] constitute an important contribution to the agenda for achieving Education for All and for making schools educationally more effective’ (p. iii).

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

39

The statement asserts the following inclusive model of education: ‘Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given the opportunity to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning; every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs; education systems should be designed and educational programmes implemented to take into account the wide diversity of these characteristics and needs; those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which should accommodate them within a child centred pedagogy capable of meeting these needs; regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire education system'. (pp. viii–ix).

Since Salamanca, international agencies such as the United Nations, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank and the UK’s Department for International Development have been influential advocates of inclusion (Armstrong and Barton, 1999). In high-income countries such as within Europe, Australasia and North America, there has been considerable policy interest in inclusive education to improve society as a whole. In, low and middle-income countries, promotion of inclusive educational policies have been a key driver to promote social justice through an emphasis on the social and educational benefits of access to education and learning.

Policy on Inclusive Education in the UK An issue when looking at UK policy is that the four nations – England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – operate their own legal and organizational systems. While educational provision for children operates under similar legislative systems across the four nations, there can be substantial differences between England and Wales, the closest in operation, compared with that of the Northern Irish and Scottish systems (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009).

40

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Nevertheless, most authors agree that the foundation for UK policy on inclusive education today was laid by the Warnock report (Hodkinson and Vickerman, 2009; Warnock, 1978). This report shifted the emphasis from more individualized impairment towards what has been termed ‘educational needs’ which recognized that barriers prevented children from full participation in education and, in turn, foreshadowed the legislation underpinning the notion of the inclusive school (Ward, 2013). Since 1978, policy in the UK has stipulated that disabled children should be educated ‘wherever possible’ within mainstream settings (DfES, 2004; Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014). The SEN Code of Practice reaffirmed this (DfES, 2001) by stating that children with SEN should have their requirements met in mainstream schools and full access to the national curriculum. This view of inclusion was continued by the New Labour government’s setting up of the Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF) in 2006. Labour government policies (1997–2010) continued the commitment to inclusive education by placing children and young people together in mainstream schools. Moreover, Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) imposed compulsory training on all inspectors in 2004. Moving forward, the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition (2010–15) introduced the Special Educational Needs and Disability Green Paper: Support and Aspiration: A Consultation (DFE, 2011). This challenged what was seen as a bias towards inclusive education by stating that ‘no one type of school placement (such as full inclusion in mainstream provision, special schools, or specialist units in a mainstream setting) is the most effective at meeting children’s SEN’ (Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014, p. 20). Mallett and Runswick-Cole state that this move was appreciated by those who thought the inclusion project had failed, but it also frustrated parents and carers of disabled children who were committed to inclusion. The green paper emphasizes cross-agency partnership between services, families, children, young people and parents and carers and includes a personal budget for parents to select and organize their own services from a range of voluntary local sector organizations (Ward, 2013). Nevertheless, there were concerns that not only would this lead to less inclusion of disabled children in mainstream schools but also decrease the influence of local authorities, enable cuts to specialist support teams and the use of independent providers. Following the consultation, the Children and Families Bill passed through Parliament and became legislation (DfE and DoH, 2014). Children are now considered to have a special educational needs and disability (SEND) if they have ‘significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of others the same age’ or ‘a

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

41

disability which prevents or hinders him or her from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided for others of the same age’ (DfE and DoH, 2014). They may be eligible for SEN or disability support which is either met by mainstream schools within existing provision or by an Education, Health and Care plan up to the age of twenty-five for more support is needed.2

Problematizing Inclusion in the UK While parents and carers of disabled children have been keen to advocate that disabled children should continue to be educated in mainstream schools, the implementation of inclusive education has been consistently criticized by academics and policymakers. Indeed, Barton argued in the 1980s that ‘special educational needs’ had become a euphemism for the incompetence and reluctance of schools to educate all children (1988). He drew attention to the lack of analysis of policy frameworks, structures of power and the consequences of neglecting the social model of disability in schooling. Fulcher went on to say that SEN provision actually serves to mask the ‘failure in the education apparatus by those whose concern it should be to provide an inclusive curriculum, and to provide teachers with a sense of competence in such a curriculum’ (1989, p. 276). Barton returned to these arguments in 1997, when he said that what is happening is that ‘special teachers’ are meeting the needs of ‘special children’ when it should be about ‘how, where and why, and with what consequences, we educate all children’ (Barton, 1997, p. 234). These criticisms continued into the next decade with Rieser stating that disabled children should not simply be placed into mainstream schools and expected to change and adapt to them (Rieser, 2001). In 2005, Warnock herself said that inclusion had been a ‘disastrous legacy’ (2005). Instead, there was a strong need for schools to change in order to ‘identify and address the barriers within its environment, teaching and learning strategies, attitudes, organization and management that prevent the full participation of disabled children’ (Rieser, 2010 in Cameron, 2014, p. 25). The organization of inclusion in schools can thereby potentially increase the marginalization of disabled children and reinforce the social construction of disability through highlighting difference (Grenier, 2010). In addition, ‘SEN’ approaches in schools intrinsically reinforce models of disability that align with diagnosis and labelling (Benson, 2014). There needs to be a much clearer differentiation between see https​:/​/ww​​w​.gov​​.uk​/c​​hildr​​en​-wi​​th​-sp​​ecial​​-educ​​ation​​al​-ne​​eds​​/e​​xtra-​​SEN​-h​​elp

2

42

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

inclusion and integration (Cameron, 2014). Cameron draws on earlier work by Drake (1999) to argue that integration practices are propped up by traditional deficit models of disability that require disabled people to become ‘assimilated’ within existing social norms and fit into social environments developed by and for a non-disabled population. Moreover, the specialist support that is provided can lead to children’s inadvertent exclusion from friendship groups in schools and make it harder for them to make friends (Shakespeare, 2014). It can then be difficult for teaching assistants to support disabled children without singling them out and marking them as different from peers thereby creating stigma. The current organization within schools continues to put the onus for inclusion onto individual children and impairment rather than emphasizing inflexible curricula and encouraging evaluation and development of analysis of teachers’ practices. The challenge then is to consider how schools can change to become more inclusive. Yet, current policy on inclusion is undermined by competitive individualism within wider society and an ethos of marketization and neoliberalism. Moore and Slee (2012) emphasize how important public policy is for understanding the fundamental values of any society. They draw on Easton and state that the core of policy ‘lies in the fact that through it certain things are denied to some people and made accessible to others’ (Easton, 1953, pp. 129–30 in Moore and Slee, 2012). They argue that schools have become sites of performativity (Ball, 2008) and failure using high-stakes testing, league tables, international league tables and punitive inspection regimes in an increasingly market-oriented environment. Schools are now competing for pupils and best results, deemed to raise narrowly defined academic attainment standards through competition (Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014; Runswick-Cole, 2011). As Slee aptly describes it: The mobilisation of exclusion through the structures, processes, programmes and ethos; that is, the cultures, of schooling is an embodiment of our social condition. Neoliberalism provides an ethical framework for the organisation and operation of our social institutions including schooling. Schools are forged within the furnace of competitive individualism, and students are reduced to the bearers of results. (2018, p. 16)

Schools are then reluctant to accept and teach all children given their nervousness that some may lower test results and subsequently the schools’ ranking in league tables. It is a shame then that the new Children and Families Bill (2014) does not include the evaluation of schools in relation to admissions and exclusions of disabled children, an omission that reflects the continued uncertainty in UK

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

43

policy in relation to persistent adoption of a market-led system (Norwich and Eaton, 2015). When disabled children are included in schools, teachers may either ‘refer children out’ or become accustomed to teams of specialists within their classrooms who unintentionally convince them that not all children are theirs to teach. If they remain in the classroom, a minder or teaching assistant is needed to support them and adopt the teacher role (Rutherford, 2012). The system places teachers in an almost impossible position of being asked to welcome diversity while being admonished if results fall below expectations (Ward, 2013). Indeed, a government Education Committee report issued late in 2019 was highly critical of how the reforms in the Children and Families Bill (2014) had been implemented (House of Commons Education Committee, 2019). The report followed an 18-month inquiry by a committee consisting of 11 MPs, based on reports provided by 70 witnesses and more than 700 submissions of written evidence on the reforms. While retaining commitment to the original policy, the committee criticized how it had been implemented stating that failures in application resulted in both a lack of clarity and unlawful practices at times. The report describes a bureaucratic nightmare, buck-passing, lack of accountability, overwhelmed resources and unhelpful experiences that have contributed to a generation being ‘let down’. Implementation has been undermined by significant underfunding alongside poor administration. This has resulted in a gap between the support provided and the support needed. Parents were said to be having to ‘wade through a treacle of bureaucracy, full of conflict, missed appointments and despair’ (p. 3) alongside young people’s experiences that ‘saddened’ the report’s authors. The report concludes with key recommendations to establish: ●●

●●

●●

●●

‘A more rigorous inspection framework for local authorities, with clear consequences for failure. There should be a greater focus on SEND in school inspections. A direct line for parents and schools to appeal directly to the Department for Education where local authorities appear not to be complying with the law. Powers for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to investigate complaints about schools. The development of more employment and training opportunities for post16 young people.’ (Parliament UK, 2019)

It’s not yet clear how the government will address the criticisms in the report at the time of writing this book.

44

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Models of Developing Inclusive Practices Policy aside, part of the problem of inclusion in schools seems to stem from teacher education programmes and how instead of learning about inclusion, beginner teachers are introduced to lists of impairments that they are expected to address based on the conflation of disability with SEN (Moore and Slee, 2012; Slee, 2018). On the other hand, there is growing evidence that more positive inclusive teaching strategies enable students to gain ‘the best results’ (Florian, Rouse and Black-Hawkins, 2017; Hehir et al., 2016; Slee, 2018). Strategies can be incorporated that ‘render the lesson; both content and the teaching and learning activities, accessible [. . .]’ (Slee, 2018, p. 68). Moreover, Slee includes digital technologies as a mechanism for this, to enable disabled students to have access and to participate in lessons. It is important then to consider how the situation in schools could be improved and inclusive practices embedded within every aspect of them. One of the issues according to Moore and Slee (2012) is that teachers are rarely offered any insights into disability studies in education that could enable them to critique the prevailing epistemologies and practices in schools in order to support positive change. They point out that the basis for their argument rests on the belief that teaching is always a political activity within which there is the possibility of finding space for change (Jordan and Goodey, 2002; Slee, 2010). While there is a multitude of national and international policy initiatives, inclusive education is made possible by the resolve, determination and drive of individuals to change the situation (Barton, 2012). Nevertheless, Florian and Spratt (2013) contend that while there is widespread literature about the underlying beliefs, values and attitudes that should underpin inclusive education, there is very little guidance offered to teachers about how this should be enacted in classroom settings. Where it does exist, it is not well used. One important example is the Index of Inclusion, a set of resources for schools to develop inclusive practices by Booth and Ainscow (2011). Florian and Spratt (2013) also set out their own model developed for use in teacher education. This is included here as an example of how inclusive education can be more practically supported to develop teachers’ inclusive practices. Their approach combines themes of learning, social justice and what they refer to as being an ‘active professional’. To develop an inclusive pedagogical approach they argue for a set of underlying principles that provide teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to provide meaningful learning so that the same learning opportunities are available for every child. Fundamental to this is that teachers accept ‘primary responsibility’ for the learning of all the children in

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

45

the class (Jordan, Schwartz and McGee, 2009). The approach welcomes human diversity and sets out a range of choices for everyone in the class instead of a set of differentiated selections for some. While they agree that some children may need additional support, this should be provided without creating stigma and the marking out of some children as different. They draw on Rouse’s (2009) work and state that inclusion depends on teachers ‘knowing’ (theoretical, policy and legislative issues), ‘doing’ (turning knowledge into action) and ‘believing’ in their competence to support all children. The approach avoids labelling students as different types of learners, but instead encourages teachers to be aware and sensitive to any unintended, unconstructive and negative outcomes. Teachers work with experts and specialists to provide useful learning opportunities in the classroom. This approach fits with the principles set out by Baglieri and Shapiro (2017) which state that inclusive education needs to adopt ‘pluralistic teaching practices’ which provide opportunities for every child to access and connect to the school and one another. Florian and Spratt (2013) provide a good example of how to develop teachers’ inclusive practices, working alongside specialists to provide pluralistic teaching and learning opportunities. This is a better alternative to supporting children ad hoc within classrooms, with the potential to identify some children as different. Whether or not schools are developing inclusive teaching practices remains unclear. As noted by Culham and Nind (2003), inclusion is an ongoing journey with education systems constantly in a state of flux due to changes in policy as priorities change. Inclusion is never an endpoint and always an ongoing process (Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014).

Friendships and Social Activities in Schools Social activities and opportunities to make friends are essential aspects of growing up for disabled children and schools have an important role to play in this (Haug, 2017). Social activities provide opportunities for learning and development and are particularly important during adolescence (Cavet, 1998). Activities and friendships can decrease the sense of isolation that children may feel, promote positive self-image and share information, guidance and experience. Moreover, they can provide enjoyment, well-being and health benefits, and encourage companionship, support and moral growth (Salmon, 2013). Teenagers describe themselves as being at their happiest when they are with their friends (Hurrelmann, 1996). Furthermore, feelings of belonging and

46

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

self-worth in relation to the local community later influence attitudes towards participation and investment in society so the impacts reach beyond childhood (Swain et al., 2003). Relationships in different arenas can be mutually dependent. Therefore, online social interactions and face-to-face activities often strengthen existing relationships (Hlebec et al., 2006). Given the obvious importance of social activities and opportunities to build friendships, it is unfortunate that earlier evidence showed that disabled young people tend to experience less opportunity for social activities compared with non-disabled peers (Cavet, 1998). Cavet explains how transport can impact disabled young people’s opportunities given the need for parental support or specialist services that may be limited. Moreover, parental support can become increasingly conspicuous and unwelcome as the child gets older. In a major study of 400 disabled young people aged thirteen to twenty-two in the 1990s, Hirst and Baldwin (1994) found that disabled young people were less likely to go to discos and cinemas than generic children. They were also less likely to participate or watch sports, games and physical activities; and their opportunities overall for taking part in social activities were less than for their peers, also decreasing as they got older. Flynn and Hirst (1992) found that leisure and social activities were constrained for disabled young people with learning disabilities. Even so, there is growing recognition that disabled children need to have the same opportunities for development through play and leisure as other children and young people (Dunn and Moore, 2005). This has extended particularly to sport and other physical activity (Cavet, 1998). Schools are important places then for disabled children to make friends. Sharing social space at school as well as home is important to offer the opportunity for adolescents to meet other young people with whom they can make friends (Allan, 1998; Crosnoe, 2000). Most disabled children do succeed in making and sustaining friendships when they attend mainstream schools (Kennedy et al., 1997). Even so, disabled children assess their sense of social belonging, safety and acceptance less positively than that of other children (Hogan et al., 2000; Watson and Keith, 2002); are less popular than other children (Cambra and Silvestre, 2003; Smoot, 2004) and experience less support from peers than other children (Kvello, 2006). Moreover, disabled young people report feelings of disempowerment and alienation more often than other children in addition to research which raises concerns about bullying (Brown et al., 2003; Salmon, 2013). Disabled children’s friendships are reportedly of lower quality than their peers, they often have no identified best friend and can be involved in fewer social activities with friends. Salmon concludes that for many disabled teenagers, life

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion

47

both in and out of school can be characterized by loneliness. Paradoxically, as Shakespeare (2014) comments, residential institutions and special schools were frequently able to offer disabled children friendship and safety, whereas there is evidence to show that disabled children in mainstream schools can often feel isolated (Priestley et al., 1999). Positively in relation to inclusive education, studies show that disabled children in mainstream schools have more social interaction with other children than in specialist schools (Wendelborg and Kvello, 2010). Inclusive education policies are also assumed to facilitate friendships between disabled and nondisabled young people providing the opportunity to meet a wider group of peers; and often viewed as the ‘gold standard for inclusion’ by policymakers and parents (Salmon, 2013). Nevertheless, others have noted this perception is problematic, ascribes low value to friendships between disabled people, and is damaging to self-esteem and to the sharing of common experiences (Cavet, 2000; Chapple 1994). Rosenbloom (1998), for example, noted that many disabled young people choose other disabled young people as friends despite participation in inclusive classrooms. Educational arrangements in mainstream schools again have an important impact on disabled young people’s interactions with their peers during breaks and leisure time (Wendelborg and Kvello, 2010). Yet, disabled children can easily fall outside of the unplanned and child-initiated contacts within schools (Pijl and Hamstra 2005). Teaching assistants and other specialist educators often remove children from their regular classrooms for intensive educational work and support. This can impact activities with peers both socially and as part of curricula-related activities (Wendelborg and Tøssebro, 2008). Research suggests that the negative impact of being removed from the class is stronger than the severity of the impairment of the child (Wendelborg and Kvello, 2010). In contrast, the presence of a teaching assistant within the class has less impact on disabled children’s participation than being removed from the class but does still impact social participation in leisure time. Disabled children may be moved to dedicated support spaces in breaks while other children rush out to the playground (Salmon, 2013). Examples such as these show how friendships between disabled and nondisabled teens can be weakened (Bunch and Valeo, 2004; Hendrickson et al., 1996). Inclusive education is thereby compromised by a social reality that does not ensure comparable experiences for disabled children despite assumptions of equality. Disabled children have to learn to navigate stigma in order to make and sustain friendships both inside and outside of school and take part in leisure activities given the shame and humiliation that disabled children experience

48

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

when marked out as different (Salmon, 2013). Globally, UNICEF (2005) note that disabled children are among the most stigmatized in the world and that stigma reduces life chances related to employment, income, social capital and longevity. As a part of their experiences, disabled children may feel a greater sense of belonging when with peers who share their experience of disability.

Digital Inclusion In the previous sections, I set out key issues prevalent in the literature about social inclusion, inclusive education and disabled children. In this section I will briefly consider the different aspects of digital inclusion that will be deployed to explore disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies. Early conceptions of the so-called digital divide in the 1990s were often viewed in terms of access to technology. Interestingly, this overlaps with inclusive education and the assumption by some that ‘access’ to mainstream schools is the same as inclusion. In the case of digital technologies, it was previously assumed that having access to digital technologies resulted in use. Therefore, analysis of technology-related use revolved around terms such as ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ and the material barriers to inclusion (Warschauer, 2003). Later models have taken more nuanced account of individual agency alongside personal attributes and resources. What has been referred to as ‘meaningful access’ to digital technologies is now seen to be the result of a set of complex and interrelated qualities, human and social resources and relationships alongside the digital, rather than based on one single determining factor, that is, access. Building on similar ideas, Van Dijk (2005) provided a model of digital inclusion that distinguished between the material, skills, motivational and usage access to identify underpinning reasons for digital inclusion or exclusion. Research since then has interpreted this to include access, skills, attitudes and types of engagement within models of digital inclusion and exclusion (Helsper, 2012, Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Selwyn, 2006). These categories will be useful in this book as a framework through which to explore how disabled children use and experience digital technologies for learning in the context of inclusive education. Key categories of digital inclusion are as follows: ●●

Access (in order to be able to use the Internet on different platforms such as computers, laptops and mobile devices);

Social Inclusion, Inclusive Education and Digital Inclusion ●●

●●

●●

49

Types of engagement (in order to undertake different activities online for different purposes to access useful and relevant content and services); Attitudes (in order to be positively motivated to use digital technologies); Skills (in order to make informed effective and safe uses of digital technologies).

More nuanced models of digital inclusion have been referred to as the ‘emerging digital differentiation approach’ that seeks to consider how unequal socioeconomic, cognitive and cultural resources underpin differential use patterns (Peter and Valkenburg, 2006). It is based on the argument that providing access to digital technologies alone will not straightforwardly provide everyone with the same opportunities available to others. Digital inclusion is always embedded within a child or adult’s offline circumstances (Livingstone and Palmer, 2012). Models such as this are needed therefore to promote social inclusion for everyone through the affordances of digital technologies (Warschauer, 2003). This is particularly important for those groups who may have been left behind given the importance of digital inclusion to be able to participate beneficially in society. Digital technology use is increasingly viewed as essential to fully participate socially, economically, culturally and politically in twenty-firstcentury society (Selwyn and Facer, 2007). In the UK, for example, governmental and other public services have moved online and become an important means for accessing essential local government, financial and health services in addition to commercial and social networking opportunities. Moreover, being online is increasingly important for engaging in political and civic participation in relation to voting, to having influence within the local and wider community; and increasingly to ‘have one’s voice heard’ (Helsper, 2012, p. 409). The need to participate online and access online opportunities and activities has been referred to as ‘participatory cultures’ (Jenkins et al., 2006). This describes the possibilities that using digital technologies can provide and from which children can potentially be excluded. It includes affiliations (e.g. online communities), expressions (creative forms of engagement), collaborative problem-solving (e.g. working together in teams to complete tasks and develop new knowledge) and circulations (e.g. media flow such as podcasting and blogging). Moreover, Jenkins et al. identified the ‘participation gap’ that exists in relation to social and civic activities for youngsters not able to access these opportunities. More recently, Livingstone and Third (2017) have coined the useful term ‘participation rights’ to bring together the child, children’s rights and the digital to describe

50

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

the online opportunities that should be available to all children in terms of information, education and participation within a protective, safe, private and developmental space.

Conclusions In this chapter, I have explored the importance of social inclusion and inclusive education within disabled children’s lives, aligned to the social model of disability. In particular, I argued that there is a gap between policy and inclusive education as currently implemented in schools with provision often reflecting integration rather than inclusion for disabled children. This disadvantages disabled children as they are expected to fit in with pre-established structures and processes that can unintentionally work to create stigma and increase marginalization. A more inclusive model is one whereby class teachers are able to accept ‘primary responsibility’ for the learning of all the children in the class and develop inclusive pedagogical practices. However, I acknowledge the difficulty of moving forward with this agenda given the current context of schooling driven by performativity within an increasingly market-oriented environment, and in the absence of guidance or practical support for class teachers to develop inclusive teaching and learning. Finally, in this chapter, I set out the different elements that comprise digital inclusion as a lens through which to understand disabled children’s digital activities. In the next chapter, I will consider the potential of digital technologies to support disabled children’s learning. This highlights the importance of recognizing the role of digital technologies in formal, informal and nonformal learning opportunities to take account of children’s activities related to the curriculum; and for social and friendship building activities, alongside the development of skills and competencies. I also set out how children and their teachers were engaged in research for the illustrative project.

3

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning and Introducing the Illustrative Project

Introduction In the previous chapter, I discussed the importance of social inclusion, inclusive education and digital inclusion in disabled children’s lives. In this chapter, I will consider how disabled children’s uses of digital technologies, such as computers, laptops, mobile devices and the Internet, can support learning. There are two key dimensions to this. First, digital technologies, such as computers, laptops and mobile devices, may have the potential to support all children’s learning as educational tools, particularly tablet computers, increasingly available in schools combined with free or low-cost apps with potential for teaching and learning (European Schoolnet, 2014). Second, they may be able to provide additional opportunities for disabled children’s learning specifically when used as adjunctive assistive technologies. This potential has been heightened by the convergence between mainstream technologies such as computers, laptops, mobile devices and assistive technologies, particularly the built-in accessibility features developed by companies such as Apple and Microsoft (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017). In light of this, the chapter will explore the potential of digital technologies for learning within the context of mainstream schools. I will consider how digital technologies can support inclusion and the potential of digital technologies to support children’s formal, informal and non-formal learning within schools. Finally, I will describe how disabled children, young people and their teachers were engaged in participatory research alongside observations carried out in classrooms to explore learning activities in context and set the scene for the next three chapters.

52

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Potential Benefits of Disabled Children’s Uses of Digital Technologies for Learning The possibility that digital technologies can support disabled children’s learning was identified over a decade ago by Florian (2004). She stated that digital technologies have the potential to be an effective leveller: . . . to overcome or compensate for differences among learners. This idea has important implications for learners with disabilities and special educational needs because it suggests that technology can help create the conditions for equal opportunity to learn and equal access to the curriculum for all. (p. 10)

While it remains difficult to see how digital technologies can be a ‘leveller’ within the current educational context as set out in the preceding chapter, a number of clear benefits for disabled children using technology for learning are identified in the SENnet report (European Schoolnet, 2014). The European Commission funded SENnet between 2011 and 2014, a sustainable network of policymakers and practitioners intended to support disabled children to use technology, led by European Schoolnet. They identified a number of potential benefits in relation to how tablet computers could support disabled children that included the following: operational speed; customized uses of hardware alongside greater personalization of teaching and learning due to the availability of apps; immediate feedback made possible by touchscreens; affordability and greater versatility particularly when compared with specialist assistive technologies; built-in accessibility features to suit preferences such as the ability to zoom, change fonts and colour schemes, voice over and voice control, with the option to replace assistive technologies for some young people. In addition, other researchers have noted the potential of tablet computers to reduce stigma for disabled children by helping them to fit in (Dwight, 2012; Schaffhauser, 2013). This is particularly the case when disabled children can use the same devices and apps as their peers in class (Cranmer, 2020; European Schoolnet, 2014). In addition, tablet computers can be made available at lower cost than is the case for more established specialist assistive technologies (Haßler et al., 2016). For these reasons, tablets have become especially popular among educators supporting disabled children (Pellerin, 2013; Terrer-Perez, 2013). The benefits identified for disabled children using digital technologies are important. Nevertheless, how far disabled children are able to access these benefits is dependent on their own practices along with how digital technologies are used in schools generally. For this reason, the next section will critically

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning

53

discuss the contemporary situation in relation to uses of digital technologies for learning in schools.

Potential Benefits of Children’s Uses of Digital Technologies for Learning Schools remain under pressure to keep up with technological innovation given the assumption that digital technologies enhance learning. Given the hype and oft-inflated claims made in the last thirty or so years, it is important to consider the evidence and take a grounded approach to considering how disabled children’s learning can be supported by digital technologies in the context of inclusive education. Previous studies have shown that digital technologies can provide broad benefits for learning by children. These gains can include enhanced student motivation; increased engagement; the opportunity for the development of digital skills and competencies; the potential for increased efficiency; convenience and ease-of-use; and, some argue, the ability to transform pedagogy in order to produce more effective teaching and learning (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017; Clarke and Svanaes, 2014; Haßler et al., 2016). An analysis of studies carried out by Blikstad-Balas and Davies (2017) on 1:1 schemes and focused mainly on tablets highlighted three main benefits cited in the research as follows: (a) pedagogical change (the facility of mobile devices to shift towards more independent and active learning alongside increased student motivation); (b) twenty-first-century learning (potential for development of skills such as collaboration and teamwork, and computer coding skills; (c) logistical and economic (efficiency gains for teachers and students both individually and in interaction with each other; cost savings, for example, materials and resources; possibly additional staff). In relation to pedagogical change, for example, it has been argued that tablets can make a difference when teaching interventions are designed that seek to equip children for the future (Clark and Luckin, 2013). UNESCO, for instance, emphasizes the need to provide young people with ‘high level’ digital skills and competencies and confidence to support employment and sustainable development in the twenty-first century (UNESCO, 2018a). Teachers themselves often recognize the benefits of technology use. The ITL project surveyed 683 teachers in 24 secondary schools in England and carried out in-depth interviews and observations to explore ‘innovative teaching and learning’ with teachers (Perrotta, 2013). The majority of teachers (89.6 per cent,

54

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

n = 575) indicated that digital technologies contributed significantly to their teaching including providing access to wider ranges of learning content and resources. Generally the optimism which surrounds digital technologies in education is not surprising given the convergence represented in bringing together resources and tools previously used in teaching and learning such as books, media, games and the ability to facilitate communication through reading, writing, video, photograph production and more (Livingstone, 2012). It follows, therefore, that digital technologies should intrinsically be able to support education and learning. In addition, they have the facility to connect children’s life domains of school, home, work and community that can also be potentially beneficial for learning. Nevertheless, Blikstad-Balas and Davies note that their study found limited evidence that digital technologies were changing educational practices and providing opportunities for more innovative approaches to teaching and learning, but instead were being used to support more traditional educational activities. They report that These machines were perceived by their users, and by their teachers, primarily as tools to augment the processes of teaching, learning and managing the various elements of the established curriculum, especially with regard to accumulating and retrieving the knowledge required for critical public examinations. (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017, pp. 3–4)

Linked to this, Selwyn argues that the hype which surrounds the use of digital technologies in education is unwarranted yet too frequently listened to and espoused by policymakers, industrialists and other influential stakeholders (Selwyn, 2016). He maintains that educators themselves may also not be fully engaged in the debate and this has important consequences for schools. To address this, Selwyn analyses the main benefits and claims made in relation to digital technologies in education and asks if each claim is justifiable. He puts forward democracy and the potential of technology to overcome inequality and foster a fairer world; personalization to enable people to navigate an individual journey through education and learning; calculability to measure and support learning through digitization and datafication; and commercialism to extend the reach of business into education. He evaluates each claim in turn and argues that society needs to take a more critical approach to the increased prominence of digital technologies within schools, especially to challenge the corporate and commercial interests at play within these claims. He further assesses the use of technology in schools, particularly evidence of children’s mundane

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning

55

experiences at school compared with their more expansive and entertaining uses of technologies at home drawing on previous research (Selwyn, Potter et al., 2010). In this, he reflects the findings of Blikstad-Balas and Davies (2017) who note a lack of innovative approaches in schools. Selwyn also argues that social and economic pressures mediate the potential impact of digital technologies on classroom practices, undermining claims that technologies for learning can act as a ‘leveller’ for children from different socio-economic backgrounds. The same constraints could similarly undermine the ability of digital technologies to become a leveller for disabled children in the current context of performancebased, competitive schooling as discussed in Chapter 2. Selwyn is not alone in challenging the role of digital technologies in education. Many commentators note that the jury is out when examining evidence for increased learning outcomes resulting from technological innovation. According to Livingstone, there are three critical questions that need to be asked of technology in education: ‘what’s really going on, how can this be explained, and how could things be otherwise?’ (Livingstone, 2012, p. 19). She notes that while research does show that children believe digital technologies support their learning, overall evidence for this across the curriculum is inadequate in terms of educational outcomes such as exam grades and other standardized measures of assessment (Condie and Munro, 2007). Moreover, national and/or longitudinal evidence of measurable learning gains remain elusive. Even so, it is important not to paint too pessimistic a picture of educational uses of technologies given the growing evidence of the benefits for schools based on small studies and independent evaluations (LeBaron and McDonough, 2009). Livingstone argues that assessing the benefits of digital technologies nationally and longitudinally in classrooms is made difficult by uneven provision; and the diversity of types of technology that are clustered within the term ‘digital technologies’. For example, this can include peer-to-peer technologies and technologies used by the teacher (often at the front of the classroom) such as interactive whiteboards. In addition, it is difficult to assess digital technologies in isolation given the range of factors that can influence outcomes, such as pupil’s attitudes, teachers’ attitudes and training alongside the changing expectations of society at large. Taking a different approach, Passey argues that the lack of evidence to show the benefits of technology is due to the challenge of trying to measure the affordances of specific technologies alongside their uses (Passey, 2013). He draws on a report by the Association for Learning Technology (2012) that sets out difficulties in measuring impact. For example, learning is context dependent so what works in one setting may not work in another. Within classrooms, it is very

56

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

difficult to carry out controlled experiments that can ensure constant variables given that teachers’ attitudes could affect results. Learning is also complex in itself and it is difficult to break down and measure the different aspects that may be under development in relation to knowledge and skills or even concepts and ideas not already known. Importantly, Passey also argues that learners are not homogenous but made up of different individuals and groups with different requirements. Therefore, they need different digital technologies and support and respond in different ways. Bringing these different aspects together, the next section will explore the potential of digital technologies to promote inclusion.

Potential of Digital Technologies to Make Schools More Inclusive Digital technologies are frequently charged with the ability to shake up education and transform it to be fit for purpose and address the needs of children and young people in the twenty-first century. This is based on the assumption that the current system is somewhat broken and requires a ‘digital fix’ to sweep away old regimes, and to reimagine and remake education provision for the future (Selwyn, 2016). These high expectations are unrealistic. Yet, given the potential benefits that disabled children may be able to access by using digital technologies, it is important to consider how teachers and schools more broadly can be supported to embed digital technologies usefully and in more inclusive ways. The changes needed for schools to become more inclusive have much in common with calls to change schools in order to realize the potential of technology. Many have assumed that the integration of digital technologies into education would automatically improve learning and bring about the transformation of schools. Yet, in terms of institutional, organizational and classroom practices, schools remain essentially the same (Selwyn, 2016). Practices revolve around a teacher viewed as an expert; there is regulation of time, space and place within the usual routines of curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and credentializing. Indeed, the so-called promise and expectation that digital technologies will transform schools always remain just out of reach. Transformational change will instead mean rethinking the core values of education and changing activities and relationships at every level – infrastructure, teacher training, curriculum structures and materials, classroom practices and modes of assessment (Livingstone, 2012). Similarly, authors such as LeBaron and McDonough (2009)

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning

57

advocate comprehensive policy recommendations to advance the effective uses of digital technologies in education and again these have parallels with the farreaching changes needed to develop wholly inclusive education. They identify the following aspects as crucial to improving the situation in schools: development of solid and coordinated leadership, integration of digital technologies, teacher education, communities of practice to build networks of practitioners, integrated planning at local and national levels alongside adequate resources. This has much in common with the fundamental changes needed to make schools more inclusive and this is important to keep in mind in subsequent chapters.

Potential of Digital Technologies for Formal, Informal and Non-formal Learning The main focus of the book is on disabled children’s learning within mainstream schools, typically defined as formal learning relating to activities that directly support the curriculum. Even so, schools also provide the opportunity for disabled children to develop friendships and social activities along with creating wider learning activities that can happen within the less formal spaces of the school day. Therefore, formal, informal and non-formal learning opportunities are relevant to any discussion about digital technologies because laptops and mobile devices can transcend and connect the different aspects of children’s lives and it is essential to acknowledge ‘life-wide’ as well as the ‘lifelong’ learning opportunities (Meyers et al., 2013). Children’s everyday lives provide many learning opportunities and experiences that can lead to the development of friendships and social activities, skills, competencies and knowledge (OECD, 2019). Nevertheless, learning which happens outside of formal classes is poorly understood, often goes unrecognized and is frequently undervalued. This is unfortunate given that children spend much time outside of the classroom and this can have deep and long-lasting effects on their education and place within society (Resnick, 1987). It is challenging to define what constitutes formal, informal and non-formal learning given that they exist on a continuum. Meanings are questionable and interrelationships complex (Sefton-Green, 2004, 2013). Formal learning is often considered to take place in formalized settings such as school classrooms; time is specifically allocated for learning and opportunities are considered to be deliberate (Erhaut, 2000; Jones, 2017). Learning is usually organized, is structured, has learning objectives and is intentional (OECD, 2019). Informal learning, in contrast, is often considered

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

58

to take place outside of formalized educational contexts and is considered to be unplanned, unassessed and unaccredited (Tusting, 2003). Informal learning does not usually have a recognized curriculum or learning objectives; and learning may be incidental and unrecognized by the learner (Erhaut, 2000). Learning may also be ‘incidental’ (Marsick and Watkins, 1990). It may happen spontaneously as part of family and community life (Eshach, 2007). Non-formal learning is often considered to be located between formal and informal learning. It tends to be the least clearly defined of the three forms of learning, it can be organized and have learning objectives (OECD, 2019) but is usually without formal accreditation. In contrast to these approaches, Colley et al. (2003) argue that it is inappropriate and ineffective to distinguish between informal, non-formal and formal learning and instead claim the existence of different ‘attributes of formality and informality’ within all learning situations (p. 9). They propose that categories of learning include the following: ‘purpose (intentional/ unintentional), process (structure, pedagogy, support, assessment, etc.), location (including norms and structures such as timetables in educational institutions) and content (high-stakes knowledge to leisure interests)’ (summarized in Greenhow and Lewin, 2016, pp. 9–10). These perspectives are interesting and useful for underscoring that disabled children do not just learn with digital technologies within the school when focused on curriculum-based activities but also, for example, during breaks in the school day. Moreover, the development of children’s friendships, digital skills and competencies very often occur outside of the formal curriculum and it is important to acknowledge this. Children’s different home environments and other aspects of their lives impact learning within and outside of the school both generally and when using digital technologies. Keeping these issues in mind, the next section will set out the illustrative project to explain how disabled children and their teachers were engaged in participatory research along with classroom observations to explore learning activities in context.

Introducing the Illustrative Project Project Outline To explore disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning, a participatory, in-depth qualitative case study approach was adopted. A

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning

59

Table 3.1  Description of Study Schools A This is an urban mixed gender, Church of England Academy. It has 1,543 children on roll. The percentage of children with a statement of Special Educational Need (SEN) or Education, Health or Care (EHC) plan is 2.2 per cent (3.9 per cent nationally). Pupils whose first language is not English is 6.5 per cent (well below the national average of 15.7 per cent). Pupils eligible for free school meals is 12.8 per cent (well below the national average of 29.3 per cent). At the Ofsted inspection in 2011, the school received an Outstanding rating. B This is a semi-rural mixed gender, non-denominational Academy. It has 1,524 children on roll. The percentage of children with a statement of SEN or EHC plan is 2.2 per cent. Pupils whose first language is not English is 2.2 per cent (well below the national average of 15.7 per cent). Pupils eligible for free school meals is 12.7 per cent (well below the national average of 29.3 per cent). At the Ofsted inspection in 2013, the school received an Outstanding rating. C This is an urban, mixed gender, Roman Catholic high school. It has 779 children on roll. The percentage of children with a statement of SEN or EHC plan is 1.4 per cent. Pupils whose first language is not English is 2.2 per cent (well below the national average of 15.7 per cent). Pupils eligible for free school meals is 18.1 per cent (below the national average of 29.3 per cent). At the Ofsted inspection in 2014, the school received a Good rating.

participatory approach was essential in order to carry out research ‘with’ not ‘on’ disabled children (Mallett and Runswick-Cole, 2014). It was important to design a project that was able to listen to and hear disabled children’s voices given the lack of research that takes account of their views (McLaughlin et al., 2016). A decision was made to focus on visual impairment because research has shown that visually impaired adults meet the most barriers online compared with those adults with other impairments (Disability Rights Commission, 2004). Accordingly, interviews took place with children and class teachers (CTs)/qualified teachers of children with vision impairments (QTVIs)/teaching assistants (TAs) in order to develop questions that were appropriate for the children alongside suitable data collection tools and methods, analyses and reporting. It was crucial that the methods developed were inclusive and could engage participants in meaningful ways. Children were recruited in three secondary schools in the North West of England, UK, via the VI forum (Table 3.1). The forum is a UK-based mailing list hosted by the National Sensory Impairment Partnership (NatSIP) and supported by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB). It offers support to teachers of visually impaired students.1 Data collection initially took part between 2014 and 2015. Follow-up interviews were carried out with teachers in 2017

https​:/​/ww​​w​.rni​​b​.org​​.uk​/i​​nsigh​​t-​ onl​​in​e​/v​​i-​ for​​um

1

60

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Table 3.2  Description of the Disabled Children Child Fern Rachel Nigel Laura Jem Simon Siobhan

Age 14 14 13 16 17 17 14

Gender Girl Girl Boy Girl Boy Boy Girl

School A A B B B B C

(two qualified teachers of children with vision impairments and one teaching assistant) to discuss how the situation in these schools might have changed. Within the three schools, semi-structured interviews were carried out with seven children to explore their activities and experiences of using digital technologies for learning (Table 3.2). Questions focused on potential areas of learning in and out of school. Questions were focused around children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies. Children were introduced to the areas to be covered in the interview at the beginning to ensure they were comfortable answering all the questions. At the end of the interview, their thoughts and feelings about the process were discussed, again to ensure their well-being. They were also asked if the questions that were asked adequately covered their experiences using digital technologies for learning. They responded positively in all cases. The intention was to observe each young person in the classroom in situ; however, this was not always possible due to timetabling constraints. This resulted in five observations taking place. During the observations, field notes were taken by hand to complete a descriptive paper-based standardized pro forma of children’s uses of digital technologies, enablers/constraints to their uses; and the support available. In addition to the interviews carried out with the children, I also interviewed nine CTs, qualified teachers of children with vision impairments (QTVIs) and TAs who teach or otherwise closely support the children who participated in the project (Table 3.3). This triangulation process was useful to build up a detailed and complete picture of the situation. Recruitment to the project was particularly challenging due to the ‘additional layer’ of gatekeeping that exists for disabled children (ESRC, 2012). For this reason, it is typical to have a small number of participants for collection of rich data in disability studies–related research given the difficulties of gaining access to disabled children. In addition, disabled children with visual impairment are considered to be ‘low incidence, high distribution’ in mainstream schools adding

The Potential of Digital Technologies for Learning

61

Table 3.3  Description of Teachers Teacher

Role

Gender

School

QTVI(1)

Qualified teacher of children and young people with vision impairments (QTVI)* Qualified teacher of children and young people with vision impairments Qualified teacher of children and young people with vision impairments* Teaching assistant Teaching assistant* Teaching assistant Class teacher Class teacher Class teacher

Female

A

Female

B

Female

C

Male Female Female Female Male Female

A B C B B B

QTVI(2) QTVI(3) TA1 TA2 TA3 CT1 CT2 CT3

*These teachers also took part in a follow-up interview in 2017.

additional budgetary and time challenges given that children are distributed across different schools. The challenges of recruiting children were also combined with the issue of withdrawing children from class. Even so, this was outweighed by the need to hear more disabled children’s voices in educational technology research. Bearing this in mind, data collected with the children and teachers along with the observational data was combined to provide compensatory richness. Data analysis was carried out in stages. Interviews with the disabled children and their teachers were transcribed. Transcripts were closely read to identify common themes in line with grounded approaches to qualitative data analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Codes were further refined and a coding framework developed then systematically used to code the data into themes or categories. The observational data provided authentic accounts to triangulate with the interview data thereby adding further detail and trustworthiness to the analysis. Draft reports were prepared and then shared with the children and teachers who had participated in the study and their comments were integrated before finalizing. The main themes generated in the analyses related to children’s access to digital technologies, activities for learning, the opportunities and barriers of digital technologies for learning, children’s digital skills and competencies, teachers’ perspectives of the opportunities and barriers of digital technologies for learning, and teachers’ digital skills and competencies. Findings from the full report have been extracted and incorporated into the book for illustration.2

see https​:/​/ep​​rints​​.lanc​​s​.ac.​​uk​/id​​/epri​​nt​/88​​991​/4​​/Disa​​bled_​​child​​ren​_f​​i nal_​​re​por​​t​_30.​​11​.17​​.pdf for full report

2

62

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

The host University’s Ethics Committee granted ethical approval. All names have been changed and it has been necessary to hide some of the young people’s details and achievements to ensure their anonymity.

Conclusions In this chapter, I have explored the potential of digital technologies for supporting disabled children’s learning taking a grounded, un-romanticized approach. I outlined the possible benefits that tablet computers can provide for disabled children in particular while acknowledging the difficulty of providing evidence that digital technologies improve measurable learning outcomes. I argued against the notion that digital technologies alone can transform education without requiring change at every level of schooling and asked if digital technologies could make schools more inclusive. I then acknowledged the role of digital technologies in formal, informal and non-formal learning opportunities given the opportunities that they provide for disabled children’s activities related to the curriculum and social activities alongside the development of skills and competencies. Finally, I explained how I carried out research with disabled children and their teachers for the illustrative project. In the next chapter, I will outline previous research in relation to children’s digital inclusion comprising the elements of access, types of engagement and attitudes to digital technologies within the context of mainstream schools (Helsper, 2012, Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Selwyn, 2006). I will include research about disabled children’s uses of technology where it exists and importantly, I will identify the gaps in research that need to be addressed about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies.

4

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

Introduction In the previous chapter, I explored the potential of digital technologies for learning by disabled children within the context of mainstream schools. I also asked if digital technologies had the facility to enable mainstream schools to become more inclusive. Moving forward, this chapter will provide an overview of previous research organized around markers of digital inclusion in relation to disabled children’s access, types of engagement and attitudes to digital technologies within the context of mainstream schools (Helsper, 2012, Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Selwyn, 2006). Consideration of the fourth aspect of digital inclusion, skills and competencies is located in Chapter 5. This evidence-based approach is taken to enable grounded exploration of what is happening in schools and to challenge the prevalent hype. This chapter also identifies where gaps in research exist in relation to disabled children’s uses of digital technologies. As noted in the introductory chapter, at times when writing this book, I have needed to move away from my intention to focus on disabled children’s experiences to provide background in relation to the broader context for children’s uses of digital technologies in schools. This has become necessary in this chapter and has again reminded me of how important it is to keep disabled children as the central focus and identify where the gaps in existing research are. I will return to research in relation to disabled children as soon as possible within what follows. The limited evidence base that exists about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies is a particular challenge within this field (European Schoolnet, 2014; Passey, 2013; Robinson, 2014; Söderström, 2009a). It is particularly notable when compared with the evidence base developed about generic children’s uses

64

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

of technology, particularly within high-income countries. Even so, previous research carried out in mainstream schools is relevant here because it is the context within which many disabled children learn. It is quite possible, therefore, that they have been included within these studies without being the main focus of study or without their presence being made explicit. Finally, given that this is the context in which many disabled children are situated, they are very likely to have had similar experiences.

Children and Disabled Children’s Access to Digital Technologies in Schools Children’s Access Generally There has been much research carried out in schools about children’s learning with digital technologies in high-income countries and to some extent in middleincome countries. Nevertheless, globally there is a lack of comparative and comprehensive data about children’s access to and uses of digital technologies in general including disabled children. What is clear, however, is that there have been large financial investments made to provide digital technologies in schools in many countries. Moreover, the comparative gap in some children’s access to digital technologies and the low quality of access available has become a new ‘dividing line’ between children (UNICEF, 2017). Children without Internet access are deprived of the opportunities that their better-connected peers benefit from. Moreover, these inequalities often reflect existing socioeconomic disparities in children’s lives with the potential to intensify other areas of disadvantage. In some middle- and low-income countries, for instance, there remain relatively low rates of access to computers and consequently Internet access. The 2012 Pisa report showed that access to computers was about onefourth of that in Brazil, Romania, Turkey and Vietnam than in high-income countries (Bulman and Fairlie, 2015). Moreover, UNICEF has stated concern that nearly nine out of ten young people (aged fifteen to twenty-four) not using the Internet currently live in Africa or Asia or the Pacific (2017). Africa also has the highest number of non-users within the same age group, while in lowincome countries such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, there are less than one in twenty children under fifteen that use the Internet. The challenge within these countries is the high cost of data combined with poor quality connectivity. Connectivity is least affordable therefore within the low-income countries of Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

65

In Europe too, the large-scale benchmarking surveys of European schools of digital technologies in education (European Commission, 2013, 2019) have consistently shown a mixed picture across different countries. The results of the first survey were published in 2013 drawing on data from 190,000 participants: students, teachers and head teachers in twenty-seven countries (Germany, Iceland, Netherlands and the United Kingdom were excluded due to low response rates). The second survey builds on the first, reporting findings drawn from thirty-one countries (EU28, Norway, Iceland and Turkey) in 2019. The first survey results showed that most schools in Europe were connected at a ‘basic level’ whereby they had a website, email for students and teachers or a virtual learning environment. Interactive whiteboards were typically in place but one in five grade 8 (aged twelve to thirteen) students never or almost never used a computer in school. Moreover, one in four students was in a school where teachers used technologies in less than one in twenty lessons. In relation to provision, on average, 37 per cent of grade 4 (aged nine to ten), 24 per cent of grade 8 (aged twelve to thirteen), 55 per cent of grade 11 (aged sixteen to seventeen) and 50 per cent of grade 11 (aged sixteen to seventeen) were children in schools considered to be ‘highly digital’. These are schools that are highly equipped, have fast broadband and high connectivity. Countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden have low ratios of students to laptops and tablets at all levels while Spain, Malta, Cyprus and Belgium had low ratios of laptops and tablets at some levels only. In some countries, desktop computers (connected to the Internet) continued to predominate. However, there was a move towards laptops and tablets possibly supplemented by bring-your-owndevice (BYOD) schemes. Children and young people were typically allowed more access to digital technologies, as they got older. Results from the second survey published in 2019 showed that the situation remains variable across the different countries at levels 1 (primary), 2 (lower secondary) and 3 (upper secondary). Nordic countries lead on provision of highspeed Internet. Across all countries, average provision of high-speed Internet is lowest in primary schools (11 per cent) compared with lower secondary (17 per cent) and upper secondary (18 per cent). There are on average eighteen students for each computer at primary level, seven at lower secondary and eight at upper secondary levels. This varies across countries ranging from twenty-one students to every computer, laptop, notebook or tablet in Italy compared to one student per technology in Denmark, alongside a European average of eighteen. One out of five lower secondary students and one out of four upper secondary students never use computers at school. There are also large variations between countries

66

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

in relation to students being taught by teachers using digital technologies in more than 25 per cent of lessons. Nordic teachers again lead on this. Denmark has the highest rate (88 per cent) while Hungary has the lowest for students at lower secondary level (38 per cent). Interestingly, the European average of 58 per cent reported in 2019 represents a 26 per cent increase compared with the first survey published in 2013 of 26 per cent at level 2. Teachers indicated that the main barrier to using digital technologies for teaching and learning in class were shortages of tablets, laptops and notebooks. Across Australia, in some parts of Europe and the United States, provision is better. There are many examples where young people have one-to-one tablet computer or laptop access (Balanskat et al., 2013; Keane and Keane, 2018). This is provided either through ‘Bring Your Own Device’ (BYO) initiatives or school purchasing policies. In the United States, for example, there has been a significant growth in the use of tablets in K-12 classrooms (kindergarten to age eighteen) with regular uses of devices in elementary schools (78 per cent); middle schools (69 per cent) and high schools (49 per cent) (Ditzler et al., 2016). This is alongside the provision of computers with Internet access in all public schools (US Department of Education, 2012). In the United Kingdom, provision of tablets is also growing. Industry figures provided by the British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) report that 71 per cent of primary schools and 76 per cent of secondary schools were making use of tablets in classrooms in 2015, a growth of 56 per cent compared with 2014 at both school levels (2015). While competitors such as Samsung are likely to catch up (Clarke and Luckin, 2013), iPads have dominated this market for the last five or so years (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017). Reasons for the growing popularity of tablet computers specifically include their versatility, the integration of components such as the built-in camera, touch screen, weight, battery life and relatively low price compared with other more traditional computing artefacts (Haßler et al., 2016). This has led to a growth in use alongside increased personal ownership for all children with a likely impact of both on disabled children. An important aspect of their success is due to the higher rates of acceptance by teachers compared with traditional desktop computers (Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz, 2016). Globally there have been large-scale initiatives – often through 1:1 programmes – introduced in low-, middle- and high-income countries to address the uneven provision of technology, to update education and to increase its relevance to the twenty-first century through technology. Clarke and Svanaes cite examples of initiatives in Colombia, Finland, France, India, Jamaica,

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

67

Lebanon, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and Scotland (2014). Bocconi et al. (2013) have pointed out that these schemes began with the One Laptop per Child initiative in 2007 that aimed to provide children and young people with affordable laptops. This has inspired other programmes based similarly on provision of low-cost mobile devices. Schemes to increase access to technologies exist in healthy economies as well as in less developed countries. In South Korea the government has initiated a programme aimed at providing 1:1 Samsung Galaxy tablet provision for every school child by 2015 (Clarke and Luckin, 2013). Similarly, many 1:1 initiatives in Europe have been facilitated by central government through their ministries of education as part of national strategy (Boccini et al., 2013; Bulman and Fairlie, 2015). In some countries, governments and schools are introducing 1:1 policies to seek to ensure children’s access to digital devices through schemes where parents are obliged to lease or purchase particular devices through the school (Selwyn et al., 2016). In other schools, ways are being created to enable the use of children’s own digital devices to support teaching and learning through BYOD schemes. The motivation for such schemes includes the perceived need to improve access to digital technologies in countries where provision is lower than the EU average ratio (Boccini et al., 2013). Other programmes are aimed at addressing economic inequalities generally within countries such as Cyprus and Lithuania. In countries with better technological provision, initiatives have focused on improving skills, increasing motivation and enhancing learning outcomes. Even so, not all schemes have been successful, resulting in delay or closure. Examples include South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and the United States. Reasons for the abandonment of schemes have been cited as excessive breakages, lack of Wi-Fi and technical infrastructures, lack of suitable educational content, concerns about the well-being of students and cost (Clarke and Svanaes, 2015).

Disabled Children’s Access Compared with research about children generally, research about disabled children’s access to digital technologies is more limited. Again, there is little previous research that benchmarks national levels of access, along with limited research carried out to consider disabled children’s learning in schools with digital technologies. This is the case within the context of mainstream schools, particularly research carried out explicitly with disabled children themselves. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the Information and Communication Technology for Inclusion (ICT4I) project led by the European Agency for

68

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Special Needs and Inclusive Education was carried out by twenty-five European countries between 2012 and 2013. This called for more research and policy action in this area (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2013). First, the agency highlighted that access to ‘appropriate ICT’ should be considered an entitlement for all children. They set out a strategic plan to support disabled children to develop long-term sustainability of school-level infrastructure to include collection and availability of data, both qualitative and quantitative, for monitoring purposes. This is also needed to inform policy and practice, currently lacking in most of the countries involved in the project. The authors argued that capital investment is needed in the short term to develop and upgrade infrastructure and in the longer term to ‘keep pace with developments’ in order to support disabled children by providing the necessary digital technologies and specialist assistive technologies for use at both school and home. They also recommended that teachers be provided with digital technologies for personal use at school and home. They also called for public-private partnerships in order to cultivate accessible technologies usable by disabled children and appropriate learning resources. They make the point that identification of what is needed to support the development of disabled children’s uses of digital technologies in education is important to move the situation forward, including having a research and policy framework in the area in order to make progress. The ICT4I project is important for assessing the state of play for disabled children in European schools and setting out a strategic response in order to progress the area in terms of research and development in order to inform policymakers. Interestingly, the concerns highlighted are in line with earlier studies. Brodin (2010), for example, carried out questionnaire research with sixteen parents with disabled children with motor disabilities and an interview with one fifteen-year-old disabled young person with motor disabilities to provide more in-depth insights. The aim of the study was to explore parents’ views on the use of digital technologies in school and particularly to consider if technology had facilitated children’s schoolwork and promoted equity more broadly. The study identified a lack of infrastructure in school, out-of-date technology and a lack of resources to invest in upgrading as barriers to disabled children’s digital learning. Brodin also called for greater investment in schools while highlighting the key role of head teachers in leading technological innovation and the need to encourage teachers to develop their own digital pedagogies and practice. This built on earlier research by Brodin and Lindstrand (2008) that showed how opportunities to use digital technologies in schools are being held back by issues

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

69

with access and implementation. Likewise, Robinson (2014) has set out how disabled children’s uses of tablet computers can be hindered by hardware costs, insufficient resourcing generally; underdeveloped teacher skills and awareness; security, including lost and stolen tablets (Johnson, 2013); and unrealizable expectations of technology in schools. In addition, the grants available may not cover the cost of tablets. In terms of frequency of use, an Australian study was carried out to investigate the uses of laptops with adjunctive hardware and software to enable disabled young people to complete schoolwork (Murchland and Parkyn, 2010). Interviews took place with five children and a parent in four cases and a school support worker in the fifth case. The results showed that computer use was sporadic through the day and through the week rather than used continuously. Computers were also used in some subjects more than others. A larger study took place in Sweden to compare the uses of digital technologies for school activities by disabled young people with physical disabilities who used ‘computer-based assistive devices’ and those who did not (Lidström, Granlund and Hemmingson, 2012). Computer-based assistive devices (ATDs) include computers fitted with specialist keyboards, trackballs, joysticks and eye-control devices. The survey was carried out with 287 disabled children with physical impairments (e.g. cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury) between the ages of ten and eighteen. These results were compared with those drawn from generic participants. The results showed that almost all students had access to a computer in school (94.1 per cent); eighty students had access to their own computer while at school (28.2 per cent); and the number was higher for young people using an ATD (n = 62; 47.2 per cent). In terms of frequency of use, the results showed that children with ATDs used the computer daily (n = 46; 36.5 per cent); sometimes/several times a week (n = 32; 25.4 per cent); never/seldom (n = 48; 38.1 per cent). Among the group of children not using an ATD, daily use was lower than reported by the previous group (n = 16; 10.3 per cent); higher for the group who used a computer sometimes/several times a week (n = 60; 38.5 per cent); and finally higher for the group of children who said they used the computer never/seldom (n = 81; 51.9 per cent). The authors conclude that the results suggest that digital technologies are of greatest importance for disabled children using computer-based ATDs; and results are positive in showing the availability of computer-based ATDs to allow disabled children to participate in educational activities using technology. They also found that computers are used more by children in mainstream schools than specialist schools; and that access to digital technologies was impacted therefore by attendance at a mainstream

70

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

school with the available resources. Age also made a difference, particularly between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. Perhaps this is because young people have more autonomy and choice in how to complete a task combined with the frequency with which teachers bring computers into their teaching (Lidström et al., 2012). Pfeiffer and Pinquart (2013) also carried out survey research in Germany with 686 children between the ages of twelve and twenty said to be on the ‘preschool track’ that qualifies young people to go to university. The study compared computer use by adolescents with visual impairment (n = 171) and their sighted peers (n = 515). The researchers found that visually impaired youngsters reported spending more time using computers for schoolwork than their peers, 42.39 compared with 30.20 hours a week, and for searching for information. What these studies suggest, therefore, is that disabled children are accessing digital technologies for schoolwork more regularly than their peers, perhaps being allowed or enabled to use them in classroom situations where others are not because of the adjunctive support they provide. Certainly, the findings suggest that children are regularly accessing digital technologies in school apparently in line with current trends that point towards many children having more access to digital technologies in schools generally than they previously did. Even so, neither of the last two studies explicitly explores tablet computer usage that appears to be gaining momentum in some countries, and is believed to be popular with teaching assistants and others who support disabled children due to their built-in accessibility features (Pellerin, 2013; Terrer-Perez, 2013).

Illustrative Project: Children’s Perspectives on Access In relation to access, the disabled participants in the illustrative project said that they used desktop computers, laptops, laptop/tablet hybrids, tablets, the iPod touch, mobile phones and assistive technologies (i.e. SuperNova; a Braille notetaker) to support learning. Often school policies dictated the availability of digital technologies for use at school and sometimes at home. In School A, for example, two fourteen-year-old girls were provided with an HP envy (a laptop with detachable tablet). This was for in-school use only. The computers were set up for the students on a daily basis by the teaching assistant with the resources and assistive technology needed to access the curriculum. Both the girls owned their own mobile phones and one also had an iPad that she used outside of school for ‘playing and like talking to my friends’ as well as for schoolwork. The second girl had access to a desktop computer at home.

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

71

In School B, iPads had recently been introduced for all year 8 children (twelve- to thirteen-year-olds) to use in and out of school and paid for by parents. Schools had imposed some rules about how the iPads were used. Nigel, aged thirteen, said that he was able to download particular apps to the iPad; however, messaging apps were blocked when he was within the school. Nigel also had his own iPhone and liked to use Apple products because they are also used by his family and ‘easily connect’. Young people in the sixth form in School B had also been allocated iPads provided with a detachable keyboard. Even so, users were limited to in school use only and for study-related purposes. Simon, seventeen, said that while he was allowed to add apps to the iPad, he had not found a need to do so. Simon also used a laptop at home and found it easier to use for writing longer assignments. He commented that he wished he had had access to an iPad earlier because of the clear benefits of it for learning. Jem, also in the sixth form at School B similarly found the iPad provided by the school useful particularly as it had enabled him to replace use of a laptop with SuperNova (magnification software). In addition to using the iPad for schoolrelated work, he talked of using a mobile phone for calling and texting; and an iPod Touch for social uses such as Facebook and listening to music. While year 8 children and young people in the sixth form had been given access to iPads, Laura, sixteen, fell between the different schemes and was not provided with a school-based iPad. Even so, her parents had provided this for her and she was allowed to bring it into school to use in classes with the teacher’s permission. She complemented iPad use with computer use at home for writing up homework with SuperNova assistive technology to help her enlarge her work. Laura said that owning her own iPad was beneficial because it gave her independence from the school. In School C, Siobhan, fourteen, said that she used a Braille notetaker in school. She was also learning to use a laptop with an assistive technology, Jaws speech output software. At home, she used an iPhone or an iPod touch to stay in contact with friends, she said: ‘I use my phone like any other teenager would so texting, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube’. The conversations give a flavour of the different technologies that these young people have access to and regularly use. School policy impacted greatly on uses, with some youngsters experiencing fluidity across the home-school boundary with digital technologies while others had a more bounded and controlled experience. In addition, some devices became more limited in use once they crossed the boundary into school because of blocking mechanisms. Potentially this situation could influence how far children are able to integrate formal and

72

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

informal learning activities given that some of the school policies create a digital separation between home and school. There also appeared to be an impact on the personalization of devices, privacy and independence when devices were restricted to school-related uses only.

Children and Disabled Children’s Types of Engagement to Support Education and Learning in Schools Children’s Types of Engagement Generally In this section, I provide an overview of the kinds of typical activities being carried out in classrooms and for homework with digital technologies. This is to provide a broad overview of children’s experiences in mainstream schools. The contents of this section also set out how laptops and tablets are growing in popularity, especially where 1:1 schemes exist, drawing on research carried out in Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The patterning of teaching with digital technologies in classrooms is important because it shapes the potential benefits and disadvantages that can be accessed by children. Typical activities can be teacher-led or self-determined by young people. For example, a range of small-scale studies have shown that activities in classrooms often involve the whole class and are directed by the teacher rather than being self-directed. This is in marked contrast to autonomous activities related to learning that happen at home or in other environments (European Commission, 2013). Activities can be spontaneous and self-directed by young people themselves such as listening to/watching the news and searching for information. In contrast, teacher-led activities likely to happen in schools may not facilitate the personalization made possible through using 1:1 devices that allow children to define their own path to learning as often claimed. Zucker and Hug (2008) researched 1:1 laptop integration in high schools in the United States and found that young people’s uses of laptops were mainly prescribed by the ‘instructional demands’ of teachers to directly support the curriculum. More recently, research carried out in three secondary schools in Australia considered the use of mobile devices and found that most of the time young people engaged in whole class tasks using devices in a ‘highly ordered and patterned’ way rather than individually (Selwyn et al., 2017, p. 306). Seldom did the researchers observe teachers encouraging young people to work together in groups or pairs that could have promoted collaboration.

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

73

Research carried out about children and young people’s uses of technology in classrooms has often shown activities to be banal and mundane when compared with the variety and more positive experience of using technology at home (Selwyn et al., 2010). There is little in recent research to contradict this on the whole though there are occasional instances of more interesting uses emerging. A recent study of 1:1 laptop integration found that web browsing and word processing constituted the most commonly reported daily student uses, based closely on the curricula demands of teachers (Zucker and Hug, 2008). Likewise, Selwyn et al. (2017) showed that most of the tasks carried out with technology in the classrooms they observed used online dictionaries, translators, calculators, Wikipedia and messaging tools. Main activities in classrooms were completing assignments, coursework, homework and other individual teacher-led tasks rather than using technology to facilitate more collaborative uses. Even so, occasionally teachers would plan lessons around the use of a specific app, potentially initiating activities that are more interesting for children. Blikstad-Balas and Davies also observed this use of apps (2017). They found that young people reported positive learning experiences when a carefully selected app was used as the basis for activities in this way. This was particularly the case when teachers integrated apps capably into classroom activities without the appearance of overregulation of student uses of devices. Further research has shown devices being used in relatively limited ways by eleven- to fourteen-year-olds in teacher-led classrooms in the United States, with similar findings to those of Selwyn et al. in Australia (Ditzler et al., 2016). This study found that teachers tended to encourage use of mobile devices to upload and view homework assignments and for submission of homework. Nevertheless, tablets were also used to work on class projects in more creative and independent ways with young people making presentations around a subject of their choice, later showing them to the whole class on a large screen alongside garnering tips and opinions about how to make projects more entertaining and engaging. A range of apps were used in the projects including Doceri and iMovie, Videoicious. Edmodo was used for checking homework. Teachers also reported that Edmodo was the most frequently used website for student and teacher communication. Likewise, in the UK, Davies and Eynon (2013) discovered young people (mainly teenagers) were using Microsoft Macromedia and Dreamweaver for website creation; Moviemaker for videos; V2 to create artwork in a product design class; and Microsoft Publisher to create magazines and publications in media studies. In this study, children said that they would

74

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

like teachers to be more proactive in encouraging the use of technology further in their classrooms. Most of the activities described were in response to teacher-led activities designed to directly support the curriculum, carried out by the whole class. Even so, researchers have also observed other more self-directed uses of mobile devices occurring in and out of schools to support the curriculum via homework. These findings suggest that while, as Selwyn et al. note, most activities in classrooms are driven by teachers (2017), young people may be developing more independent, complementary actions to support their studies alongside this. Blikstad-Balas and Davies (2017), for example, observed a range of practical uses that young people between the ages of eleven and twelve had initiated for themselves when using tablets in class. These included taking photographs of homework that had been set rather than making notes, recording sports activities using an app to watch and improve on, using an online dictionary, spellcheck and searching for information or checking words in a thesaurus. The authors note that the popularity of the use of tablets for taking both still images and video capture was an unanticipated finding of the project. Young people chose to film a wide variety of activities including keyboard skills in music and food stuffs cooked in home economics. The images were used to supplement evidence of their performance in portfolios. Interestingly, they noted that tablets were rarely used for writing beyond making a few short notes. They also observed older students, sixth formers between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, sharing notes via OneNote and other resources, materials and links and PowerPoint presentations via email alongside more teacher-led activities such as setting work online and receiving feedback, accessing resources shared by teachers and working independently using OneNote and Google Docs to collaborate. Ditzler et al. (2016) also noted independent use of tablets to work on projects, use websites or apps to support study by eleven- to fourteen-year-olds. Earlier studies focused on laptops, such as the study carried out by Lowther et al. (2012), similarly highlighted that young people in class often worked independently with laptops, most frequently using web browsers and word processors. Harper and Milman (2016) found that young people using laptops in classrooms also conducted online research and completed work using Microsoft Office, drill and practice work and sometimes to engage in online classroom environments In relation to digital technologies used for homework, Davies and Eynon (2013) reported similarly narrow uses of digital technologies for learning. Uses included Excel for tables and graphs, and PowerPoint and word processors. They also noted the use of revision sites and some use of virtual learning environments

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

75

to access homework. This reflects Cranmer’s earlier findings (2006) that uses of digital technologies for homework were often limited to using the Internet as a reference tool and for revision. Overall, this brief snapshot of the literature has provided a mixed picture of how applications of digital technologies are being used in classrooms, either teacher-led or self-directed by young people, as reported through a number of mainly small-scale studies carried out in schools. What the studies appear to show is that while uses of digital technologies and classes remain predominantly mundane, there are pockets of more innovative, interesting uses occurring within both teacher-led and independent study emerging. The broader question, therefore, is how to support and encourage teachers to make more of the opportunities that digital technologies can offer for teaching and learning within classrooms to facilitate these innovative uses in inclusive ways. This question is particularly relevant when considering previous research about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies in mainstream schools where provision and experiences may be similar.

Disabled Children’s Types of Engagement Comparatively, there is much less previous research that has considered disabled children’s typical uses of digital technologies in schools, particularly research carried out with disabled children that considers their own uses and experiences. In the study carried out by Lidström et al. (2012), noted earlier, the researchers compared digital activities for school carried out by disabled young people with physical impairments – with and without computer-based ATDs – with activities carried out by generic participants. The survey sets out what are considered to be typical activities in Sweden and asked disabled children to grade these on a fivepoint scale to show how often these activities are carried out. These findings are very useful for providing an overview of the typical activities that these disabled students are engaging in regularly. The first percentage indicates responses by children who use an assistive technology device to access their computer, the second percentage, those who do not. Responses showed that typical activities are writing (72.2 per cent/80.3 per cent), searching for information (57.9 per cent/73.4 per cent), doing homework (48.4 per cent/24.5 per cent), making presentations (38.1 per cent/34.2 per cent), doing practice exercises (35.2 per cent/17.8 per cent), creating images or music/movies (24 per cent/14 per cent); emailing teachers (17.6 per cent/17.7 per cent) and connecting with students in other schools (2.4 per cent/3.8 per cent). The results show that writing and

76

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

searching for information are the most popular activities. Interestingly, the researchers found that disabled children with or without computer-based ATDs as a group had more limited participation in educational activities where technology is used than by generic children. The authors were mystified by this given that a further recent study (Lidström et al., 2010) had shown that physically disabled students use the computer both more frequently and for a wider range of activities than children from the general population. They call for more research to explore physically disabled young people’s digital participation in and out-of-school settings, in particular the role played by digital skills in this. A useful contribution to this area is the recent systematic and comprehensive literature review of the benefits of using digital technologies by disabled young people carried out by Lidström and Hemmingson (2014). Analyses included children with motor, speech, visual and hearing impairment. The authors found that most previous studies focus on uses of specific teaching and learning interventions or trials rather than considering disabled children’s typical daily uses as are the focus in this book. There is also previous research about uses of specialist assistive technologies. These studies are helpful for considering the positive impact that technology can have on disabled children’s teaching and learning, but less so for examining disabled children’s daily engagement and experiences with technology on the ground. Lidström and Hemmingson (2014) conclude in the paper that many of the previous studies show that digital technologies are being used narrowly as assistive technologies rather than as broader educational tools. Consequently, some studies show that disabled children are disappointed with this state of affairs and the limited uses of digital technologies in schools compared with how they would like to use them. The authors note also that there is little evidence that digital technologies are being used in ways that could support inclusion either through learning tasks or in social interactions. They call for further research to show how digital technologies can be used more broadly in education as ‘powerful’ educational tools rather than solely as assistive technologies for physically disabled youngsters. Nevertheless, they also note the complexity of the issues and that ‘This complexity is also a reason why there is limited evidence of ICT use in schools by students with physical disabilities’ (p. 265) which may explain the lack of research generally in the area. Where research does exist, dissatisfaction with how digital technologies are being used by disabled children in schools is a common theme. Brodin’s (2010) research with parents and Adam, a fifteen-year-old disabled young person with motor disabilities, provides insights into uses in classrooms indirectly through

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

77

parental perspectives for the most part. Adam, fifteen, described his uses of digital technologies as mainly for sending files and assignments to and from school via email. The research found that parents identified computers as potentially useful tools in school but were then disappointed by how they were being used by teachers and schools. Parents noted the traditional ways in which computers were deployed, often serving as typewriters only. They also were critical of the lack of computer use for communication or as educational tools compared with the frequency of uses at home. Some of the parents pointed to teachers’ underdevelopment in terms of digital pedagogies, their lack of digital skills and competence generally and the need for time to update their digital skills and competencies. Other projects do exist which consider disabled children’s uses of digital technologies but these frequently relate to the evaluation of particular software or hardware; or as mentioned earlier, intervention studies intended to improve specific learning outcomes such as literacy (Hayhoe et al., 2012). Other examples focus on communication, organization and social skills (Sultana and Hayhoe, 2013); learning and independence (O’Malley et al., 2013). For a more in-depth account, see Passey (2013) and the ICT4i report (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2013). These studies are important but have not been set out in detail here as they do not provide insights into the typical situation for disabled children using digital technologies in situ in schools.

Illustrative Project: Children’s Perspectives on Types of Engagement In relation to digital engagement, the disabled young people talked about the broad range of activities they carry out using digital technologies in and out of school for learning. At school, typical activities include carrying out research on the Internet using, for example, Wikipedia and Google; using Pages or Microsoft Word for writing; using Keynote or PowerPoint to create or access presentations sent by teachers; accessing textbooks; accessing revision websites and apps; and watching YouTube videos on whiteboards. These uses were more mundane and appeared to be using technology to shore up traditional teaching methods. Less usually, some of the children talked of using digital technologies in potentially more innovative ways. This included constructing sentences in French to be spoken by Sock Puppets1 and Puppet Pals2 on iPads; practising French pronunciation using a speech programme; https​:/​/ap​​ps​.ap​​ple​.c​​om​/gb​​/app/​​sock-​​puppe​​ts​-co​​mplet​​​e​/id5​​47666​​894 https​:/​/ap​​ps​.ap​​ple​.c​​om​/gb​​/app/​​puppe​​t-​ pal​​s​-hd/​​​id342​​07654​6

1 2

78

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

and using Premier Pro for creative media, Moviemaker to improve sports performance, Twitter to access revision tasks, Prezi to create collaborative presentations and the Sibelius app for music composition.3 Laura, sixteen, showed how a combination of technology plus assistive technology enabled her to take part in creative media activities, her favourite subject. […] But in the TV side we have to actually go out filming, like scenes and then actually edit them in Premierpro and because the school have got like an optical mouse, which is basically like a little window that comes up and that enlarges it, um that’s really helped with the editing, cos you have to edit like really detailed things.

Each of the participants was asked if they had experience of coding given that the new computing curriculum was introduced in September 2014, around the time of the initial interviews. They all gave a negative response. One young person, Simon, seventeen, in School B spoke of working collaboratively with others using technology. He described using Dropbox and Prezi to collaborate on a project that he carried out at both school and at home. Int: Anything . . . . Do you have projects where you work together? Simon: Yeah it’s either Dropbox, I mean basically for our business exam, our second one this year, it required us to get a load of research about individual businesses, so what we did was, we all took a business each, found the news articles and then put it onto Dropbox in our own group folder, so we could just go in and take out the relevant bits and pieces. You can do it at school, at home, whenever really, all you need is an Internet connection. And they have, there’s a website called Prezi. They use that for group presentations where again anyone can be working on it at the same time, you can make amendments as and when.

The youngsters said that digital technologies were also used in exams and for assessment more generally if children were able to carry out the assessment without the support of a teaching assistant. Jem, seventeen, in School B, for example, said that laptops were allowed in exams but not iPads in his school. Jem: It’s it depends on your sort of like needs, um. I have the option of doing it on the laptop and, I used it for about half my GCSEs, depending on what sort of subject they were. Things like maths, it’s just much easier to write them so. But this year I just used my laptop for all of them because, well not maths. There’s like specific exam ones which you know have nothing on them. http:​/​/www​​.sibe​​lius.​​com​/p​​roduc​​ts​/av​​id​_sc​​orch/​​​index​​.html​

3

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

79

Other children use laptops with added assistive software in exams. For example, Laura, sixteen, School B, said that she had taken an exam using a specific ‘exam laptop with SuperNova’. She had also taken exams where she dictated her answers and these were written up by a ‘scribe’ or teaching assistant. Siobhan, fourteen, in School C also said that she had been able to use a laptop in a controlled assessment for science. The exam had required her to search for appropriate websites. The teaching assistant then had to identify the site and copy it into the assessment for Siobhan. Siobhan said that she was also able to carry out assessed coursework using USB memory sticks that was returned to her as a Word file which she could then translate into Braille. Examples show that digital technologies can support young people in exams and for assessment more generally but there remain examples where teaching assistants are still needed in situ. The young people also spoke of their digital technology uses for homework. Again, Internet searches seemed common, particularly using Wikipedia and Google. Rachel, fourteen, School A, said that she had recently searched for images for an art project. Some homework was accessed through the virtual learning environment. Revision sites were also popular among the youngsters, particularly just before exams and tests. Homework was typically written up on computers. Jem, seventeen, School B, said he had been using the Internet a lot lately to identify which university he would like to go to and had completed his Universities and Colleges Admissions Service application online. Simon, seventeen, in School B reported using social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to discuss homework with his peers. Some of the uses of digital technologies reported earlier incorporate assistive technologies or inbuilt accessibility settings to enable the disabled children to carry out various learning activities. Within the findings there are examples of digital technologies being used creatively to enable the person to do something they could not otherwise achieve. Uses include children changing the contrast on iPads to suit their preferences; photographing images to magnify them; reading textbooks; recording notes to speak text aloud; enlarging keyboard letters on touchscreen; zooming in; accessing whiteboard content; and as in the example provided by Laura earlier, video editing. However, there are other examples whereby children are using inbuilt accessibility settings/assistive technologies to overcome a lack of inclusive pedagogy. This emerged in the interviews and particularly within the classroom observations. These issues will be discussed further in Chapter 6 in relation to teachers. Activities also supported friendships and social activities in and out of school. Activities included using social media, such as Facebook or Twitter, watching

80

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

comic videos, playing games on mobile phones (e.g. flappy birds), and listening to music and sports news. Jem, seventeen, in School B gave a typical response. Int: . . . What do you like about Facebook? Jem: Um, well just that, I guess, well everyone likes Facebook really, you keep in touch with people and organising things and stuff like that really.

In general, the young people’s accounts show that a range of activities are carried out for learning in relation to activities in class, for assessment, homework and socializing. Typical school-related uses tend to be unexciting, using technology to support pedagogies that are more traditional. However, there are apps being introduced by both teachers and the young people themselves that facilitate learning in potentially more innovative and collaborative ways. Social media is also used for communication. Positively, some of the uses of digital technologies have become possible because of the inbuilt accessibility settings or adjunctive assistive technologies, as in the example from Laura of creative media. The findings also show that complementary support remains needed for some youngsters from teaching assistants in exams with or without technology being a part of the process.

Children and Disabled Children’s Attitudes to Digital Technologies to Support Education and Learning in Schools Children’s Attitudes Generally Following from access and types of engagement, it is also important to carefully consider children’s own experiences with and perspectives on technology. Within this, it is essential to resist the assumption that children are seamlessly and positively using technology all of the time. In other words, it is essential to question the assumption that all children and young people are ‘digital natives’ as Prensky famously termed it (2001). While Prensky’s catchphrase has entered many people’s consciousness as something they recognize when they see children using digital technologies, a growing evidence base challenges these ideas. To broadly summarize Prensky’s view, he used the term ‘digital natives’ to identify age as the defining characteristic of how children and adults use digital technologies. Prensky argued that young people’s brains are more flexible and that they fundamentally think and process information differently to older generations preferring to receive information quickly and by graphics

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

81

rather than text. They are also able to multitask while functioning best when networking. They need and expect instant gratification and reward. There is much evidence to contest these ideas. Those who defend this hypothesis tend to assume that an entire generation is homogenous in their online attributes in terms of specific learning style, frequency and type of technology use and/or learning preferences (Bennett et al., 2008). The notion of the digital negative also assumes high levels of expertise. Yet, research has shown much variation in ‘how and why’ young people use digital technologies that has highlighted the complexity of these issues and the need to challenge assumptions (Cranmer, 2013; Davies and Eynon, 2013; Helsper and Eynon, 2010). This is the case not only in middle- and low-income countries where access to digital technologies can be limited but also in high-income countries. In a key paper based on research carried out in the UK, for example, Helsper and Eynon analysed responses from 2,350 participants, 14 and older, from data collected for the 2007 Oxford Internet Survey to compare generational differences (2010). The results showed that generational difference is just one variable to explain activities online. In addition, other influences that are important for determining digital technologies’ uses include breadth of use, experience, gender and educational level. It is important then to take a more nuanced view of children’s attitudes to digital technologies and challenge the myth of the ‘digital native’ by exploring research that considers children’s attitudes to technology, both positively and negatively. On the positive front, the large-scale benchmarking survey of European schools, carried out with nine- to eighteen-year-olds in twenty-seven countries found that the overwhelming majority of students were positive or very positive in relation to uses of digital technologies for learning (European Commission, 2013). Participants reported that technology was able to enhance different learning processes such as focus and concentration, trying harder, understanding, remembering, autonomy and collaboration in addition to improving the atmosphere in classrooms generally. In addition, 70–75 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that it was fun to use computers and that they help to prepare them for ‘future adult life’. Other smaller scale studies have found young people expressing similar benefits. For example, Ditzler et al. (2016) found that among eleven- to fourteen-year-olds, most young people were positive about technology and specifically about the interactivity, convenience, facility for research and the attributes of some apps that they deemed useful for studying. In addition, respondents reported benefits in terms of increased productivity, freedom and independence provided by having their own tablets. Benefits such

82

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

as convenience and usability were also reported in research carried out by Huang et al. (2012). In relation to how digital technologies can increase young people’s motivation to learn specifically, Ciampa (2013) investigated how Malone and Lepper’s (1987) taxonomy of motivation framework could be applied to learning with mobile devices. She interviewed young people between the ages of eleven and twelve and their teachers as part of a case study within a school in Canada. The results highlighted six ways through which the benefits of using mobile devices could increase motivation: 1. challenge (young people enjoyed the challenge and immediate feedback that came from mobile apps and games); 2. control (young people enjoyed having more control to carry out tasks at their own pace); 3. sensory and cognitive curiosity (young people said that they like using tablets because they can adapt them to their own preferences both in terms of learning and through the flexibility to use in different ways in different environments); 4. competition (young people enjoyed trying to improve their own performance as measured by the immediate feedback provided by apps); 5. cooperation (the class teacher reported that using mobile devices acted as a leveller could promote inclusion and improve cooperation); 6. recognition (the teacher integrated mobile devices into the class in ways which allowed young people to present to others and acknowledge their achievements). The results are based on a single case study, therefore ungeneralizable, and neglect to examine whether mobile devices can demotivate learners. Even so, the study is interesting in providing a framing for how and why mobile devices can potentially increase young people’s motivation for learning. The findings complement research carried out in 2004 in a large-scale mixed methods study by Passey and Rogers (2004). The study showed clear evidence that digital technologies can have a positive effect upon learners, teachers and learning where appropriate pedagogical approaches are used with it. The authors of the study noted that digital technologies enable a ‘multisensory approach’ to teaching and learning which can support children’s different learning preferences and self-directed learning and enable young people to feel more in control of their learning. They can also be used to bridge home and school and enable learners to continue activities outside school while also supporting communication between young

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

83

people and their teachers. Nevertheless, long-term impacts on achievement are not always apparent, perhaps due to the difficulties of measurement as outlined in the chapter (Livingstone, 2012; Passey, 2013). The findings set out in the chapter show that many positive benefits are experienced by children using digital technologies. Nevertheless, not all young people are as enthusiastic about their uses. In particular, it has been found that children have mixed views about using digital technologies for learning. For example, Ditzler et al. (2016) found that the children in their study had mixed views due to technical difficulties, problems with connectivity, digital skills and competencies, and anxieties about losing work. A minority of students did not like using tablets at all. This study is not alone. Blikstad-Balas and Davies (2017) found a range of perspectives and experiences among young people in their study. While some young people talked of benefits similar to those listed here, these tended to be mixed in with comments that are more ambivalent. Some students were clearly more enthusiastic about using digital technologies than others either across the board or for specific activities. They preferred to carry out notetaking and revision by hand on paper rather than using a tablet with stylus. This was because they believed that these actions improved their retention of content and could hone their handwriting, a skill essential for assessment. Moreover, while some of the participants said that they would like to use technology more for learning in schools, others were disappointed that it appeared contrived, not always useful, lacked variety and could be boring. Some commented that teachers were often reticent to use technology in their lessons. This reflects findings by Clarke and Luckin (2013) who found in their study that teachers do not use digital technologies in many lessons and this leads to young people believing that the opportunities provided by having tablets are wasted. In two studies, children were concerned about storing their work safely to avoid the risk of losing valuable work (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017; Ditzler et al., 2016). Even so, Clarke and Luckin found that participants were mostly keen to retain 1:1 provision in their schools but keen to exercise control about when and how technology was used rather than having this being decided for them by teachers. An issue raised in previous research is whether mobile devices used in class and during homework can distract young people. Results show differences in perception and experiences of this. The European survey of schools noted that ‘losing track of time when learning with computers’ is one of the attitudes least reported by young people (European Commission, 2013). Nevertheless, smaller scale studies have found that young people do consider it a challenge to stay

84

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

on track with learning-related tasks when using mobile devices and laptops (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017; Ditzler et al., 2016). Overall, the research does suggest that many young people do experience positive uses of digital technologies on the whole while some issues do arise that undermine the benefits. However, if strategies are in place to support children and teaching and learning led by skilled teachers, then digital technologies can provide useful opportunities for learning.

Disabled Children’s Attitudes As in the areas of access and types of engagement, there is limited research that specifically considers disabled children’s own views and attitudes about using digital technologies to support education and learning (Murchland and Parkyn, 2010). Murchland and Parkyn carried out a study of five children and their parents/support worker to explore the perspectives and experiences of disabled children for using laptops with adjunctive hard/software for schoolwork. In particular, they considered the factors underpinning the adoption or abandonment of computer-based technologies. They found many positives for disabled children including the social value that using ‘cool’ technologies could bring with their associated capacity to enhance self-esteem and independence. Other benefits included enabling disabled children to save time, reduce their physical writing load, keep up with tasks in classrooms and access the curriculum more generally. Both children and parents saw technology as an essential part of school life. Even so, providing disabled young people with access to technology presented challenges in terms of funding, reliable infrastructure and technical support. In addition, technologies that were out of date quickly became ‘uncool’ and expectations were not always met. The researchers noted the need for an ongoing programme to update computers and match them to children’s ages and requirements as with the other tools and resources in school such as desks, chairs and books. They argue that this support needs to be timely and carried out in consultation with appropriate services, parents and other carers to match the requirements of the child to the technology based on the child’s curriculum demands. It is argued that it is important that teachers are also part of the consultation. They argue that not to provide disabled children with the updated equipment that they need is an issue of equity and social justice given that when disabled children are left behind, they can easily become socially excluded in turn leading to lack of self-esteem and worth. They also point out that where technology is located is important as a need to connect to power supplies can

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

85

easily exclude disabled children from the group if they are using technology more frequently than their peers are. In a further project, Brodin (2010) included interviews with parents and an interview with Adam, a fifteen-year-old disabled child (with motor disabilities), to explore how digital technologies might influence disabled children to provide equal opportunities in school. The scarceness of research in this area makes this interview with Adam notable and worthy of discussion here. Adam uses a specially adapted keyboard to access the computer using his feet. The equipment is provided through the school. At the time of the project, Adam was the only child in his class with a computer. He also has a teaching assistant to record notes. He said that the notes are detailed and he would not have the time and energy to record these notes himself. Unfortunately, if he encountered a problem, the class teacher struggled to support him with the technology. Moreover, the support technician was unable to resolve technical problems that Adam encountered. Adam questioned if the technician was in the right job! The interview with Adam raises some interesting points for discussion. First, it seems likely that some children like Adam will always need some form of assistive technology; tablets may not present a complete solution. However, a 1:1 scheme in the school is likely to benefit Adam and other disabled children because he would not stand out as being different to the other children if they were all using technology regularly in class. As mentioned in Chapter 3, stigma is an important concern for disabled children and more research is needed to understand the potential of tablet computers to reduce this and help children to fit in. Teacher and technical support could also be improved. Moreover, some children may be able to take notes more efficiently themselves using tablets and class teachers can be given guidance to enable them to support disabled children more productively. Brodin also spoke to the parents of disabled children who were positive about their children using digital technologies to build technological competence as they considered this to be of importance for their children’s learning and in the future and also to enhance concentration and learn new words and concepts. In another project, Carpe et al. (2010) explored how eight children between the ages of eight and eighteen perceive uses of portable writing and communication devices. These include computers with assistive hardware and software (e.g. joysticks, switches, voice input software and Wivik on-screen keyboards). The researchers found that benefits experienced by the children included increased autonomy, self-confidence, productivity and increased participation in both learning and social activities in classrooms. Negative outcomes included overuse

86

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

of technology that could lead to its rejection, dislike for the technology and decreased productivity which also contributed to non-use. It was found that teacher and parent support was crucial to encourage children to keep using technology.

Illustrative Project: Children’s Attitudes In the interviews, children talked about the benefits of using digital technologies and the aspects of this that were less positive. They also talked of the opportunities and barriers to using digital technologies for learning. Overall, they were very positive about technology. As we saw earlier, some of their uses were typical for many young people combined with assistive technology uses not usually needed by generic children. In particular, they were very enthusiastic about tablet computers compared with laptops and textbooks. Hardware was clearly important – carrying a tablet potentially provided an alternative to carrying heavier textbooks and laptops as it was transportable and usable in cars, and said to be good to read on. Tablets were also reportedly simple and easy to use. One of the children, Laura, sixteen, School B, said that she found it much quicker and simpler to use her tablet in class than laptop. Siobhan, fourteen, School C, said that she liked the wealth of different things tablets are able to do and that she would not be able to survive without the Internet. Nigel, thirteen, School B, talked of how he found using tablets much more fun than reading on textbooks because of the interactivity and the enjoyment of swiping rather than turning pages. Nigel: Um, the things like that you can get on the Internet and it’s just in front of you and that it makes it a bit more fun than just reading a textbook. Int: How would you describe that as fun? Nigel: Because it’s more interactive and you’re like involved with, it’s not just turning pages, like things that you can do with your fingers and like swipe, it’s just more fun to turn pages.

As noted earlier, young people made frequent use of the inbuilt accessibility settings alongside using the mainstream attributes of tablets to suit their own preferences. The young people found magnification useful because it was easier and quicker to use on a tablet than a laptop with an added magnification programme. They also found it useful to enlarge the text using the zoom function. Being provided with PowerPoint presentations ahead of classes meant that the young people could get access to them via tablets and be able to view the content

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

87

alongside their peers. The camera was particularly useful to take a picture of an image that was difficult to see in a textbook or on the whiteboard and then enlarge it and hold the tablet closer (made easier because of its weight); and change contrasts in order to see the content. In addition, Laura, sixteen, School B, found it particularly useful to be able to enlarge the keyboard size on the screen to be able to type with it so that she can see what she is writing: ‘Because if I write [by hand ] I can hardly see my own writing’. It is also useful for Laura that she can enlarge the work she has typed. It was very clear in the interview that Laura greatly valued her own independence and found tablets particularly useful to enhance this. She said, ‘. . . but now I’ve got my iPad, I feel very, more independent, which is what I want to do and what other people want me to do as well’. Similarly, Fern described the usefulness of touchscreens for finding the mouse which otherwise she can find difficult to identify. Fern: Cos like sometimes, you know it sometimes goes to a white background, like the mouse blends into the background. With a touchscreen you can just like touch it.

Siobhan, fourteen, is blind and said that she enjoys using a tablet computer and an iPod touch. Even so, she continues to need to use a laptop and Braille equipment. To access the curriculum therefore, a teaching assistant needs to translate PowerPoint presentations into a linear format before transferring into Braille. In School A, a teaching assistant set up a dedicated laptop with detachable tablet in advance of classes for Fern, fourteen, and Rachel, fourteen. Rachel said that she found it useful that once she had picked up the laptop every day, everything was already on there and ready for her to use. More independently, two of the older boys, Jem, seventeen, and Simon, seventeen (School B), had developed their own ways of using tablets for learning generally and revision. They both found it helpful to record notes and play them back to themselves. Jem: [. . .] And then for revision I, there’s this setting whereby you can listen to your notes back, so a lot of my revision consists of the iPad reading notes to me that I’ve written on. [. . .] It is easy to sort of you know switch, so often I’d read it as well as it being read to me so that it’s sort of double on me if you like.

Alongside the positive aspects of uses of digital technologies talked about by the young people, there existed barriers to and frustrations when using. Some were related to disability but not all. Some were related to hardware; for example, Rachel said that when she removed the tablet screen from the laptop/tablet,

88

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

it sometimes shut down. Jem, seventeen, was irritated with the time it took to load documents on the computer. Although he prefers using an iPad, he said that he struggles to add textbooks to the iPad because of space shortage and not understanding how to save to the cloud. Simon, also seventeen, said that he would find it difficult to write a longer assignment on a touchscreen, hence the need for a detachable keyboard. In addition, he gets frustrated when the computer crashes and error messages appear for no reason. Alongside the barriers to using digital technologies for learning, there were issues related specifically to using technology to access the curriculum. For example, Siobhan said that she found it frustrating that documents prepared in PowerPoint had to be reformatted into linear order for translation into Braille. Laura, sixteen, would like to use digital technologies more in school but found that teachers were used to enlarging worksheets and had not yet adopted digital practices for this. In addition, some teachers prefer that Laura use a laptop rather than tablet in lessons and one teacher will only share PowerPoint presentations on memory stick rather than through email necessitating the need for Laura to carry both laptop and tablet in school on those days. Nigel, thirteen, found that the technologies provided did not work as seamlessly as they might, but that this did not upset him. He said, ‘I’m used to it’. When this happened, a teaching assistant would help. This occurred in one of the lessons observed whereby the teacher was using an animation of different foodstuffs for the children to call out vocabulary in German. The animation failed to work on Nigel’s iPad which was close to him so that he could see it. Instead the teaching assistant whispered the words in English so that Nigel could participate. There are also instances where children talked of the impact of using digital technologies in classes when other children were not allowed to. Fern, fourteen, appeared to feel stigmatized sometimes by this. Int: Does that bother you at all? Fern: Sometimes, cos like I feel like everyone’s looking at me, cos I have it and like.

Fitting in with peers is clearly very important to other children too, including Laura who said that she likes her iPad because it affords her more independence and she feels like one of the other children. Int: What do you like most about the iPad? Laura: I like it because it’s more independent for me. I feel like just an ordinary person when I’m using it, because I like to be a tiny bit different, but I don’t

Children’s Uses and Experiences of Digital Technologies for Learning

89

like to be so much different that everyone treats me differently. Um, I like to be just like a normal girl sort of thing in the mix, which I quite like. Um and having an iPad and my friends have iPads as well, it just makes me feel like I’m one of them basically.

Talking to this group of young people showed the importance of digital technologies for learning generally and because of the access they provide to the curriculum. The barriers appeared to be mainly related to technical issues, class teachers not recognizing young people’s preferences and the risk of standing out from peers when using digital technologies differently to them. If the situation is to improve, it is clear that more technical support is needed alongside better devices that work more effectively. Class teachers need to be more aware and skilled at recognizing disabled children’s preferences in relation to technology along with more inclusive digital pedagogies that avoid stigmatizing young people. From this data it seems that 1:1 schemes are particularly effective for helping young people to fit in when using the same technologies as their peers and friends.

Conclusions In this chapter, I noted the lack of comparable evidence about children’s access to and uses of digital technologies globally and how this includes research with disabled children. I draw on the evidence that does exist to show the disparities that exist between children and how these inequalities often reflect socio-economic differences within and between low-, middle- and high-income countries. Tablet use is growing in high-income countries, and their versatility is making them popular with children and their teachers. I also set out evidence that suggests that disabled young people may make more use of digital technologies than generic children but with the added caveat that results are mixed and more research is needed. The illustrative case showed that the group of disabled young people in the project had access to a wide range of technologies influenced by school policies. Types of engagement with digital technologies for learning in schools tended to be rather mundane; however, there were pockets of more creative uses emerging in video production and using specific apps. There is a gap in research about disabled children’s engagement. Nevertheless, the research that does exist suggests that disabled children use digital technologies in class more as assistive technologies than as broader educational tools. This suggests that their potential remains unexplored by teachers and young people generally.

90

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Moreover, generic and disabled children said that they were dissatisfied by digital activities in schools in relation to both frequency and types of engagement. The children within the illustrative project broadly reflected these findings. They used digital technologies for activities such as using word processing packages for writing while tablets were used frequently as assistive technologies. There were pockets of more innovative uses deploying specific apps and video editing software. In relation to attitudes towards technology, research carried out with generic children suggested that some are more enthusiastic than others, although many see the benefits for learning. While there is limited research that considers the views of disabled children currently, one project suggested that disabled children experience them as ‘cool’ and they can enable them to become more independent. However, infrastructure, funding and technical support need to improve to make the most of what is provided. Disabled children in the illustrative project experienced similar frustrations to those found in previous research. This included technical issues, skills challenges, hardware issues, class teachers not adopting digital practices or recognizing their preferences, and creating stigma. Disabled children also talked of feeling stigmatized when using digital technologies in situations where other children were not allowed to. In the next chapter, I will explore the fourth element of digital inclusion, digital skills and competencies, to ensure that disabled children have the skills they need to make effective uses of technologies.

5

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

Introduction It became clear in the previous chapter that digital inclusion amounts to much more than simply having access to digital technologies; it also rests on children’s types of engagement and attitudes to digital technologies. Similarly, to be able to make the best uses of rapidly changing digital technologies, disabled children need adaptable skills and competencies to enable them to achieve what they want to do and need to do to support learning and the social aspects of their everyday lives. Therefore, digital skills and competencies are the important fourth marker of digital inclusion alongside access, types of engagement and attitudes to technology (Helsper, 2012; Livingstone and Helsper, 2007; Selwyn, 2006). Digital skills can be developed through formal, informal and non-formal opportunities for learning within and outside of school. Much debate has taken place about what the skills that are needed are and how best to develop them. They have been variously called ‘digital literacy’, ‘digital capabilities’, ‘media literacy’ and ‘Internet literacy’ reflecting their different origins, purposes and uses. There are many overlapping aspects and links between them (Gillen and Barton, 2010). As Lankshear and Knobel (2008) point out, ‘the most immediately obvious facts about accounts of digital literacy are that there are many of them and that there are significantly different kinds of concepts on offer’ (p. 2). With this in mind, the next section will discuss how policymakers and other stakeholders have sought to encourage the development of digital skills and competencies.

92

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Digital Skills and Competencies Frameworks A range of organizations have developed frameworks – some of which have been integrated into schools’ curricula – aimed at the improvement of children’s digital skills and competencies. The frameworks comprise multifaceted ranges of skills and competencies that institutions are encouraged to support children to develop and which in due course can be assessed. They often appear similar, which is not surprising given that they tend to build on international research and analyses of previous models. They therefore constitute something of a convergence in what are seen to be the key digital skills and competencies required by today’s children and young people to support their current educational needs and longer-term transition into employment. A key example is the recent framework developed by UNESCO (2018b).1 This built on the European Commission’s Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.1) (Carretero et al., 2017). The UNESCO framework is an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goal targets set out to enhance young people’s education and provide the appropriate skills for employment (UNESCO, 2018b). It has been developed in line with a call to countries to support the development of digital skills and competencies; and to evaluate young people’s skills to ensure that everyone achieves a minimum level. UNESCO defines ‘digital literacy’ as ‘the ability to access, manage, understand, integrate, communicate, evaluate and create information safely and appropriately through digital technologies for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship. It includes competencies that are variously referred to as computer literacy, ICT literacy, information literacy and media literacy’ (p.6). The framework sets out a detailed overview of elements as set out in Table 5.1. The framework was developed to provide a strategy to enable internationally comparable data and evaluation with which to monitor progress of the Sustainable Development Goal target (2018.2

Problematizing Digital Skills and Competencies Frameworks According to Manos Antoninis, director of the ‘Global Education Monitoring Report’, and Silvia Montoya, director of the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, the challenge when developing the framework was to ensure a broad definition of digital literacy and skills that could be adapted to reflect different country contexts see http:​/​/uis​​.unes​​co​.or​​g​/sit​​es​/de​​fault​​/file​​s​/doc​​ument​​s​/ip5​​1-​ glo​​bal​-f​​ramew​​ork​-r​​efere​​nce​-d​​igita​​l-​ lit​​​ eracy​​-skil​​ls​-20​​18​-en​​.pdf 2 see http:​/​/uis​​.unes​​co​.or​​g​/en/​​blog/​​globa​​l-​ fra​​mewor​​k-​ mea​​sure-​​dig​it​​al​-li​​terac​y 1

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

93

Table 5.1  UNESCO Digital Literacy Competence Areas and Competencies Competence area

Competencies

0. Fundamentals of hardware and software

0.1 Basic knowledge of hardware such as turning on/off and charging, locking devices 0.2 Basic knowledge of software such as user account and password management, login and how to do privacy settings 1.1 Browsing, searching and filtering data, information and digital content 1.2 Evaluating data, information and digital content 1.3 Managing data, information and digital content 2.1 Interacting through digital technologies 2.2 Sharing through digital technologies 2.3 Engaging in citizenship through digital technologies 2.4 Collaborating through digital technologies 2.5 Netiquette 2.6 Managing digital identity 3.1 Developing digital content 3.2 Integrating and re-elaborating digital content 3.3 Copyright and licenses 3.4 Programming 4.1 Protecting devices 4.2 Protecting personal data and privacy 4.3 Protecting health and well-being 4.4 Protecting the environment 5.1 Solving technical problems 5.2 Identifying needs and technological responses 5.3 Creatively using digital technologies 5.4 Identifying digital competence gaps 5.5 Computational thinking 6. Career-related competencies refer to the knowledge and skills required to operate specialized hardware/software for a particular field, such as engineering design software and hardware tools, or the use of learning management systems to deliver fully online or blended courses.

1. Information and data literacy 2. Communication and collaboration

3. Digital content creation 4. Safety

5. Problem solving

6. Career-related competencies

UNESCO, 2018b, p. 7.

and priorities. The aim to create a framework that can be localized responds to criticisms that global frameworks have typically not taken account of the cultural, political and social differences between countries (Brown, 2017). Access to technology is uneven, and there are vast inequalities between different economies. A recent report by the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (BCSD, 2017a), for example, shows that 52 per cent of the global population lacks access to the Internet. The report emphasizes the marked inequalities that exist between countries and calls for gaps in equity to be urgently addressed.

94

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Related to these criticisms, previous frameworks have also been derided for citing skills somewhat narrowly in order to produce appealing and usable models that fail to capture the complexity of the different contexts in different countries and regions; and the different perspectives that exist about what it is important for children to learn. The ‘New Media Consortium Horizon Report on Higher Education’ provides examples of how the local context can impact on what is needed within different countries. Some countries are more small business-oriented than others with a stronger emphasis on entrepreneurialism and job skills; some have strong state control of media; others emphasize the production of local materials rather than importing from abroad (2017). Existing frameworks can be superficial and reductive, potentially misleading in their apparent simplicity (Brown, 2017). They can mask the sociopolitical drivers, and deeper ideological and philosophical questions that educators and children need to think and learn about. They can unintentionally close down debates about how far children should or can be prepared for employment in the future and what the purpose of education is and should be. Moreover, there is too little information provided about how frameworks are developed in relation to validity, in terms of how digital skills and competencies are conceptualized; and reliability, specifically whether consensus was reached when assigning digital skills and competencies to categories. Importantly for the focus of this book, frameworks are often normative and make no reference to the complementary skills and competencies that disabled children typically develop using digital technologies to support their own learning. By contrast, the BCSD (2017b) defines skills and competencies holistically as the ‘combination of behaviours, expertise, know-how, work habits, character traits, dispositions and critical understandings’ understood as present on ‘a graduated continuum from basic functional skills to higher level, specialist skills’ (Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, 2017b, p. 4). The BCSD report argues that individuals need to understand the underlying factors within the digital environment and have agency to be responsive and flexible in the face of ongoing change rather than learning a narrow set of skills determined by current demands. Therefore, it may be unrealistic to be prescriptive about the particular skills needed in order to measure them given that practices are contextual and situated; and digital technologies typically evolve (Brown, 2017). Moreover, strategy needs to encompass policy, funding and partnership such as the need to build teachers’ skills alongside rigorous evaluation and evidence that responds to the current lack of evaluation of digital skills and competencies: education and training. Potentially the BCSD model may have more flexibility

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

95

to recognize and value the different patterning of disabled children’s digital skill development. As Gillen and Barton (2010) note, ‘Learning is always connected to specific domains of activity – the settings, participants, discourses and dynamics of participation’ (p. 3). Being able to achieve a specific level of digital skill may therefore differ in meaning by different participants as well as between different contexts. Measuring and comparing the achievement of different skills may be inappropriate and unhelpful given that development will be situated and uneven (Alexander et al., 2017). Importantly, the provision of education and the development of skills will be different. There have recently been calls for a ‘critical digital literacy’ in order to challenge the commercial and political interests embedded within digital skills initiatives (Pötzsch, 2019). Pötzsch argues that ‘To prepare pupils for their future lives requires a widest possible contextualization of technology, including issues of exploitation, commodification, and degradation in digital capitalism’ (p. 221). This is an important aspect of digital technology use. It fits well with the call for children’s digital rights as outlined in the introductory chapter. Moreover, it identifies an urgent need for all children to develop an awareness of the wider aspects of the digital environment that goes much further than what is currently on offer from governments, industry and well-intentioned international agencies.

Frameworks in the European Union Despite the valid criticisms of the frameworks, many countries have developed their own models to support and evaluate young people’s skill development. Potentially, local frameworks have the capacity to be relevant to the local context and the cultural, political and social differences between different regions and countries. Within the European Union, the agenda has often been driven by government and industry (EU, N.D.; CBI, 2012). Emphasis on the development of skills and competencies is often seen to be essential for economic recovery and growth within the European Union and to prevent shortages of skilled workers in the future that could undermine competitiveness. The European Commission’s 2020 flagship, Digital Agenda for Europe,3 emphasizes that digital skills and competencies are important for economic recovery and growth within the European Union. It calls for young people, workers and citizens to have the skills that are needed to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. https​:/​/ww​​w​.dcc​​ae​.go​​v​.ie/​​en​-ie​​/comm​​unica​​tions​​/topi​​cs​/Di​​gital​​-Agen​​da​-fo​​r​-Eur​​ope​​/P​​ages/​​defau​​lt​ .as​​px

3

96

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Frameworks in the UK In the UK, there have been a number of different drivers to this agenda, including both the UK government and industry. A key incentive was the call for action from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI, 2012) and especially from the videogames and effects industries (Livingstone and Hope, 2011) which lobbied for the government to address a perceived shortfall in relation to young people’s skills. The government’s response was to introduce a new curriculum for computing for both primary and secondary school children between the ages of five and sixteen in England in 2014 (DfE, 2013). Emphasis within the curriculum is on computer science. Children are taught principles of computation and information, about how digital systems work, and programming. The aim is to teach children digital skills and competencies in order ‘that pupils become digitally literate – able to use, and express themselves and develop their ideas through, information and communication technology – at a level suitable for the future workplace and as active participants in a digital world’ (DfE, 2013, p. 178). While teachers within Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been provided with detailed guidance to accompany the curriculum, no related guidance has been provided for teachers in England. In Ireland, computing has been driven by the Digital Learning Framework for Schools (DfES, 2018); in Scotland, by the Enhancing Learning and Teaching through the use of Digital Technology strategy (Scottish Government, 2016); and in Wales, by the Digital Framework Competence Guide (Welsh Government, 2018). Teachers in England can draw on digital skills and competence frameworks for guidance that have been developed by independent not-for-profit organizations.4 The next section will explore children’s skills and competencies to understand what is known about children and disabled children’s skills generally. As in previous chapters, I will initially discuss generic children’s skills, returning to the focus on disabled children’s skills as soon as possible given their importance to this book. This departure is necessary given the limited research base available about disabled children. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that disabled children have been included within previous research set in mainstream schools without this being recognized or acknowledged. Moreover, the digital skills agenda is of relevance to all children and if there are gaps in research in relation to disabled children, identification is a useful step to addressing them. see South West Grid for Learning https://digital​-literacy​.org​.uk/, for example

4

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

97

Children’s Digital Skills and Competencies The starting point for considering the differences in children’s digital skills and competencies must again be to challenge the idea of children and young people as ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001) as set out in the previous chapter. To recap here, there is clear evidence of differences that exist between children in relation to their uses of digital technologies (Cranmer, 2013; Davies and Eynon, 2013; Helsper and Eynon, 2010). This means that children’s skills cannot be taken for granted and the challenge then is how to develop these appropriately and effectively. A key report for understanding the differences between children is the extensive International Computer and Information Literacy Study (Fraillon et al. 2014) carried out by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). The study aimed to provide participating countries with dependable, comparable data about children’s digital skills and competencies to enable countries to monitor development and progress towards the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). Computer and information literacy (CIL) is defined as ‘an individual’s ability to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in society’ (Fraillon et al. 2013, p. 17). The focus of the study is on children in their eighth year of schooling, around the age of thirteen to fourteen. The aims are to consider variations in CIL within and between countries; factors underpinning student achievement in CIL in relation to schools, education systems and pedagogy; factors underpinning student achievement in CIL in relation to access, familiarity with and self-reported proficiency (self-efficacy) in using computers; and students’ personal and social background factors associated with CIL. According to the report, self-efficacy was explored given the assertion by Bandura (1993) that confidence in carrying out activities strongly influences performance, perseverance, emotion and later study and career choices. Moreover, self-efficacy has impact on learning in computer-based learning environments (Moos and Azevedo, 2009). For the study, data was gathered from 60,000 grade 8 students in more than 3,300 schools from 21 countries or education systems in 2013 alongside data collected from nearly 35,000 teachers in the same schools. Three education systems were included as benchmarking participants: the City of Buenos Aires (Argentina), Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada), and Ontario (Canada). Participating countries were as follows: Australia, the City of Buenos Aires (Argentina), Chile, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hong

98

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Kong SAR, Korea, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway (grade 9), Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada), Ontario (Canada), Poland, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Thailand and Turkey. Data was collected via a computer-based test of CIL that included questions and tasks over a period of one hour designed to assess digital skills across four levels of achievement. This was followed by a thirty-minute questionnaire in order to explore students’ backgrounds, uses of, experiences and attitudes to digital technologies in and out of school. Background factors were considered important given the influence on the development of skills of different home environments and family/friend interactions. In addition to the collection of student data, teachers were asked to complete a thirty-minute questionnaire about their reported uses of and attitudes to technology in teaching, and participation in professional development activities relating to digital pedagogy. The study collected results in relation to gender and students’ socio-economic status, but unfortunately other social markers such as disability and ethnicity are absent. Results show that in relation to country differences, the development of students’ digital skills and competencies is influenced by the general socioeconomic development of the country. There were differences in the ratio of students to computers in schools, possibly influenced by wealth alongside policy initiatives. Countries that had provided more access to computers had enabled students to develop stronger digital skills. Within and across countries, students’ higher socio-economic status was also associated with stronger digital skills. Regular home access to computers was shown to have an important positive effect thereby demonstrating the importance of disparities in the home environment on the development of digital skills. Nevertheless, the impact of more access to digital resources at home was no longer significant when socioeconomic background had been taken into account. The results show that even when young people have equal access to digital technologies, not all students are able to benefit equally from the resources available to them (OECD, 2015). This suggests that schools also need to support children to develop their digital skills and competencies. As the authors of ICILS state, ‘The knowledge, skills, and understandings described in the CIL scale show that, regardless of whether or not we consider young people to be digital natives, we would be naive to expect them to develop CIL in the absence of coherent learning programs’ (Fraillon et al., 2014, p. 257). School’s overall socio-economic context also influenced development of students’ digital skills. In most countries, variables with significant positive association with CIL were as follows: digital resources in the home, students’

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

99

gender (defined as female or male), expected educational attainment, parental educational attainment and occupational status, and the number of books in the home. Interestingly, female students achieved higher CIL results in every country except Turkey and Thailand. Overall, students indicated that they were confident when carrying out basic functions using common digital applications, such as word processing, with female students recording slightly higher scores than males. However, when asked about using more advanced applications, such as multimedia applications and technical aspects, male students recorded more confidence. The mismatch between recorded levels of CIL between females and males in the study compared with their reported levels of self-efficacy is an important finding for other research studies that assess competence based on student’s own assessment of their digital proficiency. The study was repeated in 2018 with twelve countries, including four of the original countries – Chile, Denmark, German and Norway – taking part (Fraillon et al., 2018). The later study placed more emphasis on computational thinking, defined as ‘type of thinking used when programming on a computer or digital device’ (p. xviii), than the original had. Results showed similar results to the 2014 study. There were variations between schools and participating countries in both general digital skills (CIL) and computational thinking (CT). Higher socio-economic background of both students and the socio-economic context of the school continued to positively influence student scores on both CIL and CT. Gender impacted results with females outperforming males on CIL but not on CT. Daily use and experience with computers also positively impacted both CIL and CT as did access to computers at home. As with the 2014 report, access to home computers was less significant when socio-economic background was considered. Drawing on the ICILS main results from the 2014 report, the European Commission emphasized the key role of schools in supporting children’s development of digital skills and competencies given the low level of some children’s skills. The report highlights concern within the European Commission that in nearly all nine participating EU countries, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Croatia and Lithuania, 25 per cent of students have low levels of CIL. The exceptions are the Czech Republic and Denmark. They also point to the lower average CIL among children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and argue that there is a need for educational institutions to be embedding digital skills in pedagogy, curricula and assessment practices. This is particularly the case given that in several countries, where there are comprehensive approaches to teaching about digital

100

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

skills at school, children have higher CIL scores. Moreover, the report highlights concern about a growing digital divide whereby children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds achieve lesser CIL scores. There is also concern about the gender gap that appears between boys and girls and a call to support boys to develop the less technical aspects of their digital skills to the same level as that of the girls given that in all participating EU countries girls outperform boys at basic tasks. The report links these disparities to the close association between CIL and ‘text-based reading skills and productive communication skills’ (p. 10) where girls have consistently achieved higher scores than boys in both cross national and national assessments. The findings set out in relation to the ICILS study complement the EU second Survey of Schools study produced by Deloitte and IPSOS for the European Commission (2019). The Second Survey of Schools: ICT in Education builds on the first Survey of Schools (2013) in relation to access, use and attitudes towards digital technologies in education by surveying students, head teachers, teachers and parents in thirty-one countries: the EU28, Norway, Iceland and Turkey. The project surveyed at least thirty schools at each of the following levels in each country: primary, lower and upper secondary. Unlike the ICILS study that collected data via a computer-based test of CIL including questions and tasks, digital skills and competencies were assessed according to students’ own confidence levels in four areas: safety, communication and collaboration, information and data literacy, and problem-solving. The results showed that in contrast to the CILS results, boys were more confident than girls in most of the competence areas, particularly in problem-solving, information and data literacy, and safety. Female students were more confident when it came to communication and collaboration compared with the boys at level 2 (lower secondary school age) potentially reflecting the ICIL’s finding that girls’ higher achievements in terms of reading skills/communication skills underpin their confidence in these areas online. Boys reported that they engaged more frequently in coding/ programming within lessons than the girls did and consequently said that they felt more confident compared with female students across all levels. However, across all the countries only 3 per cent of level 2 students and 6 per cent of level 3 students said that they frequently engaged in coding activities (e.g. every day or almost every day) which is surprising given the emphasis on coding in European policy (Balanskat and Engelhardt, 2014). These studies show the drivers that exist globally and within the European Union about the development of children’s digital skills and competencies and the key role of schools potentially to address these concerns. Given that these

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

101

studies did not include data collected in the UK, I now turn to other studies to understand the situation. The ‘EU Kids Online’ project does include the UK (Sonck et al., 2011). In this study, survey data was collected face to face with 25,000 9- to 16-year-olds in 25 European countries to explore their online activities, skills and self-efficacy. In line with ICILS, the results show that children from higher socio-economic backgrounds are gaining more digital skills and competencies than children from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Again, these findings suggest a need for greater educational intervention. Boys have slightly more confidence when assessing their level of skills than girls. Younger children have less confidence in their skills than older children and the majority assessed their parents’ skills to be greater than their own. This finding again challenges the notion of the ‘digital native’; only 36 per cent said it is ‘very true that they know more than their parents’. A key finding from the study was that children between the age of eleven and thirteen lack important critical and safety skills. A further study, ‘Net Children Go Mobile. The UK Report’ (Livingstone et al., 2014), draws out UK results in relation to a wider study carried out to assess children’s online access, opportunities, risks and parental mediation in seven European countries. The report compares results from the UK to findings in the broader study and also compares these to findings drawn from the ‘EU Kids Online’ project (Livingstone et al., 2010). The ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ report assesses skills via children’s self-efficacy. The project included 3,500 children between the ages of 9 and 16 who completed a survey face to face in seven countries: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania and UK in 2013–14. Survey completions included 516 children in the UK. Interestingly, children in the UK reported more development of digital skills and competencies than the European average. There were strong age differences in the skills with older teenagers being more confident of using the Internet skills they possess. Boys and children from higher socio-economic backgrounds claimed a greater number of skills suggesting either differences in confidence levels or the need to teach wider skills to girls, younger children and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Smartphone users considered themselves skilled in the use of personal devices and on the whole, children in the UK claimed a similar level of skill or slightly more skills than their European counterparts. In a UK only–based study, the Princes Trust carried out research in 2013 with 1,378 young people in the UK between 15 and 25 years of age using a face-to-face survey in relation to skills and employment (Princes Trust, 2013). Of concern was the finding that only 12 per cent of young people considered their skills to

102

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

be adequate to get the job they wanted. While young people reported confidence when carrying out social activities such as accessing social media sites (64 per cent) and emailing friends (66 per cent) some clearly had concerns about their employability in relation to the level of their digital skills and competencies. The foregoing reports are useful for understanding the differences in extent to which children and young people’s digital skills and competencies are developed alongside factors, such as gender, age and socio-economic background. These underpin variations either in terms of skills or self-efficacy which can in turn influence performance and perseverance according to Bandura (1993). What is notable from the perspective of this book is the lack of attention given to social markers such as disability that could provide accounts of disabled children’s skills and competencies. I will consider the available research in the next section.

Disabled Children’s Digital Skills and Competencies Research that considers disabled children’s digital skills and competencies is scarce. It would be reasonable to assume that some of the studies reported here do include disabled children in their samples as noted earlier but the lack of specific details about disabled children’s skills is unhelpful for the focus here. The literature that does exist tends to focus on interventions designed to develop disabled children and their parents’ skills rather than on evaluation of current skills. For example, in Canada, Good and Fang (2015) report on a programme that is undergoing piloting to support the development of disabled children’s and their parents/carers digital skills and competencies. However, the study does not address the state of disabled children’s skills at the start. Similarly, the Family Fund not-for-profit organization in the UK has developed a useful programme to support parents of disabled and seriously ill children to develop their skills in order to support their children better. The limited research base therefore makes the findings of the illustrative project important, as outlined in the next section.

Illustrative Project – Disabled Children’s Digital Skills and Competencies All of the young people interviewed for the project were mostly positive about their skills. Indeed, Simon, seventeen, School B, said that he considered his skills

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

103

with technology to be better than most people’s and would prepare him well for university. Buying into the notion of the digital native, Siobhan, fourteen, School C, assumes her competence with technology is the result of her age although she does add the caveat that she is not an expert. Siobhan: Oh, I always say to my mum, you’re really wise, mum but it’s a fact that the younger generation know everything about technology. [. . .] I’m not the best. I’m all right with it, but, I’m not an expert.

Similarly, the other youngsters responded that they found using digital technologies straightforward. Like Simon, Laura, sixteen, School B, looks to the future in her responses as she is in the process of transitioning to college. She believes that using technology enables independence which, looking further ahead, will prepare her well for university. Several of the young people reported that they had learnt to touch type in primary school and that this skill was useful for typing up notes and other documents. Some frustrations were noted. Jem, seventeen, and Simon, also seventeen, both at School B, said that they found it difficult to move large documents between devices. Simon said he got annoyed at computer crashes and error messages that seemingly appeared without good reason. Fern, fourteen, School A, was most frustrated when she had forgotten how to do something. Int: It sounds like you’ve got very good computer skills. Do you get frustrated at all, are there things you don’t know how to do? Fern: Yeh. Like sometimes when I don’t know how to do it, I just get frustrated cos I’m like, I know how to do it but I don’t.

Typically, the young people said that they had learnt to use digital technologies through trial and error. Simon, seventeen, School B, said that he had picked it up as he went along and starting to use technology early had been helpful for the development of his skills. Simon: Yeh it’s more I’m just used to it really, because I’ve been doing it for so long, you just kind of pick things up as you go along and little bits and pieces, oh that’s useful.

Siobhan, fourteen, School C, talked of the organic process through which she learns to use specific assistive technologies. This included SuperNova, a speech output system: Siobhan: At first I was like, there’s no way I’m going to be able to do this. Three hours later, I’m doing it.

104

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Unusually among the participants, Jem, seventeen, School B, said that he had been anxious about using technology when he was younger and disinterested, putting him ‘behind’. Jem: Yeh I guess lack of interest, I guess I never really, like I said before like as a young person I was never, too much interest so I guess maybe I was a couple of years behind. Int: Any reason why you were apprehensive? Jem: Um, maybe because they were difficult to enlarge. Cos talking like ten years ago where it, so knowledge, the iPad didn’t really exist and it was a lot less advanced than it is now. So maybe it was that, um but yeh sort of more recently I’ve sort of got more used to it and it’s not really a problem.

Jem is not alone in commenting on how tablets and advances in digital technologies have made technology easier to use, needing less skill to operate and enabling him to catch up with his peers. Even so, this group of youngsters make much use of the inbuilt accessibility settings on tablets. Using these settings requires a wider repertoire of skills than other children need to zoom, play back, edit pictures, use the focus to take a picture and other workarounds. Some of these settings appear quite difficult to use and highlights the specific skills that some of the young people have developed. Nigel, thirteen, School B, for example, described using triple tapping to operate the zoom facility on the iPad. Int: On the iPad when you zoom, do you tend to do that or do you have it set to larger text? Nigel: Well on the Internet I do the pinch thing, um but when it’s like emails and texts, I’ve got it set to large text and then, cos some apps you can’t do the pinch. So I’ve got another accessibility which is you tap with three fingers twice and then it just zooms in and you can change how far it zooms in.

In relation to schoolwork, young people said that they found it easy to search for, identify and evaluate useful websites. It was clear that teachers also support the youngsters by recommending useful websites. Fern, fourteen, School A, noted that she sometimes struggles to carry out searches unless she can see the letters she is typing using magnification. She tries to identify websites that she hopes are reliable. Two youngsters confessed they use Wikipedia despite being told by teachers not to. All the youngsters talked of the support they had received from teachers and teaching assistants in their schools; also from parents in relation to suggesting apps and other software to help them. Siobhan, fourteen, School C,

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

105

talked of the support she had received from the company, Humanware, who had supported her in using assistive technologies and with her iPod touch. Overall, the young people appeared content with the level of their own digital skills and competencies and the support that they were able to access in school to develop these further, both for their current learning and moving forward to college or university. The accounts suggest that this group of young people have a useful repertoire of skills and competencies that stand them in good stead for accessing the curriculum. The skills often include the need for and development of complex uses of inbuilt accessibility settings alongside assistive technology uses that are in addition to generic children’s competencies. A further important aspect of digital skills is online safety. I will discuss this further in the next section in relation to previous research before returning to the illustrative project to find out about the disabled young people’s experiences and perspectives in relation to this.

Children’s Online Safety An important aspect of digital skills and competencies is online safety and the need for all children to stay safe online. Even so, it is important to keep the risks in perspective given the positive opportunities that digital technologies can provide. National campaigns have been organized in many countries to raise children’s awareness of the potential risks of being online. These initiatives exist alongside many national crime and law enforcement agency initiatives. Digital safety programmes within and outside of schools with children and parents have been established to increase children’s awareness and agency to protect themselves from risk. Digital skills and competencies frameworks have also sought to address concerns and evaluate children’s readiness. For example, the UNESCO framework discussed earlier (UNESCO, 2018) includes safety categories under item 4: 4.1 Protecting devices; 4.2 Protecting personal data and privacy; 4.3 Protecting health and well-being; 4.4 Protecting the environment. Many of the frameworks are underpinned by a widely recognized categorization of risk within three key areas: Content risks: Where a child is exposed to unwelcome and inappropriate content. This can include sexual, pornographic and violent images; some forms of advertising; racist, discriminatory or hate-speech material; and websites advocating unhealthy or dangerous behaviours, such as self-harm, suicide and anorexia.

106

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Contact risks: Where a child participates in risky communication, such as with an adult seeking inappropriate contact or soliciting a child for sexual purposes, or with individuals attempting to radicalize a child or persuade him or her to take part in unhealthy or dangerous behaviours. Conduct risks: Where a child behaves in a way that contributes to risky content or contact. This may include children writing or creating hateful materials about other children, inciting racism or posting or distributing sexual images, including material they have produced themselves.

(UNICEF, 2017, pp. 21–2) Configurations of risk have often been modelled around the threat to children’s personal safety posed by ill-intentioned outsiders. However, what has emerged in recent years is the insidious risk of huge amounts of data being collected about children when they are online amounting to surveillance or ‘dataveillance’. This thereby challenges previous generations’ assumptions about privacy and the ‘intimate space of a child’s life’ (Lupton and Williamson, 2017). It frequently reflects corporate interests much more than the child's; and is accompanied by incomprehensible terms and conditions that could potentially support children’s decisions or child-friendly rights of redress (Livingstone and Third, 2017). Moreover, in schools it is likely that children have no say in what data is collected about them or how it is used (Grant, 2017). This again reminds of the relevance of recent work by Pötzsch (2019) that children need to be provided with the broadest contextualization of technology use within the realms of digital capitalism. Interestingly, privacy is covered within the UNESCO framework, under 4.2 Protecting personal data and privacy (UNESCO, 2018). While this perhaps suggests the issue of surveillance and undermining of children’s privacy may be becoming more recognized, it remains unclear where the perceived threat is coming from. Even then, the onus seems to be mainly on the individual to respond: ‘To understand that digital services use a “Privacy policy” to inform how personal data is used’ (p. 55) and that each user creates a ‘digital footprint’ rather than in any way seeking to challenge the widespread collection of personal data without informed consent. Moving outside of dataveillance and children’s privacy concerns, the content, contact and conduct framework remains useful for understanding the strategies through which children can manage other risks. Even so, it is important to understand that taking particular risks does not necessarily result in harm. The relationship that exists between risk, danger and frequency of harm is

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

107

‘genuinely tenuous’. Providing personal information is shown to be a common risk that young people take, but it is more a ‘condition that enables risk’ than constituting risky behaviour in itself (Livingstone, 2009). Similarly, children can have different experiences and reactions to the same event, for example, seeing pornographic content online (UNICEF, 2017). Risks can also vary across societies with texting and ‘sexting’ being more acceptable in some cultures than others. Attitudes to risk between parents and children are likely to be different. Children may view meeting new people online as the opportunity to make new friends whereas parents may see this as risky. Ironically, children who encounter more risks online tend to more skilled and able to withstand their experiences well (Livingstone et al., 2009). Moreover, some element of risk is needed for children’s development in order for them to develop a resilience that enables them to cope with contemporary life (UNICEF, 2017). This concept has been conceptualized as ‘digital resilience’ to explain the strategies individuals develop to cope with challenging technology-related circumstances (Graham, 2014). Therefore, children need to be enabled to take informed risks and develop strategies to ensure that they do not put themselves in situations where they are at serious threat of harm. Research also suggests that there is a strong connection between online and offline risks with children who are more vulnerable to taking risks offline more likely to do so online and consequently more likely to report harm (UNICEF, 2017). The challenge then is to determine which children are more at risk and make targeted interventions. On a global level, this presents a complex and difficult task to both determine the risks that children are facing and to understand the extent and consequence of risk. Recent research carried out as part of the ‘Global Kids Online’ study demonstrates differences and similarities between countries in relation to online safety. In Argentina, for example, thirteen- to eighteen-year-olds were surveyed, and 78 per cent reported a negative experience in the last year, 33 per cent in relation to ‘unpleasant and disturbing messages’ (Ravalli and Paoloni, 2016). Similarly, nine- to seventeen-year-olds were surveyed in Montenegro and 38 per cent reported experiencing an upsetting incident that happened online in the past year (Logar et al., 2016). On the other hand, only 13 per cent of the children surveyed reported they had met someone face to face who they first had contact with on the Internet in Montenegro, while this number was much higher (54 per cent) in South Africa (Phyfer et al., 2016). All three country reports call for national strategies that include schools being given more responsibility for ensuring the promotion of digital skills, including online safety, in their countries.

108

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Similarly, there are differences in children’s approaches to online safety and risk apparent across European countries. Surprisingly, comparative analysis of data from the ‘EU Kids Online’ project shows that there are more differences within countries than between them (Helsper et al., 2013). The findings were drawn from a pan-European study that included conducting a face-to-face home survey of 25,000 children and parents in 25 countries, and in-depth interviews in nine countries with nine- to sixteen-year-olds. The results show that the more children use the Internet the more they encounter risk. However, as the authors point out, these children also experience more opportunities (Livingstone et al., 2011). Online risks were defined within the project as ‘bothered’ to indicate something that ‘made you feel uncomfortable, upset, or feel that you shouldn’t have seen it’ Livingstone et al., 2011, p. 6). Overall, 12 per cent of European nine- to sixteen-year-olds said that they had been bothered or upset by something on the Internet showing that most children are not distressed by their experiences online. Children are most likely to say they had been ‘bothered’ in Denmark (28 per cent); and least likely in Italy (6 per cent). While a minority (6 per cent) of nine- to sixteen-year-olds report being bullied online, they do state that this is a risk most likely to upset them when it does occur. Moreover, while one in twelve children has met someone face-to-face that they first met online, often considered to be risky behaviour, this is rarely reported by children as being harmful. The authors caution against generalizing the findings given that there are variations according to age, gender, country and risk type. Nevertheless, keeping this in mind, boys tend to be exposed to more sexual images while online, while girls are slightly more likely to receive hurtful messages. Furthermore, girls experience the risks as more upsetting in general. Risks also tend to increase with age. Building on this project, ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ (Livingstone et al., 2014) was carried out in seven European countries in 2014 given the increased use of mobile devices. Some similarities emerged in findings when compared to previous projects. For instance, the report confirmed that the more opportunities children have online, the more risks they are likely to face. Furthermore, increased use of mobile devices had exposed children and young people to more online risks (17 per cent) compared to the 2010 ‘EU Kids Online’ data (12 per cent). While there is no difference in risk between children who use smartphones and tablet computers, children who use both are twice as likely to report being ‘bothered’ than those children who do not use mobile devices. Denmark continues to have the most children to say they have been ‘bothered’ and this number has risen

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

109

(from 28 per cent to 39 per cent); this risk remains least likely in Italy as before (6 per cent in both surveys). Girls tended to be more upset than boys about the risks encountered and older teens most at risk as in the 2010 study. Cyberbullying continues to be reported and causes most distress. It is defined in the report ‘as intentional and repeated aggression using any form of technological device such as the Internet or mobile phone’ (p. 61) and is now more prevalent online than face-to-face bullying. Children between the ages of thirteen and fourteen are most at risk of being bullied (26 per cent). Country variations are striking with a child in Romania more likely to experience bullying (41 per cent) compared with Portugal (10 per cent). Even so, as the authors comment, it may be that safety campaigns are contributing to children’s recognition of bullying in some countries rather than an apparent rise. In relation to meeting people first met online, 12 per cent of children said that they had done so. Children in Romania are most likely to do this (27 per cent) and more likely to be bothered (10 per cent) while the UK has the lowest level of this (3 per cent) with no associated reporting of harm. Children also report minor risks such as viruses; older children report this more often (27 per cent) compared with 17 per cent of younger children. More positively, the study found that both children and parents are more aware of online risks than previously reported; parents are involved more in mediation of their children’s online safety; children are less likely to use social networking sites while underage in some countries; children’s skills and strategies to manage risk are growing (although again there are cross-country differences). The report concludes that further analysis is needed in order to identify which children are more vulnerable to online risk in order to target interventions. Moreover, this needs to take place alongside the promotion of safe uses of mobile devices particularly in schools where most friendships and peer relationships are established. Figures drawn from the UK project ‘Net Children Go Mobile: The UK Report’ show a mixed picture (Livingstone et al., 2014). On the one hand, 15 per cent of nine- to sixteen-year-olds in the UK have been upset by something seen online in the past year, which is lower than the European average of 17 per cent but higher than the 2010 UK figure of 13 per cent. As in Europe, incidences are reported more by girls and by older teens. In terms of bullying on- or offline, 21 per cent of UK children ages nine to sixteen said they had been bullied; and 18 per cent reported being upset by this. Again, girls report higher levels of bullying. As in Europe, cyberbullying has become more prevalent than offline bullying with most bullying occurring on social networking sites. As noted earlier, 3 per cent

110

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

of children reported meeting people offline that they first met online and this is lower than the European average (26 per cent). Of concern was a sharp increase of UK children seeing hate messages attacking particular individuals or groups (23 per cent) and self-harm sites (17 per cent) since the 2010 report especially among fifteen- to sixteen-year-olds. In relation to other issues, 11 per cent of children reported having a virus on their computer. Interestingly, UK children are likely to talk to someone if they encounter something that bothers them, such as mothers (48 per cent), friends (26 per cent) and teachers (7 per cent). Children report that teachers have talked to them about using the Internet, about digital skills including online safety (75 per cent) and 50 per cent of children reported that teachers had talked to them about what to do if something upset them online. These figures are higher than the European average. As a comparison with the preceding figures, it is worth considering the results of the 2018 Ofcom report ‘Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report 2018’ which draws results from the Ofcom Children’s Media Literacy Tracker (Ofcom, 2018). The Tracker is a large-scale quantitative survey comprising interviews carried out face to face at home with 2,060 children between the ages 5 and 15 and their parents/carers; and with parents/carers of children between the ages 3 and 4. The report also draws on a complementary online news study with 1,001 12–15-year-olds between 2017 and 2018. The results are similar to the results of the ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ project (Livingstone et al., 2014). In the former, 15 per cent of nine- to sixteen-year-olds in the UK had been upset in the past year while the Ofcom report found a similar figure of 16 per cent of children eight- to eleven-year-olds who had seen something online they found ‘worrying or nasty’ (p. 12). Interestingly, nearly all of the eight- to elevenyear-olds and 90 per cent of the twelve- to fifteen-year-olds said they would tell someone about this, which suggests that this strategy is growing compared with the earlier ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ figure (81 per cent). There is no direct comparison within the ‘Children Go Mobile’ project; however, the Ofcom results show that 22 per cent of twelve- to fifteen-year-olds who answered a question about talking to strangers reported they had been contacted online by someone they did not know, while 9 per cent said they had seen something sexual online that they found distressing. Bullying was also an issue with one in ten eight- to eleven-year-olds and one in five twelve- to fifteen-year-olds reporting that they had personally experienced bullying. Eleven per cent of children aged between twelve and fifteen said that they had been bullied on social media. This is an increase from 5 per cent in 2017; 9 per cent had been bullied via messaging apps or by text.

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

111

So what does this mean for disabled children? While disabled children will have access to similar opportunities to generic children, they will also encounter risks. It is notable that the ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ report points to an increase in risk for children using mobile devices. This could equally be the case for disabled children who may rely on smartphones and tablet computers for learning more than they previously did when they used computers with assistive technologies. Gender may also be an important factor for disabled children with girls experiencing more risk and consequently more harm than boys do. The increase in cyberbullying shown in the reports could have particular consequences for disabled children given that research suggests a strong connection between on- and offline risks and disabled children are more at risk of being bullied offline. Finally, it is concerning that children are encountering more race hate and self-harm sites generally according to the ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ report. However, more positively, it is encouraging that while the report suggests that the risks that children encounter may be increasing through the uses of mobile devices in the UK, children are only experiencing a slight increase in reported levels of harm. Both reports show that a large percentage of children will talk to someone about what they experience online that upsets them. This suggests that in some countries, including the UK, children may be better prepared than was previously the case. This shows the success of online safety initiatives such as campaigns and programmes within and outside of schools to increase children’s awareness of risks and how to manage them. Nevertheless, it is important not to become complacent but to continue to support children’s online safety in these settings; developing intervention programmes for children who are more at risk; and increasing initiatives in countries where children are experiencing higher risks to increase awareness and strategies to avoid and manage harm. Having considered the broader context of children’s online safety and risk, the next section will explore the research that has been carried out specifically about disabled children’s online safety-related experiences.

Disabled Children’s Online Safety The starting point for this discussion is to recognize the lack of comparative global figures that exist in relation to disabled children and online risk and safety, hardly surprising given the lack of research about disabled children and digital technologies in general. Nevertheless, the research that does exist aligns with studies that have shown disabled children to be more at risk offline. This leads

112

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

researchers to assume that disabled children will be more at risk online than other children given the strong link between on- and offline risks that has been established (UNICEF, 2017) and the consequential need to develop targeted interventions. Childnet International, for instance, has developed a toolkit to support disabled children.5 Returning to the evidence that does exist, UNICEF (2017), for example, has identified disabled children as more at risk online among a group that includes children not attending school, children with depression or mental health issues, and children from other marginalized groups. Similarly, in the UK, disabled children have been highlighted as at greater risk online along with children who receive free school meals, black and minority ethnic groups, children of Roma families, travellers, children from Chinese groups and children of mixed ethnicity (Munro, 2011). A recent literature review commissioned by the former UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS, now UKCIS) said that the group of youngsters most at risk online include disabled children and ‘children who experience exclusion of access’ to include travellers, asylum seekers and trafficked or migrant communities (Livingstone et al., 2017). The authors also reported that children with emotional and behavioural issues are most at risk online. Online risk is complex; certain considerations can render children more at risk; and a straightforward definition of who is ‘vulnerable’ online is elusive (Livingstone and Palmer, 2012). For example, children who are facing family difficulties or experiencing alcoholism in the home or drug abuse that undermines parenting; physical, emotional, sexual abuse, violence or neglect can be more at risk both on- and offline. These authors also cited a study by Palmer (2015) that suggests that children who are neurodiverse (on the autistic spectrum), those experiencing mental health issues and those exploring their sexual orientation are at most risk online. Studies such as this are highly useful for considering disabled children’s online risk and the strategies children use to manage their own safety, particularly given the lack of global comparative research as is emerging for generic children. The only cross-country comparison identified for this book, which explicitly includes disabled children, is drawn from the ‘EU Kids Online’ project (Livingstone et al., 2011). Data was collected by conducting a face-to-face at home survey of 25,142 9–16-year-old Internet users and their parents in 25 countries. Analysis was carried out to identify if disabled children are ‘disadvantaged’, ‘vulnerable’ or more ‘at risk’ online than generic young people. The report showed that the 6 per cent of children with a mental, physical or other disability who completed https​:/​/ww​​w​.chi​​ldnet​​.com/​​resou​​rces/​​star-​​sen​-t​​oolki​​t​/wha​​​t-​ to-​​expec​t

5

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

113

the survey reported raised risk levels, particularly related to contact risks. They also reported that they were less likely to have a friend to turn to if something distressed them on the Internet. There are other studies emerging in relation to disabled children and contact risk including sexual solicitation, cyberbullying, cyber victimization, online hate and marginalization. For example, contact risks were found in a study carried out in the United States with disabled children, specifically in relation to sexual solicitation (UNICEF, 2017). In the United States, the Youth Internet Safety Survey carried out research with disabled children ages ten to seventeen. The results showed that disabled children were more likely to receive unwanted sexual solicitation than other children were. The children were also more likely to share a picture of themselves with somebody they had met first online and engage in other sexual behaviour (Wells and Mitchell, 2014). In relation to cyberbullying and cyber victimization, terms are defined differently, possibly due to the location of the authors but they clearly overlap. Some authors use the terms interchangeably. Cyberbullying is aligned to intention and repetition, for example, as in the ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ report where it was defined as ‘as intentional and repeated aggression using any form of technological device such as the Internet or mobile phone’ (Livingstone et al., 2014, p. 61). By contrast, cyber victimization is defined as ‘being the target of purposefully hostile, embarrassing, or intimidating behaviors through the Internet or other digital technologies’ (Wright, 2018, p. 18). Notwithstanding terminology, research into both cyberbullying and cyber victimization suggests that disabled young people are more likely to be the victims of bullying than peers; also the perpetrators. Differences emerge dependent on type of disability (Kowalski and Toth, 2018). Nevertheless, research remains limited so prevalence of both cyberbullying and cyber victimization remains unclear. In relation to specific disabilities, research carried out with young people with Asperger Syndrome or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in the United States showed that children were at risk of cyber victimization (Kowalski and Fedina, 2011). Moreover, further research from the United States has highlighted how young people with disabilities such as Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and learning difficulties may place themselves at risk online due to impulsive behaviour and naïveté (Kowalski and Toth, 2018). Young people with learning or physical disabilities reported being more distressed than generic peers following cyber victimization (Wells and Mitchell, 2013). Findings are not limited to the United States. Research from Israel has shown that young people with ADHD described more cyber victimization than their

114

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

peers without ADHD (Heiman et al., 2015). A survey was carried out with 140 young people with ADHD and 332 young people without ADHD focused on cyberbullying, loneliness, social support and self-efficacy. Time spent online and experiences were reportedly very similar. Yet, youngsters with ADHD who were cyber victims reported that they were lonelier and had less belief in their self-efficacy than their peers without ADHD. Girls were much more likely than boys to be cyber victims. Boys were more likely to be cyber perpetrators than girls. Linked to these concerns, research has shown that young people with ASD or ADHD experience victimization online and that this can be linked to depression (Hu et al., 2016). The study carried out by Hu et al. in Taiwan showed that young people with ADHD who were involved in bullying others reported more depression than those who did not (Hu et al., 2016). In the UK, there have been several studies exploring the relationship between disabled children and cyberbullying. In one example, it was shown that 82 per cent of children with learning difficulties had been bullied (Mencap, 2007). A later study by Cross et al. (2009) surveyed over 2,000 people between 2008 and 2009 in the UK. Results showed that disabled children were more at risk online with 16 per cent of disabled children reporting persistent cyberbullying. This was higher than the 9 per cent rate of cyberbullying that generic children experienced overall. A small-scale study was carried out by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (Del Manso et al., 2011) with disabled children with specific difficulties with communication between the ages of thirteen and sixteen. This consisted of a focus group with seven girls; three focus groups with teachers at three schools outside of the mainstream. The results pointed out a range of aspects that tended to make the children more at risk online. These included: taking what people said at face value; not recognizing inappropriate behaviour from others online; the amplification of poorer social skills and not recognizing visual clues and boundaries; being less discerning about offers of friendship; becoming obsessed with people met online; potentially impulsive behaviour and sometimes an absence of parental or other supports. This is a useful study for pointing towards intervention strategies to support children to develop their skills. While research about disabled children‘s online safety remains somewhat limited, there does seem to be a picture emerging of disabled children being more at risk of cyberbullying and cyber victimization. In the UK there is growing concern about an increase in online hate. This was noted earlier in results drawn from the ‘Net Children Go Mobile’ project. The UK report showed that children are seeing hate messages attacking particular individuals or groups more often. This finding has been confirmed

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

115

by research carried out by the UK Safer Internet Centre involving 1,512 young people between the ages of 13 and 18 (2016). Results showed that 24 per cent had experienced online hate related to disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. Children were asked if they had witnessed something hateful towards a particular group on the Internet and 46 per cent said they had occasionally, 23 per cent often and 12 per cent all or most of the time. Disabled children were more likely than others to experience hate crime (38 per cent) compared to those with no disabilities (21 per cent). These figures are disturbing and suggest that interventions to target all children are needed both at school and in wider society given the increase in online hate generally. Interestingly, research from Norway has shown that marginalization is a risk for disabled children online. Söderström (2009b) carried out research with twenty-three disabled young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty. A key finding was that while digital technologies provide opportunities for inclusion and online participation, some of the disabled young people in the study also found themselves left out and excluded from peer relationships and friendships. A further study with eleven visually impaired young people (Söderström, 2010) reported that disabled children perceived uses of digital technologies as supporting belonging and independence whereas assistive technologies tend to reflect the opposite, which leads disabled children to reject them. This last report is illuminating because it highlights the ways that mobile devices can support disabled children’s learning and sense of belonging and inclusion with peers compared with uses of specialist assistive technologies.

Illustrative Project – Disabled Children’s Online Safety The children interviewed for the illustrative project appear to have been more fortunate than some of the children in the research outlined earlier. Cyberbullying cases were rare. Even so, Laura, sixteen, School B, had experienced bullying at primary school which she assumed was related to visual impairment. Int: Online safety. Has anything ever happened to you that’s upset you or you wish hadn’t happened? Laura: If you’ve got slight difference um and not one of the, I was going to say ordinary people [LAUGHS], but yeh if you have got visual impairment, I did used to get, I did used to get bullied quite a lot but I just, I very much think positively about most things. I say things happen for a reason and if

116

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies I get bullied, I don’t mind, cos it’s who I am, I’m not going to change who I am just because someone doesn’t like it.

Int: That sounds like it was in the past? Laura: It was, cos I didn’t used, I used to be the only person in my primary school with a disability and I love being one of the other people. Int: And that was hard for you? Laura: Yes. But sometimes I did get called horrible names and stuff like that but it just makes you tougher. Um, it makes you in some ways ready for the workplace, because it’s not going to be all happy, all sweet and everybody’s going to be ok with everything in the world.

Laura has rationalized being bullied and appears to take it for granted as an aspect of life that she will continue to encounter when she starts work. In contrast, Siobhan, fourteen, School C, did not relate her experiences to disability. She said that if she received an unpleasant comment online, she would assume that it was because everyone does, not directly as a result of disability. She did however mention that she occasionally encountered what might be considered online hate towards disabled people but not aimed specifically at her. The young people used a range of strategies to stay safe online. For example, Fern, fourteen, School A, reported that she only accepts friends on Facebook who go to her own school or who are a friend of a friend. While her profile is set to public, she never identifies the location to ensure that nobody can find her. Laura, sixteen, School B, reports a similar strategy. She said that she would never meet anyone face-to-face met online and only accepts people that she already knows as friends. Most of the young people said that they had taken part in safety guidance sessions while at school. In addition, the schools also block some software and have clearly stated and enforced no tolerance policies on bullying. In spite of this, some youngsters said that they are cautious online and anxious about the risks. Siobhan commented that she did try to avoid anything upsetting and was concerned about the consequences of her own actions in future. Int: Which websites do you use most often? You mentioned YouTube and Facebook, tell me about Facebook. Siobhan: I don’t really use it that much anymore. I only use it for the messaging, just to keep in contact with friends, or family that I’ve got abroad. I’m not bothered about status and pictures and stuff like that. And I don’t really want to do something I’ll regret, cos what goes on line stays on line.

Digital Skills and Competencies Including Online Safety and Risk

117

Int: You’re touching on safety. How do you make sure you’re safe? Siobhan: I only have people I know. I don’t, I don’t engage myself in conversations that could be used for something that I don’t want. I don’t reply to any comments that are from anonymous people.

These comments and those from the other young people suggest an awareness of the risks of being online and strategies developed to avoid them as a result of guidance in schools. Even so, the anxiety about being online, the bullying incidents reported and particularly the mention of cyberbullying in primary school suggests that interventions are needed in schools at an earlier age.

Conclusions In this chapter, I have explored digital skills and competencies. Having set out global policy and frameworks aimed at developing and evaluating young people’s skills, I critiqued these and argued for a more holistic model that recognizes difference, be that in terms of social, economic or political context or as individual users. I outlined the evidence that exists in relation to generic children’s skills and how these differ according to higher socio-economic status both in relation to country and family context. I also argued that schools continue to have a role to play in developing young people’s skills to complement those developed at home. I pointed to the general lack of previous research about disabled children’s skills. Results from the illustrative project showed that the disabled children in the study were content with their levels of skills, both mainstream and complementary, whereby they use the inbuilt accessibility settings, tablets or specialist assistive technologies in order to access the curriculum. In relation to risk and online safety, I noted that the guidance tends to state risks in relation to ill-intentioned outsiders. However, some researchers are concerned with the threat that exists to children’s privacy online reflecting corporate rather than children’s interests. I also discussed the differences in perception of risk that exist between countries. Even so, it is notable that there is a clear connection between on- and offline risks with children who take more risks offline, seemingly taking more risks online. In the UK, it is concerning that cyberbullying and online hate are increasing. There is also growing evidence that suggests that disabled children are more at risk online than other children are. The illustrative project showed few experiences of risk online and strategies to avoid risk were well developed. Even so, there

118

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

were suggestions in the interviews that cyberbullying may be taken for granted by disabled children and that initiatives to support children to avoid risk should begin at an earlier age. In the next chapter, I will shift my focus to the teachers and explore their perspectives on disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning in the context of inclusive education.

6

Teacher Perspectives

Introduction In the previous chapter, I explored the digital skills and competencies that children need to support their online activities. In this chapter, I will move the focus from disabled young people to the wider school environment. Teachers and other key personnel are important for exploring the school setting more fully and the support that is in place for disabled young people to learn in schools with digital technologies. The chapter is set firmly within the context of inclusive education as set out in Chapter 2 and draws on previous research about how inclusion challenges schools and class teachers, and how these challenges are interwoven within current structures of teaching assistant support. I will then consider what is known about how using digital technologies present challenges for teachers and what hinders the development of digital pedagogies. These factors will be brought together using data from the illustrative project to consider how schools are supporting disabled children to benefit from using digital technologies in mainstream schools. A key part of this is to listen to perspectives drawn from teachers, qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairments (QTVIs) and teaching assistants. I will then consider how class teachers can be supported to further develop inclusive digital pedagogies that enable all children to learn in their classes using technology.

The Challenge for Teachers and Schools of Supporting Inclusion It is clear from previous research that schools, teachers and other key personnel are working very hard indeed to support disabled children in

120

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

mainstream schools within the current challenging circumstances. Even so, if schools are to become more inclusive, then inclusion needs to be recognized by every member of school personnel and embedded within all aspects of each mainstream school in order to support the full participation of disabled children. As set out in Chapter 2, schools need to challenge the foundations that underpin typical practices, policies, staffing, class timetabling, resource allocation, environment and curricula (Baglieri and Shapiro, 2017). It is clear that the role of class teachers is crucial within this debate. Teachers have major responsibility for implementing policy in schools; therefore, their ‘beliefs and attitudes are critical in ensuring the success of inclusive practices since teachers’ acceptance of the policy of inclusion is likely to affect their commitment to implementing it’ (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002, p.130; Norwich, 1994). What this means in practice, therefore, is that all class teachers need to accept primary responsibility for all children to learn in their classes (Jordan et al., 2009). This echoes earlier work by Barton that argued that teachers’ attitudes and pedagogical practices will need to change if teachers are to be equipped to teach all children instead of relying on other ‘special’ teachers to teach ‘special children’ (Barton, 1997, p. 234). A sea change in inclusion would enable disabled children to be supported in ways that potentially avoid stigma and the marking out of some children as different. Instead, many teachers continue to view integration as inclusion, the physical location of disabled children within their classrooms. This perpetuates the current situation whereby many teachers continue to develop pedagogical approaches that do not support the learning of all the children in their classes relying instead on teaching assistants and other adjunctive personnel to provide what amount to curriculum workarounds. It is difficult to see how the changes that are needed can happen given that teachers work under huge amounts of pressure with little time available to develop more inclusive practices within an increasingly market-oriented context environment of testing, league tables and punitive inspection regimes (Moore and Slee, 2012). Indeed recent research has pointed to teachers’ long work hours in England during evenings and at weekends, with the average teacher working fifty hours a week, typically just under ten hours a day on weekdays (Allen et al., 2019). Moreover, a quarter of teachers work above 59 hours a week with an average weekday of 10.7 hours; one in 10 exceed 65 hours a week. These represent longer working hours for teachers in England than most other countries where comparisons are possible, and are eight hours per week longer (one working day) than the average for the OECD. In addition, theoretical and

Teacher Perspectives

121

practical support needed for teachers to develop positive attitudes and inclusive practices remains inadequate, yet positive attitudes are fundamental to the implementation of inclusive practices in classrooms (Costello and Boyle, 2013). Often teacher preparation results in the assumption that supporting disabled children is the responsibility of the teaching assistant or other members of the support team in the school alongside underdevelopment of class teachers’ own inclusive pedagogies. An international literature review, carried out to explore the factors that influence teacher attitudes towards inclusion, discovered a diversity of both underlying and practical barriers (Jenson, 2018). These can range from practical contextual factors such as class sizes, school facilities, access to resources and family and community support through to views about differing impairments. Teachers were more accepting of students with impairments such as learning, sensory or physical impairments than those children they considered more likely to disrupt the class, such as children with behavioural and multiple needs. Jenson also found a link between teachers’ views of inclusion and disabled children’s academic ability and capacity to learn (Amr et al., 2016). Research has also highlighted that teachers’ attitudes to inclusion are positively influenced by adequate internal support structures from teaching assistants and other staff members. Teachers will tend to view inclusion more positively when adequate institutional support is available; and correspondingly less positively when internal support is lacking (Jenson, 2018). Yet paradoxically, good provision of internal staffing support such as teaching assistants is a key factor in preventing class teachers from assuming primary responsibility for disabled children’s learning. Recent large-scale research has drawn attention to this important issue and findings are summarized here given their direct relevance to the themes of the book. The SENSE project explored sixty young people with Statements or Education, Health and Care Plans in year 9 (thirteen to fourteen years of age) (Webster and Blatchford, 2017a). Data was collected in forty-three schools across England by systematically observing the young people. This was supplemented by individual case studies with each of the 60 young people with statements based on 295 interviews with the young people, teachers and support staff including teaching assistants, SEN/SEND coordinators and parents/carers. The results showed that teaching assistants are a ‘consistent and central feature of the educational experiences of pupils’ with EHC Plans or statements in mainstream schools. Webster and Blatchford (2017b) note that mainstream secondary schools employ teaching assistants as a ‘key strategic approach to including and meeting the educational needs of pupils with

122

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

Statements’ (2007b, p. 5). Bearing this in mind, the authors are then concerned that teaching assistant roles are often unclear; often overlap with teacher’s roles; and may undermine teaching assistants’ emphasis on developing disabled young people’s independence. Where class teachers do not adopt inclusive approaches, teaching assistants act by ‘“bridging” the learning in the moment’ (2017b, p. 3). This often involves breaking down the teacher’s instructions and simplifying tasks. Webster and Blatchford rightly point out that pedagogically there are questions about this mediation in terms of appropriateness and sustainability that need to be carefully considered. Specifically, the pedagogical approaches taken by teaching assistants are not necessarily theoretically grounded. The situation is contributed to by new class teachers expressing that they are ‘overwhelmed’ and unclear about how to support disabled young people in their classes. This suggests that initial teacher education and in-service professional courses remain inadequate. Teachers often do not have the time to learn ‘on the job’ and liaison with teaching assistants may also be limited by time pressures. The authors conclude that provision and quality of educational experiences for disabled young people may well be inadequate. Furthermore, mainstream schools’ reliance on teaching assistants may be unsustainable in light of funding cuts to teaching assistant budgets. While schools and teachers are clearly doing their best to meet the challenges of the current situation, the question is whether the regular use of teaching assistants is in fact a compensation for failures in other parts of the system such as initial teacher education. Webster and Blatchford therefore argue that supporting disabled children in schools needs to become a strategic priority whereby schools need to rethink their approaches and develop a more inclusive ethos. Also, that the quality of support for disabled children needs to be improved through consideration of who and how pedagogical support is provided rather than being measured in teaching assistance hours as it currently is. The factors outlined here that serve to undermine inclusive education policies in mainstream schools are important background for this book and the illustrative project carried out with visually impaired youngsters. Of course, the challenge of inclusion is not the only enduring issue of importance to this book, it has been established that digital pedagogies are not yet well developed in schools. The next section will consider research which has sought to understand the challenges that teachers face in developing and implementing digital pedagogies in order to combine both agendas to understand how to develop effective inclusive digital pedagogies.

Teacher Perspectives

123

The Challenges for Schools and Teachers of Developing Effective Digital Pedagogies Like inclusion, development of effective digital pedagogies in schools is both an individual and an institutional responsibility. Yet, more often than not, some researchers mistakenly allude to teacher’s individual agency readily blaming teachers for not jumping on the technological bandwagon despite the evident benefits (Perrotta, 2013; Zhao and Frank, 2003). Moreover, those who criticize teachers often fail to acknowledge the support that teachers themselves identify is needed such as relevant, ongoing training, technical help and administrative support (IEA, 2006). They also ignore the contextual and cultural factors both within the school environment and outside of the school in relation to the broader social context that impacts what happens within classrooms. Perrotta (2013), for example, draws on research that explores how school and individual level characteristics influence teachers’ perceptions of digital technology uses to challenge this view. The findings highlight that both contextual and cultural dynamics influence teacher perceptions and that a more fine-grained account is needed that moves current understandings beyond ‘discourses of [teacher] deficiency’ to consider social arrangements and relations that underpin uses of digital technologies if development is to take place. For instance, development of more innovative and effective uses of digital technologies may be limited in schools by competitive individualism and current neoliberalist agendas within society, as is similarly the case for inclusion. Standardized tests have been identified as a barrier for some teachers to develop digital pedagogies (Ertmer et al., 2012). Other authors have drawn attention to the relationship between school-level factors such as access to computers, technical support and teachers’ attitudes and willingness to incorporate digital technologies into their teaching and learning (Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013; Ertmer et al., 2012; Inan and Lowther, 2010) while considering wider societal dimensions less. Ertmer (1999) identified the interplay of school and individual factors that impacted classroom digital practices as divided between first- and second-order barriers. First-order barriers are those external to the teacher such as resources (e.g. hardware and software), training and support. Second-order barriers are internal to the teacher such as their confidence, beliefs and understanding of how students learn and perceived value of how digital technologies can contribute to teaching and learning. The study concludes that second-order barriers – related to teachers themselves – present the greater challenge although first-order barriers remain important. Similarly, a

124

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

detailed analysis of the integration barriers identified over the previous ten years from 1995 to 2006 was carried out by Hew and Brush (2007). They recognized six types of barriers, which included first-order barriers such as resources, institution, subject culture and assessment, and second-order barriers such as teacher attitudes and beliefs, knowledge and skills. Based on the analysis of forty-eight empirical studies, the authors noted that the three most frequently cited barriers were (a) resources (reported in 40 per cent of the studies), (b) teachers’ knowledge and skills (23 per cent) and (c) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs (13 per cent) (Hew and Brush, 2007). More recently, Ertmer et al. (2012) revisited the former study carried out by Ertmer (1999) and concluded that while there had been an improvement in provision of resources in the intervening years, barriers such as lack of resources, administrative support and technical issues remained an issue. The first of these issues is interesting given that infrastructure in schools has greatly improved in recent years as seen in Chapter 4 (Balanskat et al., 2013; Keane and Keane, 2018), so potentially resourcing may have improved since the later Ertmer et al. study was carried out. Nevertheless, recent research suggests that second-order barriers such as the underdevelopment of teachers’ knowledge and skills alongside teachers’ attitudes and beliefs remain an obstacle. The outcome of this is that the majority of teachers in Europe continue to use technology mainly for lesson preparation with children’s uses in schools remaining narrow (EC, 2013; OECD, 2015). Digital technologies are often used in dull, limited ways to support traditional curricula rather than developing more effective pedagogies (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017; Merchant, 2012; OECD, 2015). This means that on the one hand digital technologies may be becoming more prominent in schools – backed by corporate and commercial interests – but not necessarily leading to gains in teaching and learning (Selwyn, 2016). This is of particular concern given the challenge for schools of resourcing technology, and when compared to the novel and expansive uses at home (Selwyn et al., 2010). Given these concerns then, it makes sense to understand teachers’ attitudes and beliefs further to be able to move forward, not to accord blame but to identify the support that teachers need if the potential benefits of digital technologies for teaching and learning are to be achieved. This is an important goal for this book because the underdevelopment of digital pedagogies limits the potential chances for inclusion that could be facilitated using digital technologies to support all children – including disabled children – in regular classes and the potential benefits for learning by all children. These opportunities often go unrecognized and unrealized thereby providing a key reason why teachers should be supported to develop inclusive digital pedagogies.

Teacher Perspectives

125

Based on this argument, how then can all teachers be supported to develop and facilitate teaching and learning that supports the potential benefits of digital technologies in order to make long-term changes? Teachers’ beliefs about the value of using digital technologies clearly impact their approach to integrating digital pedagogies (Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013; Inan and Lowther, 2010). It may well be a rationale decision for teachers to focus on other pedagogical interventions that have stronger supporting evidence behind them when they have multiple competing demands on their time. The difficulties caused by time constraints are particularly negative for teachers where schools do not view the development of digital pedagogies as a legitimate use of teachers’ time requiring teachers to find time outside of school to do this (Yagamata-Lynch, 2003). This is compounded when teachers have not routinized development of digital pedagogies and perceive this as an additional burden (Belland, 2009). Other research has shown that teachers also need to see more evidence of the effectiveness of uses of digital technologies to improve learning outcomes before they will be convinced of the benefits for teaching and learning (Ertmer and Ottenbriet-Leftwich, 2010; Wikan and Molster, 2011). Yet, as outlined in Chapter 3, there are known challenges to providing clear measures of benefits in relation to measurable outcomes, such as for standardized tests that could convince teachers (Geier et al., 2008). In addition, attention has been drawn to the inadequacy of providing teachers with technology without providing the much-needed training and support that would allow teachers to integrate technology into their teaching and learning in order to support the curriculum (Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013; Brečko et al., 2014; Redman and Kotrlik, 2009). Teacher readiness and vision is therefore very important in how they proceed (Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013; Inan and Lowther 2010; Kopcha, 2012). Research has shown that some teachers can be overwhelmed when trying to use digital technologies particularly given the pace of new developments (Dwight, 2012). Access to technologies can be undermined by technical problems that undermine teachers’ uses too (Clarke, 2006). Interestingly, teachers who use digital technologies robustly for administrative tasks are less likely to abandon technology for teaching and learning when they meet setbacks (Kopcha, 2012; Park and Ertmer, 2008). This suggests that wider experience with technology can help with confidence when integrating technology into the classroom. Teachers are influenced by the level of difficulty they will encounter (Inan and Lowther, 2010; Kopcha, 2012), and the complexity of the technology. Previous research carried out with eighty teachers in Chile explored teacher adoption of technologies considered to be simpler to use, that is, point-and-shoot

126

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

digital cameras, with technologies considered harder to use, that is, a national, well-known website and the most difficult to use, recently introduced electronic whiteboards (Aldunate and Nussbaum, 2013). The results showed that users were more likely to abandon uses of technologies they perceived as complex and more difficult to use compared with those perceived as easier to use. Keeping these issues in mind, the next section will return to the illustrative project to explore how the challenges of supporting disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning manifest in mainstream schools. It will ask how schools and teachers are supporting disabled children to benefit from using digital technologies within the context of inclusive education from teachers’ perspectives. This section is based on the observational data and the semi-structured interviews carried out with three class teachers (CTs), three QTVIs and three teaching assistants (TAs) who support disabled young people to learn using digital technologies for learning at school. The key themes included here emerged from analysis of the data collected with teachers in relation to how disabled children are supported within these schools; and how uses of digital technologies in school support disabled young people’s learning.

Illustrative Project: Teachers’ Perspectives How Are Disabled Children Supported in Schools? What typically happens in schools is that teams of specialist personnel support disabled children alongside variable levels of involvement from CTs. In each of the three schools visited, children were supported by a regional QTVI. These teachers work closely with each school to identify and support individual children alongside CTs and TAs. The QTVI, School B, for instance, supports children with ‘any visual condition which cannot be corrected by glasses’. She is a regular visitor to the school, usually at least once a week and describes her role as follows: QTVI: I have meetings with the students that will be to assess their needs, to chat to them about how things are going, to look at any equipment issues. If they’re given a new piece of equipment, I will do some training with them to make sure they can use it. I would also then observe each of the students in class from time to time just to see how they’re doing. And the other big thing that I do, is I do a training session at the beginning of each year. I do

Teacher Perspectives

127

one for any new teachers or any new staff about all the students and I do another one specifically for the teaching assistants about how to provide support. (QTVI(2), School B)

TAs take on similar responsibilities in each school. At the time of the initial interviews, the TA interviewed in School A, supported sixty-nine children and was part of a team of nine teaching assistants. From the interviews, it was clear that TAs often specialize. For example, in School A, the TA specializes in visual impairment and digital technologies. Additional external support was also available from organizations such as Action for Blind People (a not-for-profit support organization) and Humanware (a technical company). In addition to discrete support teams, the CTs taught disabled children within their classes. It was clear from the interviews and observations, that there were clear differences between teachers in relation to their approaches generally and development of inclusive pedagogies. At one end of the spectrum, one class teacher (who taught German) said that the teaching assistant supported the one disabled child in her class and her responses suggested that she did not design lessons to be inclusive. The second teacher (who taught science) did assume responsibility for the teaching and learning of the disabled child in her class. She was active in sending the student PowerPoint presentations in advance so that the student could manipulate the document to their own preferences and sometimes in enlarging worksheets to A3 size to incorporate larger text. She was clearly committed to the ideals of inclusive education. However, in practice, she found that time constraints meant she needed to be pragmatic and provide disabled children with practical solutions – such as enlarged worksheets – when she was aware that a digital alternative would be preferred by the student. Even so, providing an enlarged worksheet was better than necessitating use of a magnifying glass. CT1: I think it will do but she is happier for it to be A3 rather than her having to use a magnifying glass and then scan it over the piece of paper. (CT1, School B)

More positively, the third class teacher (who taught French) aims to include all children when designing classroom activities. He works closely with the teaching assistant ahead of the class to provide disabled students with inclusive teaching and learning experiences. He said that he finds it useful to work with the teaching assistant given that they know the student better than he does and can support him to design his teaching to be more inclusive. It is interesting that the teaching assistant’s role is still very much needed in this model of pedagogical design. The

128

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

class teacher is proactive in consulting the teaching assistant before the lesson rather than relying on them within the lesson, thereby creating an inclusive experience for the child. In the classes that this teacher prepares, he avoids using video or animation instead planning uses activities that involve listening in which the disabled child can fully participate. In common with the second teacher, he also provides the student with PowerPoint presentations converted to Keynote. Also, like the second teacher, he is aware that the disabled child he teaches does not want to stand out as different to other children, and he tries hard to avoid this happening. Ironically, when his teaching was recently observed by an inspector, a criticism within the feedback was that he did not use the teaching assistant enough within the lesson. He had then to explain to the observer that the lesson was carefully planned in advance to avoid singling out and stigmatizing the youngster through the overt actions of the teaching assistant. The teacher saw this experience positively as showing that his approach was successful. CT2: But they didn’t see that. But that’s good for me, that means I’m doing it surreptitiously and he’s not feeling that he is standing out in front of everybody. (CT2, School B)

These examples are useful for recognizing the teams of committed and sometimes highly qualified teachers and teaching assistants who support disabled children to learn in mainstream schools. Even so, there are clear differences between how far CTs accept primary responsibility for disabled children and work to develop inclusive pedagogies. This can be frustrating for TAs, as in the following example where a teaching assistant describes the challenge of keeping CTs on board with inclusion and the need to develop inclusive teaching practices using digital technologies that could help. TA1: They don’t realize that her vision stops at the end of a piece of A4 paper. They don’t realize that she can’t see normally with her vision beyond a metre in front of her. So until somebody comes within that metre in front of her, she can’t see them. And it’s like some of the teachers don’t understand the use of the technology and they don’t listen. [. . .] it can cause stress and she’s then, it triggers off other conditions and then she ends up with headaches and everything and she has to have time off school. [. . .] I’ve said to the teachers, it doesn’t matter how big or how bold you write up on the whiteboard, she still can’t see it. (TA1, School A)

In this example, there seems to be an issue with teachers not understanding or being on board with how to support disabled children. However, for other teachers, good intentions are undermined by the constraints and pressures

Teacher Perspectives

129

they are working under. One of the QTVIs set out and acknowledged how challenging it can be for CTs who are unfamiliar with supporting disabled children. QTVI: So a lot of my students are in a school where they’ve never had a visually impaired pupil before and of course that, teachers getting their heads around giving their work in perhaps four weeks in advance, six weeks in advance for somebody to try and source it, is quite difficult. (QTVI(2), School B)

Presumably if teachers were prepared earlier to develop inclusive pedagogies then supporting disabled children would be an everyday part of their practice rather than something they struggle with. During the interviews, it became clear that qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairments and TAs place much emphasis on supporting disabled children to develop their independence. This is seen to be crucial both in terms of self-management at school and in order that they can make the transition into employment. One of the TAs observed astutely that digital technologies alone will not be enough to provide what children need to succeed in school, instead this relies on disabled children’s agency along with the culture and practices of the school. QTVI: She’s got to be independent and she’s got to be proactive and I think that’s what you’ve got to build as well. So just technology on its own isn’t ever going to be a solution unless the children have the training, the staff have the training, it’s built into the pedagogy, it’s built into the school. (QTVI(1), School A)

How Can Disabled Children’s Uses of Digital Technologies Support Learning The QTVIs and particularly TAs gave many examples of how digital technologies can help the youngsters to learn. These are often instances of workarounds to enable children to access the curriculum and enable ‘“bridging” the learning in the moment’ to draw on Webster and Blatchford’s useful phrase (2017b, p. 3) or preparation carried out before the lesson by TAs. The examples carried out in situ include TAs taking photos of the whiteboard to enlarge it for the young person on a mobile device, advising on which digital or other resource to use for a particular activity. Outside of the class, TAs often provide support on how to use hardware and software. TAs also do much in the way of preparation

130

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

before lessons using digital technologies. This includes downloading books where available from the RNIB UK Education Collection1 or using a VI forum to identify modified textbooks,2 hosted by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)3; modifying resources locally either using technology manually or sending off textbooks to regional resource bases; translating documents from Microsoft Word into Braille; translating PowerPoint presentations into Microsoft Word; modifying assessment materials in-house; and using an embosser to print out materials. Often QTVIs and TAs are responsible for moving forward the uses of digital technologies in class. In the following example, one of the TAs explained how they had argued for laptop/tablet hybrid computers to provide students with access to curriculum activities digitally rather than continuing to rely on paperbased versions. TA: And this year, I mean I was doing that last year but it was like, well we need something better. What is there available? So I tried looking at iPads, because I knew that the technology was there for an iPad, but some of the schools systems are not compatible for iPads, so then we looked at other ideas. So we’ve managed to get in, we ordered at the start of last year, eight tablets/laptops that I thought, well can we have a go at these for visually impaired students. (TA1, School A).

It is interesting that it is a TA and QTVI who are innovating with technology in this case. This brings with it responsibility as noted by one of the QTVIs in relation to procurement and the consequences of good and bad decision-making. QTVI: And also when you have a pupil that needs a piece of equipment, there’s so many companies out there that make different pieces of equipment, that picking, and they’re so expensive that if you make a mistake and order something wrong, then you’re stuck with it and you then have to find other ways around it. (QTVI(3), School C)

In comparison, it was noticeable that CTs gave fewer examples of digital technologies used for teaching and learning generally than as assistive technologies. One teacher appeared to be a technology enthusiast and talked keenly of using a range of apps such as Showbie4 to review student work; Sock

3 4 1 2

https://www​.rnibbookshare​.org​/cms/ (previously Load2Learn) http:​/​/lis​​ts​.ed​​ucati​​on​.go​​v​.uk/​​mailm​​an​/li​​stin​f​​o​/vi-​​forum​ https​:/​/ww​​w​.rni​​b​.org​​.uk​/i​​nsigh​​t-​ onl​​ine​/v​​​i-​ for​​um https://www​.showbie​.com/

Teacher Perspectives

131

Puppets5 and Puppet Pals6 to record sentences to be spoken by puppets on iPads. All three teachers said they used interactive whiteboards. The other teachers said they lacked the time to explore what was possible using technology. The science teacher said that there had been training available when the iPads were introduced into the school but not the time to experiment with apps and resources. This had led to individually led approaches. CT: I think we have had quite a bit of training on how to use them and ways that we could use them. I think the three issues are, is that first of all, although we’ve been given the training, we’ve not had enough time to actually develop resources. The second is, is actually understanding or giving a direction from the school in terms of what the aim is, like where a student’s supposed to be able to save their work and how are teachers supposed to be able to access that work. I don’t think that’s been cleared up with us properly or we haven’t got a school wide approach to it. So it means individual teachers are finding their feet and trying to figure out, well how am I supposed to assess and give formative feedback. (CT1, School B)

This is an interesting quote because the teacher is implicitly asking for more structural, school-wide support in order to move forward with using technology along with provision of further time. This suggests ongoing support and guidance is needed in addition to front-end training. Specifically in relation to supporting the disabled children, two of the CTs said they emailed PowerPoint presentations in advance of the lesson or provided them on USB to the disabled students in their classes. They appeared to largely rely on the TAs to support the disabled children with other activities in situ. This again shows reliance on TAs to support disabled children rather than accepting they have ‘primary responsibility’ for all children in the class. On the other hand, it is a rational decision for overburdened teachers given the commitment, skill and knowledge of the TAs they rely on.

Conclusions In this chapter, I moved from the focus on children to schools and teachers, particularly the role of classroom teachers, to be able to create more inclusive environments for disabled children to learn. I acknowledged the challenge of https​:/​/ap​​ps​.ap​​ple​.c​​om​/gb​​/app/​​sock-​​puppe​​ts​-co​​mplet​​​e​/id5​​47666​​894 https​:/​/ap​​ps​.ap​​ple​.c​​om​/gb​​/app/​​puppe​​t-​ pal​​s​-hd/​​​id342​​07654​6

5 6

132

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

this within contemporary schools given heavy teacher workloads and other constraints. Even so, it is important for this agenda to move forward in order to reduce disabled children’s marginalization and experience of stigma, and challenge the current model of reliance on teaching assistant workarounds in situ. There clearly needs to be more support and guidance provided for teachers within both initial teacher education and in-service professional courses to enable schools to be more inclusive. In relation to digital technologies, teachers need more support to develop effective and inclusive digital pedagogies that enable them to teach all the children in their classes in creative and innovative ways. The illustrative project results aligned with other previous studies. The interviews and observations showed that disabled children are supported by highly skilled TAs and other personnel. Yet, this situation results in many CTs relying on support in situ rather than developing their own more inclusive practices. Interestingly, TAs were often more conversant with the opportunities that could result from disabled children using digital technologies for learning than CTs were. CTs cited workload, lack of ongoing training and time constraints as barriers to developing more inclusive digital pedagogies. In the next chapter I will draw conclusions bringing together the different strands of argument within the book alongside the implications of the findings. I will argue that more research is needed to explore how digital technologies can support mainstream schools to become more inclusive.

Conclusions and Implications

Introduction A key aim of this book is to open a debate about disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning within the context of inclusive education. It is clear that the context of schooling forms an important aspect of children’s lives in terms of accessing the curriculum, establishing friendships and learning to socialize. It is also obvious that digital technologies have become significant within many children’s lives. Bringing these important aspects of disabled children’s lives together is crucial to understand how to ensure that disabled children are able to access the same opportunities online for learning and for participation within society as their peers. The challenge then is to bring together the discussions within this book and make sense of the different areas of debate and findings. Then, the next step is to consider the implications of the conclusions. This chapter will initially revisit the findings from the previous chapters alongside results drawn from the illustrative project to set out the main arguments. It will then offer suggestions for change in relation to how schools and teachers can move forward to develop inclusive digital pedagogies. It will conclude with a call for more research to be carried out with disabled children, young people and teachers in general, and, specifically, in order to develop inclusive digital pedagogies, and to explore how digital technologies can support mainstream schools to become more inclusive.

Where Are We Now? I began this book by framing my arguments in terms of key legislation that has been introduced to uphold disabled children’s rights in the last thirty years, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) (United Nations 1989) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) (United Nations 2006). The former places particular emphasis on enabling

134

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

children, including disabled children, to be heard in decisions affecting them and the right to experience social inclusion and ‘to receive education without discrimination on any grounds’ (UNESCO, 2005, p. 14). This was then aligned with a call for an Internet bill of rights that meaningfully engaged with children’s rights online to provide children with online opportunities within a safe and developmental space (Livingstone et al., 2017). Taking this as the starting point, Chapter 1 set the scene by explaining how developments within the social studies of childhood and disability studies have challenged traditional conceptions of disabled children and their childhoods. These perspectives emphasize that disabled children have agency and should have the right to be listened to about aspects that influence their own lives. By doing so, it may be possible to disrupt the processes that exclude them. Key to this is the social model of disability, which has been hugely influential in enabling the rights of disabled children and adults to be recognized in policy, and initiated much debate about how the environment and the body are viewed in constructions of disability and impairment. In particular, the social model has enabled research with disabled children to understand how ‘impairment effects’ such as stigma and exclusion can impact identities and well-being more than actual bodily traits. More recently, critical disability studies approaches have evolved and argued strongly for change in relation to how disabled children and adults are viewed within society and within research. This has challenged the idea of diagnostic models, and argued that these represent the unwelcoming society that exists for disabled children and adults. Proponents have emphasized the need for a distinct disabled children’s childhood studies that values all children equally. The chapter then moves forward to exploring approaches useful for understanding social uses of technology. This established a foundation for the book that moved away from the rhetoric and hype which sometimes surround children’s uses of digital technologies and instead took a grounded, balanced approach. This is essential for understanding the role of digital technologies in disabled children’s lives for learning within the context of inclusive education. I explored how new materialist approaches could benefit future research. Finally, I explained how critical disability studies approaches influence the way that disabled children’s uses of digital technologies are understood within the book. In Chapter 2, I explored social inclusion and its alignment to the social model of disability more closely along with inclusive education given that these important concepts frame disabled children’s uses of digital technologies. I considered how inclusive education for disabled children is espoused in policy for schools globally and within the UK specifically. I argued that many

Conclusions and Implications

135

people, including politicians, see inclusive education as a flawed project. This is because the way in which inclusive education is enacted in schools often reflects integration rather than inclusion, and instead expects disabled children to adapt and fit in with pre-established structures developed with generic children in mind. This can create stigma in children and increased marginalization that can reinforce the disabled child’s social construction of difference. As an alternative model, inclusive teaching and learning occur when teachers accept ‘primary responsibility’ for the learning of all the children in the class (Jordan et al., 2009), and as a key aspect of this, adopt inclusive pedagogical practices. I argue that it is unsurprising that inclusive education is problematic in the context of an increasingly market-oriented environment combined with little guidance or practical support for teachers about how policy should be enacted in classroom settings. Stigma and marginalization can also impact disabled children in relation to the opportunities that mainstream schools provide for making friends and fostering social activities. Finally, I reasoned that while disabled children’s uses of digital technologies are set within environmental concerns of inclusive education, a digital inclusion framework is needed to understand individual uses and experiences and to gather nuanced accounts of disabled children’s digital activities. Having explored the context of inclusive education, in Chapter 3 I moved to exploring the potential of digital technologies for supporting disabled children’s learning. In particular, I emphasized the potential of digital technologies including tablet computers for providing benefits for learning while acknowledging the difficulties of evidencing measurable learning gains. I explored how digital technologies have often been charged with the idea of transforming education and how this would require change at every level rather than just integration of technology. I then argued the case for the importance of recognizing the role of digital technologies in formal, informal and non-formal learning opportunities. This is important given that digital technologies provide opportunities for curricular activities, children’s social activities, friendships and the development of skills and competencies. Finally in this chapter, I explained how children and their teachers were engaged in research for the illustrative project. In Chapter 4, I showed that globally there is a lack of comparative and comprehensive data about children’s access to and uses of digital technologies; and this gap includes research carried out with disabled children. The evidence that does exist shows that there are disparities in relation to children’s access to digital technologies globally. Inequalities often reflect socio-economic differences between low-, middle- and high-income countries. Provision of

136

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

tablets is growing in the UK and their versatility makes them popular with both teachers and young people. Specifically in relation to disabled young people, research is limited in relation to access. Research suggests that disabled children may use digital technologies more than their generic counterparts in school and for homework, but the picture is mixed and more research is needed. The illustrative project showed that disabled children had access to a range of technologies, and school policies combined with parental provision influenced access. In relation to generic children’s types of engagement with digital technologies, a mixed picture emerged from the research. Uses tended to be quite mundane and reinforced traditional teaching practices. Nevertheless, there were pockets of more creative uses emerging using specific apps and for video production. There is much less research about disabled children’s type of engagement for learning in schools. Results remain mixed in relation to whether or not disabled children carry out a wider range of activities or not. A comprehensive literature review about disabled children showed that digital technologies were often used more narrowly as assistive technologies rather than as broader educational tools in schools. Both generic and disabled children said that they were dissatisfied with the extent and types of engagement with digital technologies in schools. The illustrative project showed that the disabled children carried out a wide range of activities in and out of school for learning. The findings were similar to those of generic children – some uses of technologies were unexciting, using Microsoft Word for writing and Keynote or PowerPoint for creating presentations. There were occasional more creative use of apps and video editing software. There were some activities where digital technologies were used as assistive technologies. The children also spoke of being allowed to use technology in exams if they were able to carry out assessments without the support of a teaching assistant. The children clearly found the inbuilt accessibility settings within tablets useful for accessing the curriculum, though they experienced some difficulties related to technical issues, skills and anxieties about losing work. Returning to generic children and their attitudes towards technology, not all children are so-called digital natives, some are less enthusiastic about digital technologies although many see the benefits for learning. Where children have been provided with access to tablets, the research shows that some remain frustrated by teachers not using them enough or in interesting ways. Again there is limited research that considers disabled children’s views and attitudes about using digital technologies. One project showed that disabled children view them as ‘cool’ and they can enable children to become more independent. Nevertheless, this is

Conclusions and Implications

137

dependent on funding, infrastructure and technical support. In the illustrative project, disabled children experienced many benefits when using technologies for learning alongside similar frustrations to those found in other projects, such as technical issues, skills’ challenges, hardware issues and class teachers not adopting digital practices or recognizing their preferences. Disabled children also talked of feeling stigmatized when they used digital technologies as other children were not allowed to. This made them stand out as different. In Chapter 5, I explored the fourth element of digital inclusion, digital skills and competencies. I set out global policy aimed at developing and evaluating young people’s skills and the common use of frameworks. I then argued that global frameworks are limiting and unable to take account of the cultural, political and social differences between countries while skills have been narrowly drawn. In particular, frameworks take no account of the complementary skills and competencies that disabled children often develop. I then made the case for the use of more holistic frameworks and models that can be both responsive and flexible within different contexts and by different people drawing on critical digital literacy perspectives. After explaining the approaches to the development of digital skills that have been taken in the UK, I set out the evidence that exists in relation to generic children’s skills. Previous research shows that children’s skills and competencies are more developed in countries of higher socio-economic status; and for young people from higher socio-economic backgrounds with regular home access to computers. Interestingly, not all children with access to technology benefit from uses equally. This suggests a need for schools to help children to increase their skills to complement those developed at home. In the UK, children’s skills are well developed compared with European averages. Disappointingly, there is very little equivalent previous research about disabled children’s skills. The illustrative project showed that the disabled children in the study considered their digital skills adequate to support their education and future employment. They had developed both mainstream skills and complementary skills with both tablet inbuilt accessibility settings and assistive technologies in order to access the curriculum. In relation to generic children’s safety online, I explored the use of frameworks that aim to develop children’s online safety skills and avoid risk. These tended to focus on the risks posed by ill-intentioned outsiders rather than the kinds of insidious commercial risks to children’s privacy that some authors cite. There are differences in the risks faced by children within different countries, and differences between children in how these risks are viewed. Globally it is difficult to assess the level of risk that children face. However, importantly, there

138

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

is a clear connection between online and offline risks with children who take more risks offline seemingly taking more risks online. In the UK, cyberbullying is increasing as are the amount of children seeing hate messages. Of concern is the growing body of evidence that suggests that disabled children are more at risk online than other children. Disabled children are also more likely to experience hate crime, being left out and excluded from friendships when online. The illustrative project suggests that this group of young people had not experienced much online risk although the data suggest that they may take cyberbullying for granted. Strategies for keeping safe generally were reported by children to be well developed and the children appeared sensible and often cautious online. In Chapter 6, I shifted the focus from young people to schools and argued that for mainstream schools to become more inclusive, inclusion needs to be recognized by everyone and embedded within every aspect of the school. In particular, the role of class teachers is crucial within this debate. They need to be supported to accept primary responsibility for every child in their classes. Even so, this agenda is particularly challenging given the increasing market orientation of schools in countries such as the UK combined with heavy teacher workloads. Yet inclusive pedagogical practices could enable disabled children to fit in and avoid stigma while also limiting the reliance of teaching assistant workarounds in situ. Further support needs to be provided within both initial teacher education and in-service professional courses to address this. As Webster and Blatchford have noted, schools need to rethink their approaches and develop a more inclusive ethos as a strategic priority (2018). Likewise, teachers need more support to develop effective digital pedagogies that enable them to teach all children within the class in more creative and innovative ways using technology. The illustrative project showed that this group of disabled children were very well supported by highly skilled and committed qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairments and teaching assistants. Yet, this enabled some class teachers to rely on teaching assistants in situ rather than developing their own more inclusive practices. Strikingly, teaching assistants were often more conversant with using digital technologies for learning than class teachers seemed to be. Class teachers cited workload and time constraints as barriers to developing more inclusive digital pedagogies. In conclusion, it is clear that the challenge now is to identify ways in which this agenda can be moved forward with support provided for schools and teachers to develop inclusive digital pedagogies. The next section will set out suggestions for this.

Conclusions and Implications

139

Moving Forward While there are pockets of individual good practice in schools where digital technologies are used in inclusive ways, there remains a need to extend these approaches to other schools and other teachers. The key aspect of the challenge is to ensure that class teachers are facilitated to accept ‘primary responsibility’ for every child in the class (Jordan et al., 2009). As we have seen, this requires a huge shift from current practices that typically rely on teaching assistants to support disabled children (Webster and Blatchford, 2018) and disabled children to develop workarounds to inaccessible curricula. Second, class teachers need to be provided with the time, guidance and training to develop inclusive digital pedagogies given that typically these are also currently lacking (2011; European Agency for Special Needs in Education, 2013; European Schoolnet, 2014; Florian, 2004). There are already well-respected organizations such as CALL in Scotland that provide very useful support for schools to enable disabled children to be supported by digital technologies.1 In addition, class teachers can be encouraged to adopt Universal Design for Learning principles in their teaching and learning.2 Yet, such initiatives do not appear to be facilitating the change needed generally or to nurture the development of inclusive digital pedagogies in mainstream schools. Part of the problem is that research is lacking about disabled children’s uses of digital technologies generally, and specifically that could be used to underpin guidance for training that supports teachers to develop digital pedagogies in inclusive ways. Researchers have a clear role to play in this. The underdevelopment of inclusive digital pedagogies is not just the responsibility of schools and teachers, and more attention needs to be given to this within educational technology research given the high numbers of disabled children in mainstream schools. Researchers need to work together with key stakeholders to include disabled young people, class teachers, qualified teachers of children and young people, teaching assistants, school leaders and parents/carers to address the issues and provide the guidance that is needed. In turn, further initiatives are required that instil this training and guidance in initial teaching education, in in-service professional development, and via networks and mentoring. Activities drawn from previous research in relation to promoting digital technologies are likely to be relevant to promoting development of teachers’ inclusive (digital) pedagogies. It would be helpful for teachers to be presented see https://www​.callscotland​.org​.uk​/home/ http:​/​/www​​.cast​​.org/​​our​-w​​ork​/a​​bout-​​udl​.h​​tml#​​.XdJP​_1czY2w

1 2

140

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

with insights drawn from disability studies in education that challenge prevailing approaches and practices in schools to support positive change (Florian and Spratt, 2013). These authors have argued that teachers should be introduced to principles of social justice that underpin the provision of access of the same learning opportunities to all children (see Chapter 2). Other studies similarly show how interventions within teacher education can contribute to positive teacher attitudes towards inclusion. For instance, Jenson (2018) highlights how teachers provided with training in inclusive practices and working with disabled children had a more positive attitude towards inclusion than teachers with limited awareness and knowledge. Training leads to increased confidence to employ inclusive practices in teaching. Inadequate training means that teachers can lack the confidence they need to be able to provide the best teaching and learning experiences for disabled children, and, in turn, experience guilt and frustration (Odongo and Davidson, 2016). Professional development is needed to move teachers forward to create inclusive digital pedagogies. Previous research in relation to promotion of digital technologies for teaching and learning has shown that interventions should aim to enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills. This increases teacher confidence and reduces the anxiety associated with using digital technologies (Ertmer et al., 2012; Ertmer and Ottenbriet-Leftwich, 2010). Teachers also need to experience the benefits that using digital technologies can bring to children’s learning, particularly in terms of student-centred learning. These have been shown to impact teachers’ beliefs (Sandholtz and Ringstaff, 1996). Training must be authentic and connected to actual classroom practice rather than providing stand-alone sessions that focus solely on disconnected digital skills and competencies and may not lead to long-term changes in attitudes and practices (Kopcha, 2012; Mouza, 2009). Moreover, it has been argued that professional development should nurture teacher practices that emphasize Web 2.0 technologies, such as wikis and blogs. These can support children to collaborate and problem-solve (Wei et al., 2009). In addition, it is important that teachers develop more innovative ways of teaching with technology as this is also currently lacking (Blikstad-Balas and Davies, 2017). Evidence suggests that both formal and informal networks within and between schools can be positive for teachers’ development including those that draw on the opportunities provided by Web 2.0 technologies. While there has been much interest in this, networks have not yet become common practice despite the opportunities they provide for collaboration, sharing of pedagogical resources and knowledge (Cranmer and Lewin, 2017; Goodyear, 2015). Formal learning

Conclusions and Implications

141

design processes involving teachers can encourage collaboration, development of professional networks and sharing of good practices (Persico and Pozzi, 2015). The Innovative Technologies for Engaging Classrooms (iTEC) project, for example, established a learning design process in European schools. A key outcome from the project was that teachers needed to embed technology in their curriculum design from the outset rather than as an add-on task such as using technology for research or presenting findings (Lewin and McNicol, 2015). Even so, the authors noted that collaborative learning design processes were time intensive for teachers and that this should not be underestimated given the time constraints that limit some teachers’ ability to engage in professional networks both formally and informally. Evidence also supports the notion of engaging in informal networks, with or without the support of technology, as a means of positively impacting teachers’ professional practices and positively influencing teachers’ perceptions of using digital technologies (Perrotta, 2013). For example, some teachers are encouraged to try out new practices through the sharing and discussion of new ideas through, for example, the Twitter4TeachersWiki3 (Ertmer et al., 2012). Proponents of mentoring argue that this can be particularly effective to support long-term change given its strong evidence base generally. Drawing on Kopcha’s work (2012), benefits are said to include authenticity, learnercentredness, active engagement and peer-centredness (Mouza, 2009; Wells, 2007). Therefore, mentoring can be beneficial for improving teacher attitudes towards the development of digital pedagogies through establishing on-the-job training (Hixon and Buckmeyer, 2009), and through providing positive experiences of teaching with technology (Boulay and Fulford, 2009). Indeed previous research has found that mentored teachers are able to integrate and sustain the use of technology over time more than teachers who do not have a mentor (Lowther et al., 2008). They are also able to resolve issues with technology during teaching with limited additional support (Sugar, 2005), and can develop a clear idea of how to use technology in their teaching (Owston, 2006). On the other hand, mentoring places high demands on schools in terms of resources (Chuang et al., 2003) and mentoring initiatives are difficult to scale (Polly et al., 2010). Kopcha (2012) carried out research with eighteen teachers undertaking a sustained mentoring scheme to develop digital pedagogies in the United States. Results were mostly positive with long-term benefits noted in relation to attitudes and development of digital pedagogies. However, interviews with teachers showed that time constraints continued to limit technology integration even when teachers had http:​/​/twi​​tter4​​teach​​ers​.p​​bwork​​s​.com​​/w​/pa​​ge​/22​​55453​​​4​/Fro​​ntPag​e

3

142

Disabled Children and Digital Technologies

developed the necessary skills and knowledge to do so effectively, which shows how the workload burden on teachers can limit their professional development despite schools’ mentoring interventions. These interventions are important for considering the barriers that schools and teachers encounter and how these might be overcome to support teachers to use digital technologies more in their daily practices. In terms of the agenda for this book, what also matters is that teachers are able to design inclusive lessons for all children in their classes using technology.

Further Research with Disabled Children The starting point for this book was to investigate disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning within the context of inclusive education. It aimed at mapping the territory of previous research to understand the complex relationship between disabled children and digital technologies within the context of mainstream schools. As a key part of the project, it pointed to the need to open a debate about how schools and teachers are supporting disabled children to learn with digital technologies in mainstream schools. This was alongside questions about the opportunities that disabled children are able to access using digital technologies for learning; the factors that influence disabled children’s uses and experiences; disabled children’s development of digital skills and competencies generally, and to stay safe online; and the potential of digital technologies to support learning and inclusion. What has become very apparent in drawing together the various themes within the book is the inadequate research base in relation to disabled children’s uses of digital technologies for learning generally, and specifically in relation to the need for more guidance for class teachers to develop inclusive digital pedagogies. This book ends therefore with a call for further research to underpin useful developments that support disabled children to learn using digital technologies in inclusive ways. As noted earlier, it is not just the responsibility of schools and class teachers to support disabled youngsters. Researchers have much to offer the field. It is very clear that further studies are needed that start with disabled children’s own concerns in relation to digital learning, and beyond that, in relation to disabled children’s uses and experiences of digital technologies in general. It would also be useful if large-scale research noted disability as a social marker to provide comparative research about disabled children’s online activities as has often been the case for generic children. These steps are crucial if disabled children’s digital rights and the need for their voices to be heard are to be respected.

Bibliography Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016). Researching a posthuman world. Interviews with digital objects. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Aldunate, R., & Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 519–24. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017. Allan, G. (1998). Friendship, sociology and social structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(5), 685–702. doi:10.1177/0265407598155007. Allen, R., Benhenda, A., Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2019). New evidence on teachers’ working hours in England: An empirical analysis of four datasets. London: UCL Institute of Education. Retrieved from https​://jo​hnjer​rim.f​i les.​wordp​ress.​com/2​ 019/0​9/wor​king_​paper​_teac​her_h​ours.​pdf. Alper, M., & Goggin, G. (2017). Digital technology and rights in the lives of children with disabilities. New Media & Society, 19(5), 726–40. doi:10.1177/1461444816686323. Amr, M., Al-Natour, M., Al-Abdallat, B., & Alkharma, H. (2016). Primary school teachers’ knowledge, attitudes and views on barriers to inclusion in Jordan. International Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 67–77. Antoninis, M., & Montoya, S. (2018). A global framework to measure digital literacy. Retrieved from http:​//uis​.unes​co.or​g/en/​blog/​globa​l-fra​mewor​k-mea​sure-​digit​al-li​ terac​y. Ariès, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life. New York: Vintage Books. Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London, UK: Sage. Armstrong, D. (2005). Reinventing ‘inclusion’: New labour and the cultural politics of special education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 135–51. Armstrong, F., & Barton, L. (1999). Disability, human rights and education: Cross cultural perspectives. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Association for learning technology. (2012). Evidence-based policy development in learning technology. Retrieved from https​://re​posit​ory.a​lt.ac​.uk/2​213/1​/Evid​ence-​ basep​olicy​inLT_​Final​_AD_2​60320​12.pd​f. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–47. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056. Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom. New York, USA: Routledge.

144

Bibliography

Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2014). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding - priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Brussels: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http:​//www​.eun.​org/r​esour​ces/d​etail​?publ​icati​ onID=​661. Balanskat, A., Bannister, D., Hertz, B., Sigillò, E., & Vuorikari, R. (2013). Overview and analysis of 1:1 learning initiatives in Europe. Seville, Spain: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Retrieved from https​://co​re.ac​.uk/d​ownlo​ad/pd​f/386​ 26139​.pdf. Ball, S. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: Policy Press. Ballard, K. (1999). Inclusive education: International voices on disability and justice. London: Falmer Press. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–48. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3. Barnes, C. (1991). Disabled people in Britain and discrimination. London: Hurst and co. Barnes, C. (2012). Understanding the social model: Past, present and future. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of disability studies. London: Routledge. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2005). Understanding impairment and disability: Towards an international perspective. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), The social model of disability: Europe and the majority world (pp. 1–16). Leeds, UK: The Disability Press. Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Barton, L. (1988). The politics of special educational needs. London: Falmer. Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231–42. Barton, L. (2001). Disability, politics and the struggle for change. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: David Fulton. Barton, L. (2004). Social inclusion and education: Issues and questions. Paper presented at the ESRC seminar: Towards Inclusion, London. Barton, L. (2012). Response. In M. Arnot (Ed.), The sociology of disability and inclusive education: A tribute to Len Barton (pp. 114–22). London: Routledge. BBC News. (2006). Internet bill of rights proposed. Retrieved from http:​//new​s.bbc​.co.u​ k/2/h​i/tec​hnolo​gy/61​06452​.stm. BBC News. (2014). Sir Tim Berners-Lee: Worldwide web needs bill of rights. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26540635. Beattie, R. B. (1999). Implementing inclusiveness realising potential - summary (Beattie committee report). Scotland. Retrieved from https​://ww​w2.go​v.sco​t/Pub​licat​ions/​ 1999/​09/Im​pleme​nting​Inclu​siven​es/Q/​pno/1​. Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to technology integration. Computers & Education, 52(2), 353–64. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–86. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x.

Bibliography

145

Benson, D. (2014). Education (school). In C. Cameron (Ed.), Disability studies (pp. 50–3). London: Sage. Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y., & Ward, K. (2006). Domestication of media and technology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. BESA. (2015). Tablet adoption continues to rise; barriers to adoption shift [Press release]. Retrieved from http:​//www​.besa​.org.​uk/ne​ws/be​sa-pr​ess-r​eleas​e-tab​let-a​ dopti​on-co​ntinu​es-ri​se-ba​rrier​s-ado​ption​-shif​t /. Bickenbach, J. E. (2001). Disability human rights, law, and policy. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565–84). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage. Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bijker, W., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT. Bingham, N. (1996). Objections: From technological determinism towards geographies of relations. Environment and planning Society and Space, 14, 635–7. Bingham, N., Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2001). Bodies in the midst of things: Relocating children’s use of the internet. In N. Watson (Ed.), Reformulating bodies. London: Macmillan. Blikstad-Balas, M., & Davies, C. (2017). Assessing the educational value of one-to-one devices: Have we been asking the right questions?. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 311–31. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2013). Framing ICT ‐ enabled innovation for learning: The case of one‐to‐one learning initiatives in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 113–30. doi:10.1111/ejed.12021. Bolter, J. D. (2016). Posthumanism. In K. B. Jensen, R. T. In Craig, J. In Pooley, & E. W. In Rothenbuhler, The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy (pp. 1–8). Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ : Wiley. Bond, E. (2014). Childhood, mobile technologies and everyday experiences: Changing technologies = changing childhoods? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Booth, T. (2002). Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: Who controls the agenda? In F. Armstrong, D. Armstrong, & L. Barton (Eds.), Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. London: David Fulton. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Retrieved from: http:​//www​.csie​.org.​uk/re​sourc​es/in​clusi​on-in​dex-e​xplai​ned.s​html Boulay, R. A., & Fulford, C. P. (2009). Technology mentoring: Research results across seven campuses, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity press. Brečko, B. N., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2014). Mainstreaming ICT-enabled innovation in education and training in Europe: Policy actions for sustainability, scalability and

146

Bibliography

impact at system level. Seville, Spain: Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre. Retrieved from http:​//pub​licat​ions.​jrc.e​c.eur​opa.e​u/ rep​osito​ry/bi​tstre​am/JR​C8350​2/jrc​83502​.pdf. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2017a). The state of broadband 2017: Broadband catalyzing sustainable development. Retrieved from https​://ww​ w.itu​.int/​dms_p​ub/it​u-s/o​pb/po​l/S-P​OL-BR​OADBA​ND.18​-2017​-PDF-​E.pdf​. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. (2017b). Working group on education: Digital skills for life and work. Retrieved from http:​//d-r​ussia​.ru/w​p-con​ tent/​uploa​ds/20​17/10​/Digi​tal-s​kills​-for-​life-​and-w​ork_2​59013​e.pdf​. Brodin, J. (2010). Can ICT give children with disabilities equal opportunities in school? Improving Schools, 13(1), 99–112. doi:10.1177/1365480209353483. Brodin, J., & Lindstrand, P. (2008). ICT and inclusive education primary schools pupils with motor disabilities. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 2(3), 16–23. Brown, M. (2017). The challenge of digital literacy: Beyond narrow skills to critical mindsets. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.lin​kedin​.com/​pulse​/chal​lenge​-digi​tal-l​itera​ cy-be​yond-​narro​w-ski​lls-c​ritic​al-ma​rk-br​own. Brown, M. R., Higgins, K., Pierce, T., Hong, E., & Thoma, C. (2003). Secondary students’ perceptions of school life with regard to alienation: The effects of disability, gender and race. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(4), 227–38. doi:10.2307/1593636. Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2015). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the internet. Santa Cruz, US: University of California. Retrieved from https:// www.nber.org/papers/w22237. Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (2004). Student attitudes toward peers with disabilities in inclusive and special education schools. Disability & Society, 19(1), 61–76. doi:10.10 80/0968759032000155640. Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge. Cambra, C., & Silvestre, N. (2003). Students with special educational needs in the inclusive classroom: social integration and self-concept. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(2), 197–208. doi:10.1080/0885625032000078989. Cameron, C. (2014). Disability research. In C. Cameron (Ed.), Disability studies: A student’s guide (pp. 33–6). London: Sage. Campbell, F. K. (2001). Inciting legal fictions: Disability’s date with ontology and the ableist body of the law. Griffith Law Review, 10, 42–62. Campbell, F. K. (2008). Refusing able(ness): A preliminary conversation about ableism. M/C Journal, 11(3), 1–15. Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (1996). Disability politics: Understanding our past, changing our future. London; New York: Routledge. Carpe, A., Harder, K., Tam, C., & Reid, D. (2010). Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assistive Technology, 22(2), 87–98. doi:10.1080/10400435.2010.483645. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use.

Bibliography

147

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https​:// ec​.euro​pa.eu​/jrc/​en/pu​blica​tion/​eur-s​cient​ific-​and-t​echni​cal-r​esear​ch-re​ports​/digc​ omp-2​1-dig​ital-​compe​tence​-fram​ework​-citi​zens-​eight​-prof​i cien​cy-le​vels-​and-e​ xampl​es-us​e. Cavet, J. (1998). Leisure and friendship. In C. Robinson & K. Stalker (Eds.), Growing up with disability (pp. 97–110). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Cavet, J. (2000). Research section: ‘It’s a delicate thing’: Coping with a hidden disability in mainstream schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 154–9. doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00179. Chappell, A. L. (1994). A question of friendship: Community care and the relationships of people with learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 9(4), 419–34. doi:10.1080/09687599466780431. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Chataika, T., & McKenzie, J. (2013). Considerations of an African childhood disability studies. In T. Curran & K. Runswick-Cole (Eds.), Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Chuang, H.-H., Thompson, A., & Schmidt, D. (2003). Faculty technology mentoring programs. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(4), 101–6. doi:10.1080/104 02454.2003.10784472. Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96. doi:10.1111/jcal.12036. Clark, K. (2006). Practices for the use of technology in high schools: A Delphi study. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 481–99. Clark, W., & Luckin, R. (2013). iPads in the classroom. London, UK: London Knowledge Lab. Retrieved from https​://di​gital​teach​ingan​dlear​ning.​files​.word​press​ .com/​2013/​03/ip​ads-i​n-the​-clas​sroom​-repo​rt-lk​l.pdf​. Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2014). An updated literature review on the use of tablets in education. London: Techknowledge for Schools. Retrieved from https​://le​arnin​gfoun​ datio​n.org​.uk/w​p-con​tent/​uploa​ds/20​16/04​/FKY-​An-Up​dated​-Lite​ratur​e-Rev​iew-o​ n-the​-Use-​of-Ta​blets​-in-E​ducat​ion-A​pril-​2014.​pdf. Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2015). Updated review of the global use of mobile technology in education. London: Techknowledge for Schools. Retrieved from https​://le​arnin​ gfoun​datio​n.org​.uk/w​p-con​tent/​uploa​ds/20​16/02​/T4S-​FKY-L​itera​ture-​Revie​w-11.​ 12.15​-1-1.​pdf. Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2003). Informality and formality in learning: A report for the learning and skills research centre. London: LSRC. Retrieved from https​://ka​r.ken​t.ac.​uk/46​47/3/​Infor​malit​y%20a​nd%20​Forma​lity%​20in%​20Lea​rning​ .pdf. Condie, R., & Munro, B. (2007). The impact of ICT in schools—a landscape review Coventry, UK: Becta. Retrieved from https​://de​ra.io​e.ac.​uk/16​27/7/​becta​_2007​_land​ scape​impac​trevi​ew_re​port_​Redac​ted.p​df.

148

Bibliography

Confederation for British Industry. (2012). First steps: A new approach for our schools – ambition, a desire and determination to achieve success. London: CBI. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.too​mucht​oosoo​n.org​/uplo​ads/2​/0/3/​8/203​81265​/firs​t_ste​ps_en​ d_of_​year_​repor​t.pdf​. Connors, C., & Stalker, K. (2003). The views and experiences of disabled children and their siblings: A positive outloook. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Connors, C., & Stalker, K. (2007). Children’s experience of disability: Pointers to a social model of childhood. Disability & Society, 22, 19–33. Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Costello, S., & Boyle, C. (2013). Pre-service secondary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 129–43. doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n4.8. Cranmer, S. (2006). Children and young people’s uses of the Internet for homework. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(3), 301–15. doi:10.1080/17439880600893358. Cranmer, S. (2013). Listening to excluded young people’s experiences of e-safety and risk. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(1), 72–85. doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.658405. Cranmer, S. (2017). Disabled children and young people’s uses and experiences of digital technologies for learning. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University. Retrieved from https​://ep​rints​.lanc​s.ac.​uk/id​/epri​nt/88​991/4​/Disa​bled_​child​ren_f​i nal_​repor​ t_30.​11.17​.pdf. Cranmer, S. (2020). Disabled children’s evolving digital use practices to support formal learning: A missed opportunity for inclusion. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(2), 315–30. doi:10.1111/bjet.12827. Cranmer, S., & Lewin, C. (2017). iTEC: Conceptualising, realising and recognising pedagogical and technological innovation in European classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(4), 409–23. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2017.1299791. Crosnoe, R. (2000). Friendships in childhood and adolescence: The life course and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 377–91. doi:10.2307/2695847. Cross, E. J., Richardson, B., & Douglas, T. V.-F. J. (2009). Virtual violence: Protecting children from cyberbullying. London: Beatbullying. Retrieved from https​://in​clusi​ vetea​ch.co​m/wp-​conte​nt/up​loads​/2016​/06/v​irtua​l_vio​lence​_-_pr​otect​ing_c​hildr​ en_fr​om_cy​berbu​llyin​g.pdf​. Crow, L. (1996). Including all of our lives. Renewing the social model of disability. In C. Barnes & G. Mercer (Eds.), Exploring the divide: Illness and disability (pp. 55–73). Leeds: The disability press. Culham, A., & Nind, M. (2003). Deconstructing normalisation: Clearing the way for inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 28(1), 65–78. doi:10.108 0/1366825031000086902. Curran, T. (2013). Disabled children’s childhood studies: Alternative relations and forms of authority? T. Curran & K. Runswick-Cole (Eds.), Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bibliography

149

Curran, T., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Curran, T., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Disabled children’s childhood studies: A distinct approach? Disability & Society, 29(10), 1617–30. doi:10.1080/09687599.201 4.966187. Davies, C., & Eynon, R. (2013). Teenagers and technology (Adolescence and society). London, UK: Routledge. Davis, J. M. (2004). Disability and childhood: Deconstructing the stereotypes. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers - Enabling environments (2nd edn). London: Sage. Davis, L. J. (1995). Enforcing normalcy: Disability, deafness, and the body. London, UK: Verso. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum. Del-Manso, H., Bailey, A., Hughes, T., Findlater, D., & Findlater, J. (2011). Children with special educational needs – internet safety concerns. Bromsgrove, UK: Lucy Faithful Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.lucyfaithfull.org.uk/. Department for Education (DfE), & Department of Health (HoH). (2014). Children and families bill. London. Retrieved from https​://se​rvice​s.par​liame​nt.uk​/bill​s/201​ 2-13/​child​renan​dfami​lies.​html. Department for Education (DfE). (2010). The equality act. London, UK. Retrieved from http:​//www​.legi​slati​on.go​v.uk/​ukpga​/2010​/15/c​onten​ts. Department for Education (DfE). (2011). Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs. London. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.gov​.uk/g​overn​ment/​ publi​catio​ns/su​pport​-and-​aspir​ation​-a-ne​w-app​roach​-to-s​pecia​l-edu​catio​nal-n​eeds-​ and-d​isabi​lity-​consu​ltati​on. Department for Education (DfE). (2013). The national curriculum in England: Key stages 1 and 2 framework document. London. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​ shing​.serv​ice.g​ov.uk​/gove​rnmen​t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​ /4256​01/PR​IMARY​_nati​onal_​curri​culum​.pdf. Department for Education (DfE). (2015). Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years statutory guidance for organisations which work with and support children and young people who have special educational needs or disabilities. London, UK. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​shing​.serv​ice.g​ov.uk​/ gove​rnmen​t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​/3988​15/SE​ND_Co​de_of​ _Prac​tice_​Janua​ry_20​15.pd​f. Department for Education (DfE). (2019). Special educational needs in England: January 2019. London, UK. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​shing​.serv​ice.g​ov.uk​/gove​rnmen​ t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​/8142​44/SE​N_201​9_Tex​t.doc​x.pdf​. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001). Special educational needs code of practice. London. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​shing​.serv​ice.g​ov.uk​/gove​ rnmen​t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​/2738​77/sp​ecial​_educ​ation​ al_ne​eds_c​ode_o​f_pra​ctice​.pdf.

150

Bibliography

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004). Removing the barriers to achievement: The Government's strategy for SEN. DfES. Retrieved from https​://de​ ra.io​e.ac.​uk/49​55/13​/8b56​f1b29​44d88​f593e​89ae3​009fa​5c3_R​edact​ed.pd​f. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2018). Digital learning framework for schools. Dublin, Ireland: Gov.ie. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.pds​ttech​nolog​yined​ ucati​on.ie​/en/P​lanni​ng/Di​gital​-Lear​ning-​Frame​work/​ Disability Rights Commission. (2004). Web access and inclusion for disabled people: A formal investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission London: TSO. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.cit​y.ac.​uk/__​data/​asset​s/pdf​_file​/0004​/7267​0/DRC​ _Repo​rt.pd​f. Ditzler, C., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2016). How tablets are utilized in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 181–93. doi:10.1080/1539152 3.2016.1172444. Drake, R. (1999). Understanding disability policies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Dunn, K., & Moore, M. (2005). Developing accessible play spaces in the UK: A social model approach. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1), 331–53. Dwight, V. (2012). Assistive technology in the classroom. Retrieved from https​://ww​ w.wea​retea​chers​.com/​assis​tive-​techn​ology​-in-t​he-cl​assro​om/. Easton, D. (1953). The political system, an inquiry into the state of political science. New York: Knopf. Egilson, S. Þ., Borgunn, Y., Rannveig, T., & Berg, B. (2015). Introduction: Disabled children and youth in the Nordic countries. In T. Rannveig, Y. Borgunn, S. Þ. Egilson, & B. Berg (Eds.), Childhood and disability in the Nordic countries: Being, becoming, belonging. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning, implicity learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. In F. Coffield (Ed.), The necessity of informal learning. Bristol: The Policy Press. Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–84. doi:10.1080/15391523.2010.1 0782551. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–35. https​://do​i.org​/10.1​016/j​.comp​edu.2​012.0​ 2.001​ Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(2), 171–90. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1. ESRC. (2012). The research ethics guidebook. Retrieved from http:​//eth​icsgu​idebo​ok.ac​ .uk/R​esear​ch-wi​th-ch​ildre​n-105​.

Bibliography

151

European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2013). Information and communication technology for inclusion. Research literature review. Denmark and Belgium: Retrieved from https​://ww​w.eur​opean​-agen​cy.or​g/res​ource​s/pub​licat​ ions/​infor​matio​n-and​-comm​unica​tion-​techn​ology​-incl​usion​-rese​arch-​liter​ature​. European Commission. (2013a). Survey of schools: ICT in education, final study report: Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from https​://ec​.euro​pa.eu​/digi​tal-s​ingle​ -mark​et/si​tes/d​igita​l-age​nda/f​i les/​KK-31​-13-4​01-EN​-N.pd​f. European Commission. (2013b). Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools. Belgium: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from https​://ec​.euro​pa.eu​/digi​tal-s​ingle​-mark​et/en​/news​/surv​ ey-sc​hools​-ict-​educa​tion. European Commission. (2019). Executive summary of 2nd survey of schools: ICT in education objective 1: Benchmark progress in ICT in schools. Luxembourg: Deloitte and Ipsos MORI. Retrieved from https​://ec​.euro​pa.eu​/digi​tal-s​ingle​-mark​et/en​/news​ /2nd-​surve​y-sch​ools-​ict-e​ducat​ion. European Schoolnet. (2014). Tablet computers and learners with special educational needs. SENnet project thematic report no. 3. Brussels: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http:​//sen​net.e​un.or​g/wik​i?p_p​_id=3​6&p_p​_life​cycle​=1&p_​p_sta​ te=ex​clusi​ve&p_​p_mod​e=vie​w&p_p​_col_​id=co​lumn-​1&p_p​_col_​pos=1​&p_p_​ col_c​ount=​2&_36​_stru​ts_ac​tion=​/wiki​/get_​page_​attac​hment​&p_r_​p_185​83441​ 1_nod​eId=6​5129&​p_r_p​_1858​34411​_titl​e=Fro​ntPag​e&_36​_file​Name=​Thema​tic_S​ tudy_​Year3​.pdf. European Union. (N.D.). Europe 2020 - Overview. Retrieved from https​://ec​.euro​pa.eu​/ euro​stat/​web/e​urope​-2020​-indi​cator​s. Feely, M. (2016). Disability studies after the ontological turn: A return to the material world and material bodies without a return to essentialism. Disability & Society, 31(7), 863–83. doi:10.1080/09687599.2016.1208603. Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http:​//jis​ cdesi​gnstu​dio.p​bwork​s.com​/w/fi​le/fe​tch/5​58231​62/Fi​nalCS​Repor​t_PDF​PARAW​ EB.pd​f. Florian, L. (2004). Uses of technology that support pupils with special educational needs. L. Florian & J. Hegarty (Eds.), ICT and special educational needs (7–20). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: a framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119-135. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2013.778111. Florian, L., Rouse, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2017). Achievement and inclusion in schools. London: Routledge. Flynn, M., & Hirst, M. (1992). This year, next year, sometime?: Learning disability and adulthood. London, UK: National Development Team.

152

Bibliography

Flynn, S. (2017). Engaging with materialism and material reality: Critical disability studies and economic recession. Disability & Society, 32(2), 143–59. doi:10.1080/096 87599.2017.1284650. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 399–414. doi:10.1080/13645579.2014.921458. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2018). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Retrieved from https​://ww​w.iea​.nl/s​ites/​defau​lt/fi​ les/2​019-1​1/ICI​LS%20​2019%​20Dig​ital%​20fin​al%20​04112​019.p​df. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age. The IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Retrieved from https​://re​searc​h.ace​r.edu​.au/c​gi/vi​ewcon​tent.​cgi?a​ rticl​e=100​9&con​text=​ict_l​itera​cy. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International computer and information literacy study assessment framework. Amsterdam, the Netherlands International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Retrieved from https​://ww​w.iea​.nl/p​ublic​ation​s/ass​essme​nt-fr​amewo​rk/in​terna​tiona​l-com​puter​ -and-​infor​matio​n-lit​eracy​-stud​y-201​3. Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to educational policy and disability. London, UK: Falmer Press. Fund, F. (2017). Building digital confidence: Evaluating family fund’s digital skills programme for parents/carers raising disabled or seriously ill children. Scotland: The Family Fund. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.fam​ilyfu​nd.or​g.uk/​Handl​ers/D​ownlo​ad.as​ hx?ID​MF=8b​2b37e​8-e4b​c-418​6-987​d-718​96212​5934. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & ClayChambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquirybased science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–39. doi:10.1002/tea.20248. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gillen, J., & Barton, D. (2010). Digital literacies. Research briefing for the TLRP-TEL (Teaching and Learning Research Programme - Technology Enhanced Learning) (978-0-85473-902-8). London, UK: London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education. Retrieved from https​://ep​rints​.lanc​s.ac.​uk/id​/epri​nt/33​471/. Good, B., & Fang, L. (2015). Promoting smart and safe internet use among children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their parents. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 179–88. doi:10.1007/s10615-015-0519-4. Goodley, D. (2009). Bringing the psyche back into disability studies: The case of the body with/out organs. Journal of Cultural and Litrerary Disability Studies, 3, 257–72.

Bibliography

153

Goodley, D. (2011). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction. London: Sage. Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/Entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 28(5), 631–44. doi:10.1080/09687599.2012.717884. Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Provocations for critical disability studies. Disability & Society, 34(6), 972–97. doi:10.1080/09687599. 2019.1566889. Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., & Runswick Cole, K. (2014). Posthuman disability studies. Subjectivity, 7(4), 342–61. doi:10.1057/sub.2014.15. Goodley, D., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). The violence of disablism. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33, 602–17. doi:10.1080/09687591003755914. Goodwin, K. (2012). Use of tablet technology in the classroom. State of New South Wales: NSW Department of Education and Communities. Retrieved from https​://fa​ d.tel​uq.ca​/telu​qDown​load.​php?f​i le=2​013/1​1/iPa​d_Eva​luati​on_Sy​dney_​Regio​n_v2.​ pdf. Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27–50. Graham, R. G. (2014). Techno-resiliency: An exploration of professional practices in the field of technology-enriched teaching and learning. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Grant, L. (2017). ‘Don’t use professional judgement, use the actual number.’ The production and performance of educational data practices in an English secondary school. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Grech, S. (2013). Disability, childhood and poverty: Critical perspectives on Guatemala. In T. Curran & K. Runswick-Cole (Eds.), Disabled children’s childhood studies: Critical approaches in a global context (pp. 89–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Greenhow, C., & Lewin, C. (2016). Social media and education: Reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(1), 6–30. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1064954. Grenier, M. (2010). Moving to inclusion: A socio‐cultural analysis of practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 387–400. doi:10.1080/13603110802504598. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1995). On some failures in constructivist and feminist analyses of technology. In K. Grint & R. Gill (Eds.), The gender-technology relation: Contemporary theory and research. London: Taylor and Francis. Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. (1997). The machine at work. Cambridge: Polity. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129–42. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564.

154

Bibliography

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139–56. doi:10.1111/jcal.12123. Haug, P. (2017). Understanding inclusive education: ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(3), 206–17. 10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778 Hayhoe, S. (2012). Using an iPad as an assistive device to improve technical literacy: Trial usage with an Emirati student. In S. Dowling (Ed.), Elearning in action: opening up learning. Educational Technology Series. Abu-Dhabi, UAE: HCT Press. Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A summary of evidence on inclusive education. Sao Paulo: Instituto Alana. Retrieved from https​://fi​les.e​ric.e​d.gov​/full​text/​ED596​134.p​df. Heiman, T., Olenik-Shemesh, D., & Eden, S. (2015). Cyberbullying involvement among students with ADHD: Relation to loneliness, self-efficacy and social support. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(1), 15–29. doi:10.1080/08856257.20 14.943562. Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–26. doi:10.1111/j.14682885.2012.01416.x. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–20. Helsper, E. J., Kalmus, V., Hasebrink, U., Sagvari, B., & Haan, J. D. (2013). Country Classification: Opportunities, Risks, Harm and Parental Mediation London: LSE. Retrieved from http:​//www​.lse.​ac.uk​/medi​a@lse​/rese​arch/​EUKid​sOnli​ne/EU​%20Ki​ ds%20​III/C​lassi​ficat​ion/C​ountr​y-cla​ssifi​catio​n-rep​ort-E​U-Kid​s-Onl​ine.p​df. Hendrickson, J. M., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Hamre-Nietupski, S., & Gable, R. A. (1996). Middle and high school students’ perceptions on being friends with peers with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 19–28. 10.1177/001440299606300102 Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–52. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5. Hirst, M., & Baldwin, S. (1994). Unequal opportunities: Growing up disabled. London: Social Policy Research Unit, HMSO. Hixon, E., & Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools: Implications for professional development. Computers in the Schools, 26(2), 130–46. doi:10.1080/07380560902906070. Hlebec, V., Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2006). The social support networks of internet users. New Media & Society, 8(1), 9–32. doi:10.1177/1461444806058166. Hodge, N., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2013). ‘They never pass me the ball’: Exposing ableism through the leisure experiences of disabled children, young people and their families. Children’s Geographies, 11(3), 311–25. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.812275. Hodkinson, A., & Vickerman, P. (2009). Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion. London, UK: Sage.

Bibliography

155

Hogan, L., McLellan, A., & Bauman, A. (2000). Health promotion needs of young people with disabilities-a population study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(8), 352–7. doi:10.1080/096382800296593. Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: Children in the information age. London: Routledge Falmer. House of Commons Education Committee (2019). Special educational needs and disabilities. First Report of Session 2019. London: House of Commons Retrieved from https​://pu​blica​tions​.parl​iamen​t.uk/​pa/cm​20191​9/cms​elect​/cmed​uc/20​/20.p​df. Hu, H.-F., Chou, W.-J., & Yen, C.-F. (2016). Anxiety and depression among adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: The roles of behavioral temperamental traits, comorbid autism spectrum disorder, and bullying involvement. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 32(2), 103–9. 10.1016/j.kjms.2016.01.002 Huang, Y.-M., Liang, T.-H., Su, Y.-N., & Chen, N.-S. (2012). Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book learning system for elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 703–22. Hurrelmann, K. (1996). The social world of adolescents: A sociological perspective. K. Hurrelmann & S. F. Hamilton (Eds.), Social problems and social contexts in adolescence: Perspectives across boundaries (39–62). New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–56. Ifenthaler, D., & Schweinbenz, V. (2016). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(4), 306–21. doi:10.108 0/15391523.2016.1215172. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–54. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). (2006). SITES 2006: The use of ICT in teaching and learning. Executive summary. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Retrieved from https://www.iea.nl/studies/iea/sites. James, A., & James, A. L. (2004). Constructing childhood. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London, UK: Falmer. James, A. (2011). To be (come) or not to be (come): Understanding children’s citizenship. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), 167–79.10.1177/0002716210383642 Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigale, M., Robinson, A. J. T. M., & Foundation. (2006). Chicago, US: The MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from https​ ://ww​w.mac​found​.org/​media​/arti​cle_p​dfs/J​ENKIN​S_WHI​TE_PA​PER.P​DF. Jenkins, R. (2008). Social identity (3rd edn). London: Routledge. Jenks, C. (1996). Childhood. London: Routledge. Jensen, A. M. (2003). Fra nyttebarn til byttebarn. Barns verdi og demografi [From utility to benefits. Children’s value and demography]. Oslo: Gyldendal.

156

Bibliography

Jenson, K. (2018). A global perspective on teacher attitudes towards inclusion: literature review. In: Online Submission, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED585094. Johnson, G. M. (2013). Using tablet computers with elementary school students with special needs: The practices and perceptions of special education teachers and teacher assistants: Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1029332. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–42. 10.1016/j. tate.2009.02.010. Keane, T., & Keane, W. (2018). Parents’ expectations, perceptions and concerns when schools implement a 1:1 program. The Official Journal of the IFIP Technical Committee on Education, 23(4), 1447–64. doi:10.1007/s10639-017-9671-5. Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 31–47. doi:10.1177/001440299706400103. Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–21. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014 Kowalski, R. M., & Fedina, C. (2011). Cyber bullying in ADHD and Asperger Syndrome populations. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1201–8. 10.1016/j. rasd.2011.01.007. Kowalski, R. M., & Toth, A. (2018). Cyberbullying among youth with and without disabilities. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 7–15. doi:10.1007/s40653017-0139-y. Kvello, Ø. (2006). Barns og unges vennskap [Children’s and youth’s friendships]. Norwegian University of Technology and Science, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices. New York, USA: Peter Lang. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor-network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. LeBaron, J., & McDonough, E. (2009). Research report for GeSci meta­Review of ICT in education phase two. Cullowhee, NC, USA: Western Carolina University. Retrieved from https​://fi​les.e​ric.e​d.gov​/full​text/​ED508​942.p​df. Lee, N., & Brown, S. (1994). Otherness and the actor network: The undiscovered continent (humans and others: The concept of ‘agency’ and it’s attribution). American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 772–90. Lewin, C., & McNicol, S. (2015). The impact and potential of iTEC: Evidence from large-scale validation in school classrooms. In F. Van Assche, L. Anido, D. Griffiths,

Bibliography

157

C. Lewin, & S. McNicol (Eds.), Re-engineering the uptake of ICT in schools: The iTEC project. Amsterdam: Springer Verlag. Lidström, H., Granlund, M., & Hemmingsson, H. (2012). Use of ICT in school: A comparison between students with and without physical disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 21–34. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.613601. Lidström, H., & Hemmingsson, H. (2014). Benefits of the use of ICT in school activities by students with motor, speech, visual, and hearing impairment: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 21(4), 251–66. doi:10.3109/11038128 .2014.880940. Lidström, H. G., Ahlsten, G., & Hemmingsson, H. (2010). The influence of ICT on the activity patterns of children with physical disabilites outside school. Child: Care, Health and Development, 37(3), 313–21. Lievrouw, L. A. (2002). Determination and contingency in new media development: Diffusion of innovations and social shaping of technology perspectives. In S. Livingstone, & L. A. L. A. Lievrouw (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 183–99). London, UK: Sage. Livingstone, I., & Hope, A. (2011). Next Gen. Transforming the UK into the world’s leading talent hub for the video games and visual effects industries: A review. London: NESTA. Retrieved from https​://me​dia.n​esta.​org.u​k/doc​ument​s/nex​t_gen​ _wv.p​df. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/03054985.2011.577938. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–96. doi:10.1177/1461444807080335. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2009). Balancing opportunities and risks in teenagers use of the internet: The role of online skills and internet self-efficacy. New Media & Society, 11, 1–25. Livingstone, S., & Palmer, T. (2012). Identifying vulnerable children online and what strategies can help them. London, UK: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/44222/. Livingstone, S., & Third, A. (2017). Children and young people’s rights in the digital age: An emerging agenda. New Media & Society, 19(5), 657–70. doi:10.1177/1461444816686318. Livingstone, S., Davidson, J., Bryce, J., Batool, S., Haughton, C., & Nandi, A. (2017). Children’s online activities, risks and safety. A literature review by the UKCCIS evidence group. London: UKCCIS. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​shing​.serv​ice. g​ov.uk​/gove​rnmen​t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​/7590​05/Li​terat​ ure_R​eview​_Fina​l_Oct​ober_​2017.​pdf. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2010). Risks and safety for children on the internet: The UK report London: London School of Economics and

158

Bibliography

Political Science. Retrieved from http:​//epr​ints.​lse.a​c.uk/​33730​/1/EU​_Kids​_Onli​ ne_Re​port_​April​2014.​pdf. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings. London: LSE, EU Kids Online. Retrieved from http:​//epr​ints.​lse.a​c.uk/​33731​/1/Ri​sks%2​0and%​20saf​ety%2​ 0on%2​0the%​20int​ernet​%28ls​ero%2​9.pdf​. Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Vincent, J., Mascheroni, G., & Ólafsson, K. (2014). Net children go mobile: The UK report. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.lse​.ac.u​k/med​ia@ls​e/res​earch​/EUKi​ dsOnl​ine/E​U%20K​ids%2​0III/​Repor​ts/NC​GMUKR​eport​final​.pdf. Logar, S., Anzelm, D, Lazic, D & Vujacic, V. (2016) Global Kids Online Montenegro: opportunities, risks and safety. Global Kids Online. UNICEF Montenegro, Government of Montenegro and IPSOS Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/71295/ Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration ‘work’ when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45(3), 195–213. doi:10.1080/09523980802284317. Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Strahl, J. D., & Ross, S. M. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives bridge the way to 21st century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 1–30. doi:10.2190/EC.46.1.a. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–94. doi:10.1177/1461444816686328. MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology (2nd edn). London: Open University Press. Mallett, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Approaching disability: Critical issues and perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: III. Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 223–53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. (1990). Informal and incidential learning in the workplace. London: Routledge. Matthewman, S. (2011). Technology and social theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham: Open University Press. McLaughlin, J., Coleman-Fountain, E., & Clavering, E. (2016). Disabled childhoods: Monitoring differences and emerging identities. Oxon, UK: Routledge. McQuail, D. (1997). Analysing audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bibliography

159

Mencap. (2007). Bullying wrecks lives: the experiences of children and young people with disabilities. London: Mencap. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.men​cap.o​rg.uk​/site​s/ def​ault/​files​/2016​-07/B​ullyi​ng%20​wreck​s%20l​ives.​pdf. Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology (5), 770–82. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01352.x. Meyers, E. M., Erickson, I., & Small, R. V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: An introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355–67. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2013.783597. Moore, M. (1998). Researching disability issues. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Moore, M., & Slee, R. (2012). Disability studies, inclusive education and exclusion. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of disability studies. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600. doi:10.3102/0034654308326083. Moran-Ellis, J. (2010). Refections on the sociology of childhood in the UK. Current Sociology, 58(2), 186–205. Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195–241. Munro, E. (2011). The protection of children online: A brief scoping review to identify vulnerable groups. London: Institute of Education, Loughborough University, University of Kent. Retrieved from https​://as​sets.​publi​shing​.serv​ice.g​ov.uk​/gove​rnmen​ t/upl​oads/​syste​m/upl​oads/​attac​hment​_data​/file​/1814​76/CW​RC-00​085-2​011.p​df. Murchland, S., & Parkyn, H. (2010). Using assistive technology for schoolwork: The experience of children with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5(6), 438–47. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.481773. Norwich, B. (1994). The relationship between attitudes to the integration of children with special educational needs and wider socio‐political views; a US‐English comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9(1), 91–106. doi:10.1080/0885625940090108. Norwich, B., & Eaton, A. (2015). The new special educational needs (SEN) legislation in England and implications for services for children and young people with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20(2), 117–32. doi:10.1080/13632752.2014.989056. Odongo, G., & Davidson, R. (2016). Examining the attitudes and concerns of the Kenyan teachers toward the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education classroom. International Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 209–27.

160

Bibliography

OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http:​//www​.oecd​.org/​publi​catio​ns/st​udent​s-com​ puter​s-and​-lear​ning-​97892​64239​555-e​n.htm​. OECD. (2019). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning - home. Retrieved from http:​//www​.oecd​.org/​educa​tion/​skill​s-bey​ond-s​chool​/reco​gniti​onofn​on-fo​ rmala​ndinf​ormal​learn​ing-h​ome.h​tm. Ofcom. (2018). Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2018. London: Ofcom. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.ofc​om.or​g.uk/​__dat​a/ass​ets/p​df_fi​le/00​24/13​ 4907/​child​ren-a​nd-pa​rents​-medi​a-use​-and-​attit​udes-​2018.​pdf. Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Oliver, M. (1996). Understanding disability: From theory to practice: Basingstoke : Macmillan. Oliver, M. (2004). ‘If I had a hammer: The social model in action’. In J. Swain, S. French, C. Barnes, & S. Thomas (Eds.), Disabling barriers - enabling environments (Vol., 2nd edn, pp. 7–11). London: Sage. O'Malley, P., Lewis, M., & Donehower, C. (2013). Using tablet computers as instructional tools to increase task completion by students with autism. San Francisco. Retrieved from https​://fi​les.e​ric.e​d.gov​/full​text/​ED541​157.p​df. Owston, R. (2006). Teachers can make a difference: Professional development as a policy option for improving student learning with ICT. Paper presented at the CEIRIS-Keris international Expert meeting on ICT and Educational Performance, South Korea. Palmer, T. (2015). Digital dangers: The impact of technology on the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and young people. Ilford: Barnado's. Retrieved from https​ ://ww​w.cel​cis.o​rg/fi​les/5​715/4​871/8​578/B​arnar​dos_2​015_D​igita​l_Dan​gers_​The_i​ mpact​_of_t​echno​logy_​on_th​e_sex​ual_a​buse_​and_e​xploi​tatio​n_of_​child​ren_a​nd_yo​ ung_p​eople​.pdf. Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–43. doi:10.1111/j.14678535.2008.00858.x Parliament UK. (2019). Government’s special educational needs reforms failing young people and parents, say MPs. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.par​liame​nt.uk​/busi​ness/​ commi​ttees​/comm​ittee​s-a-z​/comm​ons-s​elect​/educ​ation​-comm​ittee​/news​-parl​iamen​ t-201​7/sen​d-rep​ort-p​ublis​hed-1​9-20/​. Passey, D. (2013). Inclusive technology enhanced learning: Overcoming cognitive, physical, emotional and geographic challenges. New York, US: Routledge. Passey, D., Rogers, C., Machell, J., & McHugh, G. (2014). The motivational effect of ICT on pupils: A department for education and skills research project. Nottingham: DfES. Retrieved from http://downloads01.smarttech.com/media/research/ international_research/uk/lancaster_report.pdf.

Bibliography

161

Pellerin, M. (2013). E-inclusion in early French immersion classrooms: Using digital technologies to support inclusive practices that meet the needs of all learners. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 44–70. Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 314–327. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01304.x. Persico, D., & Pozzi, F. (2015). Informing learning design with learning analytics to improve teacher inquiry. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 230–48. doi:10.1111/bjet.12207. Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Adolescents’ internet use: Testing the ‘disappearing digital divide’ versus the ‘emerging digital differentiation’ approach. Poetics, 34(4), 293–305. 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.005. Pfeiffer, J. P., & Pinquart, M. (2013). Computer use of adolescents with and without visual impairment. Technology & Disability, 25(2), 99–106. Phyfer, J., Burton, P., & Leoschut, L. (2016). South African Kids Online: Barriers, opportunities and risks. A glimpse into South African children’s internet use and online activities. Technical Report. Cape Town: Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention. Pijl, S. J., & Hamstra, D. (2005). Assessing pupil development and education in an inclusive setting. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 181–92. doi:10.10 80/1360311042000331192. Pijl, S. J., Meijer, C. J. W., & Hegarty, S. (Eds.). (1997). Inclusive education, a global agenda. London: Routledge. Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(4), 863–70. Pötzsch, H. (2019). Critical digital literacy: Technology in education beyond issues of user competence and labour-market qualifications. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 17, 221–40. doi:10.31269/triplec.v17i2.1093. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Priestley, M., Corker, M., & Watson, N. (1999). Unfinished business: Disabled children and disability identity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 19(2), 87–98. Princes Trust. (2013). Digital literacy survey: Retrieved from https​://ww​w.pri​nces-​trust​ .org.​uk/ab​out-t​he-tr​ust/n​ews-v​iews/​digit​al-li​terac​y-sur​vey-2​013. Prout, A. (1996). Actor-network theory, technology and medical sociology: An illustrative analysis of the metered dose inhaler. Sociology of Health & Illness, 18(2), 198–219. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.ep10934726. Qvortrup, J. (1994). Børn halv pris [Born half price]. Esbjerg: Sydjysk Universitets Forlag.

162

Bibliography

Rannveig, T., Borgunn, Y., Egilson, S. Þ., & Berg, B. (2015). Childhood and disability in the Nordic countries: Being, becoming, belonging. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ravalli, M. J. & Paoloni, P. (2016) Global Kids Online Argentina: research study on the perceptions and habits of children and adolescents on the use of technologies, the internet and social media. Global Kids Online. UNICEF Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/71284/ Ravneberg, B., & Söderström, S. (2017). Disability, society, and assistive technology. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. Redman, D., & Kotrlik, J. (2009). Family and consumer sciences teachers’ adoption of technology for use in secondary classrooms. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences Education, 27(1), 29–45. Resnick, L. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address: Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–54. doi:10.2307/1175725. Riddell, S. (2007). A sociology of special education. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education. London: Sage. Rieser, R. (2001). The struggle for inclusion: The growth of a movement. In L. Barton (Ed.), Disability, politics and the struggle for change. London: David Fulton. Rieser, R. (2010). Integration and inclusion. Retrieved from http://worldofinclusion. com/. Roberto, A., & Miguel, N. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 519–24. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017. Robinson, G. (2014). Why tablets are a key learning tool in special education. Retrieved from https​://th​erape​uticr​esour​ce.co​m/blo​g/why​-tabl​ets-a​re-a-​key-l​earni​ng-to​ol-in​ -spec​ial-e​ducat​ion. Rosenblum, L. P. (1998). Best friendships of adolescents with visual impairments: A descriptive study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92(9), 593–608. doi:10.1 177/0145482X9809200903. Roulstone, A. (2016). Disability and technology: An interdisciplinary and international approach. London, UK: Palgrave. Rouse, M. (2009). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education? Aberdeen, Scotland: University of Aberdeen. Retrieved from http:​//bir​ bhum.​nic.i​n/DPS​C/ref​erenc​e/79.​pdf. Runswick-Cole, K., & Goodley, D. (2011). Celebrating cyborgs: Photovoice and disabled children. Paper presented at the Researching the lives of disabled children and young people with a focus on their perspectives, RSRC Research Seminar Series, Norah Fry Research Unit, Bristol University. Rutherford, G. (2011). ‘Doing right by’: Teacher aides, students with disabilities, and relational social justice. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 95–119. doi:10.17763/ haer.81.1.wu14717488wx2001. Rutherford, G. (2012). In, out or somewhere in between? Disabled students’ and teacher aides’ experiences of school. Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(8), 757–74.

Bibliography

163

Salmon, N. (2013). ‘We just stick together’: How disabled teens negotiate stigma to create lasting friendship. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(4), 347–58. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01541.x. Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (1996). Teacher change in technology-rich classrooms. In Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (pp. 21–299). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schaffhauser, D. (2013). Assistive tech goes mainstream. Education Digest, 79(4), 51. Scottish Government. (2016). Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of digital technology. A digital learning and teaching strategy. Edinburgh: The Scottish Govenment. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.gov​.scot​/publ​icati​ons/e​nhanc​ing-l​earni​ ng-te​achin​g-thr​ough-​use-d​igita​l-tec​hnolo​gy/. Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review on informal learning with technology outside school. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.nfe​r.ac.​uk/pu​blica​tions​/FUTL​ 72/FU​TL72.​pdf. Sefton-Green, J. (2013). Learning at not-school: A review of study, theory, and advocacy for education in non-formal settings. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Selwyn, N. (2006). Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and lowusers of computers. Poetics, 34(4), 273–92. doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.003. Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01215.x. Selwyn, N. (2012). Making sense of young people, education and digital technology: The role of sociological theory. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 81–96. doi:10.108 0/03054985.2011.577949. Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Rethinking digital inclusion for the 21st century. Bristol, UK: Futurelab. Retrieved from https​://pd​fs.se​manti​ cscho​lar.o​rg/28​6c/8d​69459​82292​e40bf​54a51​5be0a​df34a​3e73.​pdf. Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. (2016). Toward a digital sociology of school. In J. Daniels, K. Gregory, & T. McMillan Cottom (Eds.), Digital sociologies. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., Bulfin, S., & Johnson, N. F. (2017). Left to their own devices: The everyday realities of one-to-one classrooms. Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 289–310. doi:10.1080/03054985.2017.1305047. Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2010). Primary schools and ICT: Learning from pupil perspectives. London: Continuum. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. London: Routledge. Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited [electronic resource] (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.

164

Bibliography

Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: An outdated ideology? Exploring theories and expanding methodologies. Research in Social Science and Disability, 2, 9–28. Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2010). Beyond models: Understanding the complexity of disabled people’s lives. In S. Scambler & G. Scambler (Eds.), New directions in the sociology of chronic and disabling conditions: Assaults on the life-worlds (55–77). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Silverstone, R. (1993). Time, information and communication technologies and the household. Time and Society, 2(3), 283–311. Silverstone, R., Hirsch, E., & Morley, D. (1992). Information and communication technologies and the moral economy of the household. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies. London: Routledge. Slee, R. (2010). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London: Routledge. Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Smoot, S. L. (2004). An outcome measure for social goals of inclusion. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(3), 15–22. doi:10.1177/875687050402300303. Söderström, S. (2009a). Offline social ties and online use of computers: A study of disabled youth and their use of ICT advances. New Media & Society, 11(5), 709–27. doi:10.1177/1461444809105347. Söderström, S. (2009b). The significance of ICT in disabled youth’s identity negotiations. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 11(2), 131–44. Söderström, S., & Ytterhus, B. (2010). The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: A walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion. Disability & Society, 25, 303–15. doi:10.1080/09687591003701215. Sonck, N., Livingstone, S., Kuiper, E., & de Haan, J. (2011). EU kids online: Digital literacy and safety skills. London: London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved from http:​//epr​ints.​lse.a​c.uk/​33733​/1/Di​gital​%20li​terac​y%20a​ nd%20​safet​y%20s​kills​%20%2​8lser​o%29.​pdf. Spyrou, S. (2019). An ontological turn for childhood studies? Children & Society, 33(4), 316–23. doi:10.1111/chso.12292. Stalker, K., Abbott, D., Beresford, B., Carpenter, J., McConkey, R., & Watson, N. (2012). Researching the lives of disabled children and young people. Children & Society, 26(3), 173–80. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00430.x. Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional development program on teachers’ technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 547–71. Sultana, N., & Hayhoe, S. (2013). Assistive technology for students with special needs. In S. Dowling, C. Gunn, J. Raven, & S. Hayhoe (Eds.), Elearning in Action: Redefining learning. Abu Dhabi: HCT Press.

Bibliography

165

Swain, J., French, S., & Cameron, C. (2003). Controversial issues in a disabling society. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Terrer-Perez, P. (2013). Digital assistive technology: A core skill for OTs working with children? OT News, January (2), 32. The Stationery Office. (1989). Children Act. London. Retrieved from www.l​egisl​ation​ .gov.​uk/uk​pga/1​989/4​1/con​tents​. The Stationery Office. (1995). Children (Scotland) Act. Edinburgh. Retrieved from http:​ //www​.legi​slati​on.go​v.uk/​ukpga​/1995​/36/c​onten​ts. Thomas, C. (1991). Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Thomas, C. (1999). Female forms: experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Thomas, C. (2004). How is disability understood? An examination of sociological approaches. Disability & Society, 19(6), 569–83. doi:10.1080/0968759042000252 506. Thomas, C. (2007). Sociologies of disability and illness: Contested ideas in disability studies and medical sociology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Timini, S., Gardner, N., & McCabe, N. (2011). The myth of autism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tisdall, E. K. M. (2003). A culture of participation? In S. Riddell & N. Watson (Eds.), Disability, Culture and Identity. Prentice Hall: Pearson. Tisdall, E. K. M. (2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children & Society, 26(3), 181–91. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00431.x. Tremain, S. (2006). On the Government of disability: Foucault, power, and the subject of impairment. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader. New York, USA; Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis Group. Tusting, K. (2003). A review of theories of informal learning. London: NRDC. Retrieved from https​://de​ra.io​e.ac.​uk/22​486/1​/doc_​2768.​pdf. UK Safer Internet Centre. (2016). Creating a better internet for all: Young people's experiences of online empowerment + online hate. London: UK Safer Internet Centre. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.saf​erint​ernet​.org.​uk/sa​fer-i​ntern​et-da​y/sid​-2016​ /crea​ting-​bette​r-int​ernet​-all-​repor​t-lau​nched​. UNESCO News. (2017). Children with disabilities are more likely to be out of school. Retrieved from http:​//uis​.unes​co.or​g/en/​news/​child​ren-d​isabi​litie​s-are​-more​-like​ ly-be​-out-​schoo​l. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and framework for action on special needs. Salamanca, Spain: UNESCO. Retrieved from http:​//www​.unes​co.or​g/edu​catio​n/pdf​/ SALA​MA_E.​PDF. UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Paris, France: UNESCO. Retrieved from http:​//www​.ibe.​unesc​o.org​/site​s/def​ault/​files​/Guid​ eline​s_for​_Incl​usion​_UNES​CO_20​06.pd​f.

166

Bibliography

UNESCO. (2017). Education and disability. Retrieved from http:​//uis​.unes​co.or​g/sit​es/ de​fault​/file​s/doc​ument​s/fs4​0-edu​catio​n-and​-disa​bilit​y-201​7-en.​pdf. UNESCO. (2018a). A global framework of reference on digital literacy skills for indicator 4.4.2. Quebec, Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http:​//uis​.unes​co.or​g/sit​es/de​fault​/file​s/doc​ument​s/ip5​1-glo​bal-f​ramew​ork-r​efere​ nce-d​igita​l-lit​eracy​-skil​ls-20​18-en​.pdf. UNESCO. (2018b). YouthMobile. Empowering the next generation. Paris, France: Communication and Information Sector Knowledge Societies Division, UNESCO. Retrieved from https​://en​.unes​co.or​g/sit​es/de​fault​/file​s/you​thmob​ile_r​eport​_2018​ .pdf. UNICEF. (2005). UN Secretary General's report on violence against children. Thematic group on violence against disabled children. New York: Unicef. Retrieved from https​ ://ww​w.uni​cef.o​rg/vi​deoau​dio/P​DFs/U​NICEF​_Viol​ence_​Again​st_Di​sable​d_Chi​ ldren​_Repo​rt_Di​strib​uted_​Versi​on.pd​f. UNICEF. (2017). The state of the world’s children 2017: Children in a digital world. New York, US. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.uni​cef.o​rg/pu​blica​tions​/inde​x_101​992. h​tml. UNICEF. (2018). Children and adults with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www. unicef.org/disabilities/. United Nations (UN). (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved from https​:// ww​w.ohc​hr.or​g/EN/​Profe​ssion​alInt​erest​/Page​s/CRC​.aspx​. United Nations (UN). (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York, US: UN. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.un.​org/d​evelo​pment​/desa​/disa​bilit​ ies/c​onven​tion-​on-th​e-rig​hts-o​f-per​sons-​with-​disab​iliti​es.ht​ml. United Nations (UN). (2007). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Optional protocol. New York, US: UN. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.ohc​hr.or​g/EN/​ HRBod​ies/C​RPD/P​ages/​Optio​nalPr​otoco​lRigh​tsPer​sonsW​ithDi​sabil​ities​.aspx​. United Nations (UN). (2015). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https​://un​ stats​.un.o​rg/sd​gs/re​port/​2017/​goal-​04/. United Nations (UN). (2016). Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016) General comment No. 4. Article 24: Right to inclusive education. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.rig​ht-to​-educ​ation​.org/​resou​rce/g​enera​l-com​ment-​4-art​icle-​24-ri​ ght-i​nclus​ive-e​ducat​ion. UPIAS. (1976). Fundamental principles of disability. London: Union of the Physically Impaired against Segregation. US Department of Education. (2012). National education technology plan 2010. Retrieved from www.e​d.gov​/tech​nolog​y/net​p-201​0/exe​cutiv​e-sum​mary. van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. London, UK: Sage. Van Zoonen, L. (2002). Gendering the internet: Claims, controversies and cultures. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 5–23.

Bibliography

167

Vyas, D., Chisalita, C., & van der Veer, G. (2006). Affordance in interaction. Paper presented at the ECCE-Thirteen 13th european conference on cognitive ergonomics. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge: Polity. Walkerdine, V. (1993). Beyond developmentalism? Theory and Psychology, 3(4), 451–69. Ward, S. (2013). A student’s guide to education studies. Oxon, UK: Routledge. Warnock, M. (1978). The Warnock report. Report of the committee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people. London. Retrieved from http:​ //www​.educ​ation​engla​nd.or​g.uk/​docum​ents/​warno​ck/wa​rnock​1978.​html. Warnock, M. (2005). Special educational needs: A new look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watson, N. (2012). Theorising the lives of disabled children: How can disability theory help? Children & Society, 26(3), 192–202. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012.00432.x. Watson, S. M. R., & Keith, K. D. (2002). Comparing the quality of life of schoolage children with and without disabilities. Mental Retardation, 40(4), 304–12. 10.1352/0047-6765(2002)040. Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2017a). The special educational needs in secondary education (SENSE) study. London: UCL Institute of Education. Retrieved from http:​ //max​imisi​ngtas​.co.u​k/ass​ets/c​onten​t/sen​se-fi​nal-r​eport​.pdf. Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2017b). The special educational needs in secondary education (SENSE) study. Executive Summary. London: UCL Institute of Education. Retrieved from http:​//max​imisi​ngtas​.co.u​k/ass​ets/c​onten​t/sen​se-ex​ec-su​mmary​-fina​l.pdf​. Webster, R., & Blatchford, P. (2018). Making sense of ‘teaching’, ‘support’ and ‘differentiation’: The educational experiences of pupils with Education, Health and Care Plans and Statements in mainstream secondary schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–16. doi:10.1080/08856257.2018.1458474. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, Texas: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from https​://ed​polic​y.sta​nford​.edu/​sites​/defa​ult/ f​i les/​publi​catio​ns/pr​ofess​ional​-lear​ning-​learn​ing-p​rofes​sion-​statu​s-rep​ort-t​eache​ r-dev​elopm​ent-u​s-and​-abro​ad.pd​f. Wells, J. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101–22. Wells, M., & Mitchell, K. (2013). Patterns of Internet use and risk of online victimization for youth with and without disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 204–13. doi:10.1177/0022466913479141. Wells, M., & Mitchell, K. (2014). Patterns of Internet use and risk of online victimization for youth with and without disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 204–13. 10.1177/0022466913479141

168

Bibliography

Welsh Government. (2018). Digital competence framework guidance. Cardiff: The Welsh Government. Retrieved from https​://s3​-eu-w​est-1​.amaz​onaws​.com/​hwb-l​ ive-s​torag​e/6e/​7f/33​/19/c​3494e​069de​aeab7​55d4c​156/d​igita​l-com​peten​ce-fr​amewo​ rk-gu​idanc​e-201​8.pdf​. Wendelborg, C., & Kvello, Ø. (2010). Perceived social acceptance and peer intimacy among children with disabilities in regular schools in Norway. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(2), 143–53. doi:10.1111/j.14683148.2009.00515.x. Wendelborg, C., & Tøssebro, J. (2008). School placement and classroom participation among children with disabilities in primary school in Norway: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 305–19. doi:10.1080/08856250802387257. WHO. (2011). World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO)/ World Bank. Retrieved from https​://ww​w.who​.int/​disab​iliti​es/wo​rld_r​eport​/2011​/ repo​rt.pd​f. Wikan, G., & Mølster, T. (2011). Norwegian secondary school teachers and ICT. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 209–18. doi:10.1080/02619768.2010.543 671. Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25, 865–99. Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science Technology & Human Values, 18(3), 362–78. Wright, M. F. (2018). Cyber victimization and depression among adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: The buffering effects of parental mediation and social support. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 17–25. doi:10.1007/s40653017-0169-5. Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2003). Using activity theory as an analytic lens for examining technology professional development in schools. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 10(2), 100–19. doi:10.1207/S1532-7884MCA1002_2. Ytterhus, B., Egilson, S. Þ., Rannveig, T., & Berg, B. (2015). Perspectives on childhood and disability. In T. Rannveig, Y. Borgunn, S. Þ. Egilson, & B. Berg (Eds.), Childhood and disability in the Nordic countries: Being, becoming, belonging. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–40. doi:10.3102/00028312040004807. Zucker, A., & Hug, S. T. (2008). Teaching and Learning Physics in a 1:1 Laptop School. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 586–94. doi:10.1007/s10956-0089125-3.

Index ableism  22 active professional  44 actor network theory (ANT)  24, 28, 30, 31 Adams, C.  31 affordances  27 Africa  64 Ahuja, Anupam  7 Ainscow, Mel  44 Alldred, P.  29, 30 anti-essentialism  25–6 Antoninis, Manos  92 Ariès, P.  16 Armstrong, F.  37 assistive devices (ATDs)  5, 69 assistive technology  4, 5, 51, 52, 68, 70 Association for Learning Technology  55 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)  113–14 Baglieri, S.  45 Baldwin, S.  36, 46 Ballard, K.  36 Bandura, A.  97, 102 Barnes, C.  19, 20 Barton, D.  95 Barton, L.  37, 38, 41, 120 Beattie Report  35 Berker, T.  24 Berners-Lee, Sir Tim  8, 9 Bijker, W.  26 Blatchford, P.  121, 122, 129, 138 Blikstad-Balas, M.  53–5, 73, 74, 83 Bocconi, S.  67 Bolter, J. D.  30 Bond, E.  27 Booth, Tony  44 Braidotti, R.  31 bring-your-own-device (BYOD) schemes  65–7 British Disabled People’s Movement  2–3, 19, 20

British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA) report  66 Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development (BCSD)  93, 94 Brodin, J.  68, 76, 85 Brush, T.  124 Cambodia  10 Cameron, C.  41, 42 Campbell, F. K.  22 Carpe, A.  85 Cavet, J.  46 child-centred approaches  32 child development indicators  16 childhood cultural politics of  17 disability studies  6 Children and Families Act  10 Children and Families Bill  40, 42, 43 ‘Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report  2018’ 110 children’s competencies  97–102 children’s digital skills  97–102 children’s online safety  105–11 conduct risks  106 contact risks  106 content risks  105 children’s participation rights  9 children’s well-being  9 Ciampa, K.  82 Clark, W.  83 Clarke, B.  66 classroom pedagogies  11 class teachers (CTs)  59, 89, 126, 132, 138 Colley, H.  58 communication  54 competencies  1, 5, 91–6, 137 children  97–102 disabled children  102 in European Union  95 problematizing  92–5 in UK  96

170 computer and information literacy (CIL)  97–100 computer-based assistive devices  69, 75 computers  65, 69 connectivity  64 Connors, C.  20, 21 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition  40 contact risks  113 Cranmer, S.  75 critical disability studies  22–4, 33 Cross, E. J.  114 Culham, A.  45 cultural politics  17 Curran, T.  19, 23, 32 curriculum  1, 11, 41, 133 cyberbullying  109, 113, 117, 138 cyber victimization  113 datafication  54 dataveillance  9 Davies, C.  53–5, 73–4, 83 Deleuze, G.  29 determinist accounts  25 digital activities, disabled children  24 digital capabilities  91 digital inclusion  48–50, 63, 90, 137 categories of  48–9 Digital Learning Framework for Schools  96 digital literacy  91, 92 digital natives  80 digital pedagogies  123–6, 139, 142 digital resilience  107 digital skills  1, 92–6, 137 children  97–102 disabled children  102 in European Union  95 problematizing  92–5 in UK  96 digital technologies, defining  4–5 digitization  54 disability  2 social model of  2 (see also social model) studies  18–21 disabled children’s competencies  102 disabled children’s digital skills  102 disabled children’s online safety  111–15

Index disablement, collective experience  3 disablism  21 discriminatory attitudes  8 Ditzler, C.  74, 81, 83 domestication  26–7 Drake, R.  42 Edmodo  73 education, health and care (EHC) plan  10, 11 embodiment  29 emerging digital differentiation approach  49 England  2, 10 Equality Act 2010  10 equity  84 Ertmer, P. A.  123, 124 essentialism  25–6 ‘EU Kids Online’ project  101, 108, 112 euphemism  41 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education  67–8 European Schoolnet  52 Eynon, R.  73, 74, 81 Fang, L.  102 Feely, M.  29, 30 feminist approaches  27 Florian, Lani  44, 45 Florian, L.  52 Flynn, Susan  46 Flynn, S.  29 formal learning  57 Fox, N. J.  29, 30 friendships  45–8, 79 Fulcher, G.  41 games consoles  4 Gibson, J. J.  27 Gillen, J.  95 ‘Global Kids Online’ study  107 Good, B.  102 Goodley, D.  22, 23, 29, 31 Google Docs  74 government Education Committee report  43 Grech, S.  23 Grint, K.  25, 26 Guattari, F.  29

Index Haraway, D.  30 hardware  4, 86 Harper, B.  74 Helsper, E. J.  81 Hemmingsson, H.  76 Hew, K. F.  124 Hirst, Michael  46 Hirst, M.  36, 46 Huang, Y.-M.  82 Hug, S. T.  72 human rights legislation  6, 10 Hutchby, I.  27

Internet  9, 77 Internet bill of rights  9 Internet Governance Forum  8 Internet literacy  91 intersectionality  6 iPads  71

ICILS  100, 101 illustrative project children’s attitudes  86–9 children’s perspectives, engagement types  77–80 children’s perspectives on access  70–2 data analysis  61 digital skills and competencies, disabled children  102–5 digital technologies support learning, disabled children  129–31 disabled children’s online safety  115–17 disabled children supported in schools  126–9 project outline  58–62 impairment, medical model  3 impairment effects  21, 134 inclusive digital pedagogies  11 inclusive education  3, 8, 10, 12, 33, 36–8 global drive towards  38–9 policy in UK  39–41 problematizing in UK  41–3 inclusive model, education  39 inclusive practices, models of developing  44–5 inclusive schools  10 informal learning  57–8 Information and Communication Technology for Inclusion (ICT4I) project  67, 68 Innovative Technologies for Engaging Classrooms (iTEC)  141 integration  37 interactive whiteboards  65

Knobel, M.  91 Kopcha, T. J.  141

171

James, A.  17 James, A. L.  8, 17 Jenkins, H.  49 Jenkins, R.  17 Jenson, K.  140

Lankshear, C.  91 laptops  65, 69, 72, 84, 86 1:1 laptop integration  73 Latour, B.  28 learning, digital technologies  133 children’s use, potential benefits  53–6 children’s uses and experiences  63–90 disabled children’s use, potential benefits  52–3 potential of digital technologies  57–8 Lepper, M. R.  82 Lidström, H.  75, 76 Lievrouw, L. A.  26 Lindstrand, P.  68 Livingstone, S.  9, 49, 55 Lowther, D. L.  74 Luckin, R.  83 mainstream digital technologies  4, 5 mainstream schools  64, 142 mainstream technologies  4 Maldives  10 Mallett, R.  40 Malone, T. W.  82 Mayall, B.  17 meaningful access, digital technologies  48 media literacy  91 Mercer, G.  20 Milman, N. B.  74 mobile devices  82, 84 Montoya, Silvia  92

172 Moore, M.  42, 44 motivation framework  82 multisensory approach  82 Murchland, S.  84 negative outcomes  85 ‘Net Children Go Mobile: The UK Report’ 101, 109, 111, 113 new materialism  28–31 New Media Consortium Horizon Report on Higher Education  94 Nind, M.  45 non-formal learning  57, 58 notebook  65 Ofcom Children’s Media Literacy Tracker  110 Ofcom report  110 Oliver, Michael  19 OneNote  74 online risks  108 online safety children  105–11 disabled children  111–15 Palmer, T.  112 Parkyn, H.  84 participation gap  49 participatory approach  59 Passey, D.  55, 56, 82 Perrotta, C.  123 personal mobile devices  4 Pfeiffer, J. P.  70 Pinquart, M.  70 Pisa report  64 posthumanism  28–31 Pötzsch, H.  95, 106 PowerPoint presentations  86, 131, 136 Premier Pro  78 Prensky, M.  80 professional development  140 psycho-emotional well-being  21 public-private partnerships  68 qualified teachers of children with vision impairments (QTVIs)  59, 60, 119 Ravneberg, B.  27

Index Rieser, R.  41 Robinson, G.  69 Rogers, C.  82 Rosenblum, L. P.  47 Rouse, M.  45 Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB)  130 Runswick-Cole, K.  19, 23, 32, 40 Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education  8, 10, 38 Salamanca World Conference  7 Salmon, N.  46 school improvement  38 schooling  10 schools  53 1:1 policies  67 challenge of supporting inclusion  119–22 children’s access, digital technologies  64–7 children’s attitudes  80–4 children’s types of engagement  72–5 developing effective digital pedagogies, challenges  123–6 disabled children’s access, digital technologies  67–70 disabled children’s attitudes  84–6 disabled children’s types of engagement  75–7 friendships and social activities in  45–8 potential of digital technologies  56–7 self-efficacy  97, 99, 102 Selwyn, N.  25, 27, 54, 55, 73, 74 semi-structured interviews  60, 126 SEN Code of Practice  40 SENnet report  52 SENSE project  121 Shakespeare, T.  20, 29, 47 Shapiro, A.  45 Silverstone, R.  26 skills  5, 90, 91, 136, see also digital skills Slee, R.  37, 42, 44 smartphones  101, 111 social activities  45–8, 79 social construction  29

Index

social construction of technology (SCOT)  24, 26 social contextual approaches  31 Social Exclusion Task Force (SETF)  40 social inclusion  33, 35–6 social justice  44, 84 social markers  6 social model  7, 19, 20, 23, 32, 41 social oppression  21 social studies of childhood  6, 15 social theory  20 Söderström, S.  27, 115 software packages  4 special educational needs (SEN)  3, 10, 11, 41, 44 special educational needs and disability (SEND)  40 specialist assistive hardware  5, see also assistive technology specialist assistive software  5, see also assistive technology specialist assistive technologies  4, see also assistive technology special needs education  7, 10, 38 special schools  10 Spratt, Jennifer  44, 45 Stalker, K.  20, 21 state-funded primary schools  11 surveillance  9 Svanaes, S.  66 tablets  74, 86, 89, 90, 111 teacher perspectives  119–32 attitudes to inclusion  121 challenge of supporting inclusion  119–22 developing effective digital pedagogies, challenges  123–6 illustrative project  126–31 teachers, description  61 teaching assistants (TAs)  59, 126, 132 technological determinism  24–5 technology, social shaping  25–8 affordances  27 ANT  28 domestication  26–7 essentialism and antiessentialism  25–6

173

feminist approaches  27 SCOT  26 Third, A.  9, 49 Thomas, C.  21 Thompson, T. L.  31 Tisdall, E. K. M.  18 transformational change  56 Tremain, S.  23 triangulation process  60 Uganda  10 UK Council for Child Internet Safety  112 UK Safer Internet Centre  115 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD)  7–9, 133 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC)  2, 7, 8, 133 UNESCO  8, 10, 53, 92, 105 UNESCO Digital Literacy Competence Areas  93 UNESCO Digital Literacy competencies  93 UNICEF  6, 48, 64, 112 United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals  36, 97 Van Dijk, J.  48 virtual learning environment  65 Vygotsky, L. S.  16 Wajcman, J.  27 Warnock, M.  41 Warnock report  40 Watson, N.  20, 22 Webster, R.  121, 122, 129, 138 welfare entitlement  23 Woolgar, S.  25, 26 World Health Organization (WHO)  6 World Wide Web  8, 9 Youth Internet Safety Survey  113 Ytterhus, B.  16 Zucker, A.  72

174

175

176

177

178

179

180