1 s2.0 S0360131522002366 Main

Computers & Education 193 (2023) 104665
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
“What about special ed?“: Barriers and enablers for teaching with
technology in special education
Allison C. Starks *, Stephanie M. Reich
University of California, Irvine, School of Education, 401 E. Peltason Drive, Suite 3200, Irvine, CA, 92617, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Technology integration in school is an increasingly important equity issue, but little is known
Special education about how technology is used for teaching the 7 million K-12 special education students in the US
Digital equity (NCES, 2019). Though special education is often overlooked in technology integration research,
Digital inclusion
what does exist suggests that technology use in schools often exacerbates opportunity gaps for
Educational technology
Technology integration
students with disabilities (Ciampa, 2017; Dolan, 2016; Shaheen & Watulak, 2019). The rapid shift
to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to better explore en
ablers and barriers to technology-enabled learning for special education (SPED) because of the
widespread reliance on technology for teaching and learning. Using in-depth interviews (N = 20)
with special educators during remote learning, the present study seeks to (1) describe important
enablers and barriers for SPED teacher use of technology in K-12 before and during remote
learning, (2) understand how structural, teacher, and student-level factors influence SPED
teachers’ opportunities for teaching with technology, and (3) highlight emerging problems for
SPED populations in technology-enabled learning. Results suggest that the most prominent en
ablers and barriers for technology use in special education are structural (e.g., decision-making
around teacher training and technology resources, structures for student digital literacy
training), but manifest at the teacher and student levels. SPED teachers described significant
barriers to providing accessible technology-enabled instruction, largely due to school-based
structures for resource allocation, student digital literacy training, teacher training, decision-
making for technology, SPED job roles, and home-school communication. Recommendations
are made for providing high-quality digital learning for all students, especially students with
diverse learning needs.
1. Introduction
The unexpected shift to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted K-12 students’ unequal access to technology
and instruction (Chandra et al., 2020). Also known as the digital divide, these inequalities are not new. Prior to the pandemic, students
varied in their access to devices, software, internet, and quality of technology instruction largely based on intersections of socio
economic status (SES), special education (SPED) status, linguistic diversity, race/ethnicity, and geography (Boser, 2013; Darling-
Hammond, Zielezinski, & Goldman, 2014; Dolan, 2016; Evans, 2019; Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, Dawson, & Wilson, 2017). Of these
intersecting identities, technology use within special education presents a particularly meaningful, yet inadequately studied, aspect of
* Corresponding author. Allison Starks.

E-mail addresses: starksa@uci.edu (A.C. Starks), smreich@uci.edu (S.M. Reich).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104665
Received 27 November 2021; Received in revised form 8 September 2022; Accepted 30 October 2022
Available online 5 November 2022
0360-1315/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.C. Starks and S.M. Reich Computers & Education 193 (2023) 104665
digital divides.
Survey data have demonstrated that teachers are major factors in how students use technology in the classroom (Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012). Ertmer and colleagues have built a body of work (Ertmer et al., 2006,
2012; Tondeur, van Braak, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017) on teacher-level technology integration, documenting both internal
(e.g., teacher beliefs) and external (e.g., teacher training, time) factors for teaching with technology. However, extant empirical work is
primarily based on general educators and teachers who are exemplary technology users. This study seeks to better understand factors
related to teachers’ technology integration in SPED, documenting enablers and barriers for teaching with technology and exploring
teacher perceptions of how these factors inform SPED student experiences with technology.
Case study research suggests that teacher-level factors can overcome significant barriers to technology integration and thus in
fluence the ways technology is used in classrooms (Heath, 2017), but it is unclear how this plays out in SPED or if special educators
encounter different barriers to technology integration, making it more difficult to close digital divides. Gaps persist despite the promise
of technology-enabled learning to increase educational opportunities for SPED students and meet diverse learning needs (Basham,
Blackorby, & Marino, 2020; Ciampa, 2017; Kennedy & Boyle, 2014). Thus, it is worthwhile to examine educators’ experiences within
special education during the pandemic-induced ‘stress test’ of technology integration in public schools.
Technology often connects with special education through assistive technology (AT) (e.g. text-to-speech, smart pens) (Harper,
Kurtzworth-Keen, & Marable, 2017; Izzo, Yurick, & Mcarrell, 2009) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frameworks, aiming for
learning environments to be ‘born accessible’ (Basham et al., 2020; U.S.DOE, 2017) by focusing on barriers in the environment, rather
than within a student. However, national survey data indicates that AT is underutilized for students with high-incidence disabilities
(Quinn et al., 2009), who make up the majority of the SPED student population (NCES, 2019). Though technology might help provide
the least restrictive environment (LRE) and a fair and appropriate public education (FAPE) as outlined by special education law in the
United States, its use within special education is not well studied.
Greater understanding of what enables or constrains SPED teachers’ ability to teach with technology can promote more equitable
technology integration practices for students with disabilities. Though students with disabilities account for 14% of K-12 students in
the United States (NCES, 2019), their needs around technology are often overlooked in both public education services and educational
research (Ciampa, 2017; Shaheen & Watulak, 2019). Using in-depth interviews with special educators working during the COVID-19
pandemic, when many issues with technology-enabled learning were highlighted during emergency distance learning, the present
study explores these research gaps. Special educators were in a unique position to reflect on technology integration both before and
during the pandemic, noticing where technology-enabled learning was working for students and when it was insufficient. Special
educators’ experiences speak to a potential digital divide that manifests uniquely within special education.
SPED teachers are important points of connection and access for students with special needs using technology, due to their unique
roles in facilitating home-school communication (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004; Marino, 2010; Schnellert &
Keengwe, 2012; Spann, Kohler, & Soenksen, 2003), expertise in meeting diverse learner needs (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson,
2010), and familiarity with frameworks like UDL, as mandated through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
reauthorization (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004; Wu, 2010). Given these pre-existing relationships with families and
expertise in considering students’ behavioral, emotional, social and academic needs, special educators’ role in technology-mediated
instruction is important to understand. However, the lack of research on enablers and barriers to technology use for SPED makes it
difficult to fulfill the promise of digital inclusion for learners with diverse needs. The current study explores gaps in digital learning
access through teacher-level insights about which components in technology integration widen or bridge these gaps.
1.1. Technology access is unequal
Extant research on the digital divide in K-12 public schools is mostly based on general education (GE) and largely ignores special
educators, even though special educators have an explicit legal obligation to ensure that SPED students have access to FAPE, which is
increasingly reliant on technology. Special educators have numerous responsibilities that align well with technology, including
modifying curriculum, personalizing student learning goals, monitoring individualized education plans, keeping track of students’
progress, and maintaining consistent communication with students’ families. However, scholars repeatedly call for more studies
examining why or how special educators use technology in K-12 settings (Ciampa, 2017; Shaheen & Watulak, 2019).
Recent data from over 3000 PK-12 public school teachers showed that SPED teachers use technology less than GE teachers, even
though half of all SPED survey respondents supported the value and utility of technology for differentiation (Gallup, 2019). It is unclear
Table 1
General education barriers for teaching with technology.
Schools Teachers Students
● Professional training/professional development ● Access to devices and internet ● Access to devices and internet
● Technology support ● Attitudes and beliefs about technology ● Student proficiency with technology
● School administrator support ● Familiarity with platforms ● Reliability of device
● Colleague support ● Teaching practices
● Software available to staff and students ● Time
● Confidence with technology
Note. Factors drawn from Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2016, Bauer & Kenton, 2005, Ertmer et al., 2012, Hsu, 2016, Tondeur et al., 2017.
2
if special educators have different access to resources for teaching with technology or whether access impacts educational opportu
nities for SPED students. There is a need to hear directly from special educators to understand what is happening with technology in
SPED, and this need is magnified with the growing use of technology-mediated instruction.
1.2. Factors for tech integration
Technology integration research with GE has documented important factors for school-based technology use showing that tech
nology integration for learning is largely tied to capacities for schools, teachers and students (see Table 1).
Teachers make decisions about technology based on both internal and external factors. External factors include access to computers
or devices, internet access, district policies, teacher training, technical support, peer support, and time (McKnight et al., 2016; Tondeur
et al., 2017). Internal factors include personal beliefs, self-efficacy, previous experiences, visions of technology integration, and
confidence (Ertmer et al., 2006). It is notable that the literature does not sufficiently address whether special educators experience
similar factors for technology integration.
1.3. Factors for special education technology integration
There is reason to think special educators experience unique factors due to their various job duties (Billingsley, Bettini, Mathews, &
McLeskey, 2020). Legal obligations to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) necessitate that special educators collaborate with teachers
in multiple content areas, working in multiple classrooms with different teachers and grades every day. This requires extensive content
knowledge and coordination with multiple general educators, along with expertise in differentiation and instruction for students with
diverse learning needs. Special educators also assess students’ progress towards individual goals, complete paperwork to monitor those
goals, navigate daily decision-making with general educators, and communicate with families and fellow service providers. SPED
teacher roles are unique, and this may influence technology use.
In one of the few studies on SPED-technology integration among high-quality technology teachers, barriers existed for integrating
technology including time, available technology, support, and lack of teacher training (Courduff, Szapkiw, & Wendt, 2016). The
current study expands this line of inquiry by exploring the experiences of special educators who were not chosen based on their
technology use, thus representing a wider range of experiences with technology integration. Prior research draws attention to potential
factors at the school, teacher and student-level that might be important for special educators using technology, as described next.
1.4. School-level factors
Technology Decision-Making. Schools and school districts decide which technology programs to buy for students and teachers,
often engaging in lengthy purchasing and review processes without involving teachers, students, or parents (Digital Promise, 2014;
Smith, 2019). Furthermore, technology is often designed without the needs of diverse learners in mind (Alper, Hourcade, & Gilutz,
2012; Alper & Goggin, 2017; Molnar, 2019), which can make digital spaces difficult to navigate, cognitively burdensome, and overly
complex for students with disabilities (Alper & Goggin, 2017; Brown, 2010). When technology use is grounded in differentiation,
interactive learning, and universal access, technology has significant affordances for students with learning differences (Basham et al.,
2020; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). However, the effects of school-based decisions about technology and its accessibility for SPED
teachers and students are not well studied.
Resource Allocation. Research suggests that special educators do not have easy or sufficient access to resources for meeting
student needs. In a large-scale, nationally representative U.S. survey, only two-thirds of special educators reported having ‘somewhat’
or ‘complete’ access to tools or materials needed to serve students with disabilities (Stelitano, Perera, & Johnston, 2019). Meanwhile,
70% of new special educators reported having trouble obtaining resources for teaching (White & Mason, 2006). For technology
specifically, 42% of respondents described a lack of useful digital tools (Gallup, 2019). Though resources are commonly considered a
teacher-level factor, structural issues related to resource allocation and technology decision-making at the school level may influence
how special educators can (or cannot) integrate technology.
School-Level Technology Resources. Digital divide research examining connections between technology access and financial
resources often uses school free-and-reduced-lunch (FARL) percentages as a proxy for SES. Longitudinal surveys of 67 Florida schools
(Hohlfeld et al., 2017) showed disparities in software access based on FARL percentages, as well as differences in how teachers and
students used technology in low-SES and high-SES schools. Additionally, surveys of teachers showed that those in low-SES schools
were more likely to report lack of resources or access to digital technologies as a problem (Purcell, Buchanan, & Friedriech, 2013). It is
unclear whether SPED departments experience these SES-driven access issues in the same way as the larger school community.
1.5. Teacher-level factors
Time. Teachers’ time for learning about and using technology with students is likely another significant barrier for SPED, as
compared to GE teachers. Given the overwhelming demands of their job and frequent resource shortages, special educators may have
less time for technology integration (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019,2020; Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010). Teachers often
identify time as a constraint for integrating technology (Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2014; Ertmer et al., 2012; Hsu, 2016), but
research to date has not considered variation based on teachers’ role (e.g., SPED or GE).
Teacher Training. GE teachers report that professional development (PD; e.g., teacher training) is a major contributor to
3
technology use with students (Blackwell et al., 2016; Ertmer et al., 2012; Tondeur et al., 2017). Unfortunately, both survey and
interview data found that special educators receive little technology PD and are thus underprepared to facilitate technology-enabled
learning (Courduff et al., 2016; Kennedy & Boyle, 2014; Smith, Basham, Rice, & Carter, 2016). Okolo and colleagues’ (2014) survey of
over 1000 special educators found teacher knowledge as the biggest barrier and improved training as the most important action for
promoting technology use for students with disabilities.
Special Educator Roles. Compared to GE, SPED teachers have less control over curriculum decisions, classroom tools, and time
spent working with students in the general education setting. Special educators in the United States must rely on their collaborations
with GE teachers to serve students with disabilities (Billingsley & Bettini, 2017, 2019), as the majority of students with special needs
spend 80% of their day in GE settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Yet surveys of SPED teachers find that schools vary in their
inclusion practices, and general educators vary in their experience and attitudes about sharing decision-making with SPED teachers
(Kilanowski-Press et al., 2010). Applied to technology use, it is unclear how schools’ approach to collaborative teaching (e.g., shared
planning time, training on co-teaching) influences SPED teachers’ agency over technology decisions.
1.6. Student-level factors
Digital Skills. Although teachers play a significant role in classroom technology use, what students bring to digital learning also
matters. Research shows that teachers view students’ lack of digital skills as a barrier to technology integration in the classroom
(Blackwell et al., 2016; Hsu, 2016) and that students in the United States struggle to reach high proficiency levels in information and
computer literacy skills (NCES, 2018). Given that digital spaces are often inaccessible for students with disabilities and that diverse
learning needs are overlooked in technology design (Alper & Goggin, 2017; Molnar, 2019), the apparent “lack” of student digital
literacy skills may be driven by neglecting diverse learners’ needs when choosing technology and not spending adequate time teaching
students how to access and navigate technology platforms. SPED students may need more support developing certain digital skills
depending on their specific needs, especially if technology is not designed to support differently-abled students or lacks scaffolding
(Brown, 2010; Courduff et al., 2016). These challenges may present additional hurdles that SPED must navigate beyond other
well-documented barriers such as connectivity, access to devices, and knowledge of how to use devices and platforms (Blackwell et al.,
2016; Evans, 2019; Hohlfeld et al., 2017).
Student Resources. Differences in students’ device or internet access at home creates a ‘homework gap’ that is largely income-
driven (Auxier & Anderson, 2020). Recent analyses of national data estimate that approximately 30% of K-12 students lacked
home internet connection or devices adequate for remote learning, and affordability was the most prominent barrier of home access for
school-aged children (Chandra et al., 2020).
There is reason to think that school-, teacher-, and student-level factors affect how teachers use technology. Within SPED specif
ically, scholars claim that technology has historically been used to access learning or keep SPED students out (Edyburn, 2013). The
shift to remote learning served as an unplanned ‘stress test’ for K-12 technology integration, illuminating points of breakdown and
presenting an opportunity for research at the SPED teacher level (Dolan, 2016; Edyburn, 2013). Without understanding what helps or
hinders special educators’ use of technology, education will be unable to capitalize on the promise of technology for students with
diverse needs.
1.7. Research questions
This study sought to (1) describe important enablers and barriers for SPED teachers’ use of technology (i.e., technology integration)
and (2) understand how student, teacher, and structural factors impact SPED teachers’ experiences with technology. These findings
can inform district- and school-based practices to provide accessible, high-quality digital learning for all students, especially students
with diverse learning needs.
2. Material and methods
A multiple case-study research design was employed by collecting data from multiple teacher participants and conducting an in-
depth analysis of one-on-one interviews and follow up survey data. Data were collected with 45–60-min semi-structured individual
video-chat interviews (N = 20) and complemented with teacher surveys distributed through email after the interview. Individual
interviews provided rich, in-depth description of special educators’ experiences and surveys provided details on beliefs and practices.
The multiple case study design allowed for comparison across participants to identify consistent themes and points where experiences
diverged from each other. Thematic coding and cross-case analysis were used to understand the context for special educator tech
nology integration. Prior research on digital divides and SPED technology integration is limited and largely survey based (see Gallup,
2019). Thus, rich descriptions of special educators’ experiences, along with cross-case analysis, can expand understanding of how
technology experiences manifest for SPED teachers and their perceptions of student learning opportunities.
2.1. Participant recruitment & selection
An IRB-approved digital flier with the study description, eligibility requirements, participation details (e.g., interview and survey)
and compensation was sent through professional networks and a California university’s teaching academy network. The teaching
academy network included an alumni listserv and a free PD workshop series conducted in summer 2020, which the first author helped
4
facilitate. Across these methods, 20 participants were enrolled, 9 from professional networks and 11 from the California university’s
teaching network. Thus, more SPED teachers were drawn from the state of California in the United States. Only full-time, lead (e.g., not
paraprofessionals or student teachers) SPED teachers working in US K-12 public schools that were normally held in person (not online
schools) were eligible. Participants’ primary role included case management and instruction (e.g., not coordinators or instructional
coaches), with caseloads of students who qualified for SPED services under the mild-to-moderate category (e.g., specific learning
disability, speech language impairment, autism spectrum disorder, emotional disturbance). Interested participants were emailed the
study information sheet with details on confidentiality, data security, and study risks and benefits. SPED teachers were interviewed
between May and September 2020 and given a $20 gift card.
2.2. Study participants
Most teachers (n = 14) worked as inclusion or collaborating teachers, with the remaining teachers (n = 6) working in self-contained
settings. Inclusion or collaborating teachers’ primary role is to join GE classrooms throughout the day to provide SPED services, rather
than pulling students out of their regular classroom environments for specialized instruction. Self-contained settings typically consist
of at least one special educator teaching multiple subjects to the same group of students for most of the day. See Table 2 for details.
2.3. Data collection & instruments
Semi-structured interviews on Zoom (45–60 min) were transcribed using the Otter. ai plug-in, then verified for accuracy. Interviews
had three main sections and began with informed consent, information about confidentiality, and participant rights. Interview
questions were open-ended, informed by literature reviews of teacher-level technology integration, and influenced by the lead re
searcher’s personal experience integrating technology in K-12 public schools and teaching special education.
The first interview section centered on general demographic and belief information and included questions about special educators’
responsibilities at school, SPED teaching models (before and during remote learning), general needs of students served, and beliefs
about the relationship between SPED and technology. The second section asked about technology integration before the COVID-19
pandemic and included questions about school-based resources for teaching with technology, teaching with technology practices,
and enablers and barriers for specifically teaching SPED students with technology. The third section focused on technology resources
and teaching practices during the pandemic, with specific questions about plans for remote learning, student accommodations in digital
environments, challenges to teaching during remote learning, collaboration with GE, resources used, communication with families,
and what could help teachers use technology to support students with special needs. Lastly, special educators were asked to consider
what kinds of PD would be helpful, what changes their school could make as a result of remote learning, and biggest concerns about
technology integration and SPED students.
A follow-up survey was sent after the interview. The survey used closed- and open-ended questions to ask about demographics (e.g.,
teacher role, grade levels served, teacher education level, years of teaching, degree in SPED, school FARL percentage) and included a
mix of Likert-scale and open-ended items to document attitudes and beliefs about technology (Blackwell et al., 2014), technology use
during the pandemic for teaching, confidence using technology (Hogarty, Lang, & Kromrey, 2003), and teaching philosophy (Becker,
2001) (see Appendix A).
Table 2
Participant Demographics.
Participant Grade Level Special Education Role FARL School % State Education Years Teaching
Olivia K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 0–25 NJ (missing) (missing)
Isabelle K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 MA MA 5
Tina K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 0–25 CA MA 20
Evelyn K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 CA MA 25
Viola K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 CA MA 17
Teresa K-5 Self-Contained/Special Day Class Teacher 50–75 CA BA (enrolled in MA) (missing)
Noelle K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 25–50 MA MA 5
Sofia K-5 Self-Contained/Special Day Class Teacher 75–100 CA BA (enrolled in MA) 2
Diane K-5 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 50–75 TX MA 19
Emma 6–8 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 50–75 VA MA 10
Louise 6–8 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 MA MA 6
Laura 6–8 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 50–75 VA MA 17
Clare 6–8 Self-Contained/Directed Teacher 0–25 VA MA 3
Amelia 6–8 Self-Contained/Directed Teacher 0–25 CA MA 2
Elizabeth 6–8 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 CA MA 19
Ellen 9–12 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 25–50 CA MA 10
Bryan 9–12 Self-Contained/Directed Teacher 75–100 CA BA 8
Sarah 9–12 Resource Teacher & Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 25–50 CA MA 28
Jonathan 9–12 Self-Contained/Directed Teacher 25–50 CA MA 8
Harper 9–12 Collaborating/Inclusion Teacher 75–100 CA MA 14
Note: All names listed are pseudonyms.

FARL School % = Percentage of enrolled students eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch (FARL).
NJ= New Jersey; MA = Massachusetts; CA = California; TX = Texas; VA = Virginia.
5
2.4. Data analysis
2.4.1. Interview data analysis

Interviews were analyzed using first-cycle and second-cycle coding methods (Saldaña, 2016) (see Appendix B for code list). During
first-cycle coding, descriptive, in-vivo, and process codes were used to analyze interview transcripts inductively with MAXQDA
software. Deductive coding was also used, drawing upon a list of possible codes derived from an initial literature review on teacher
technology integration, barriers to technology integration, digital divide, and SPED technology use.
Codebook development occurred alongside continued data collection, creating an iterative process. The lead author completed
reflective memos following interviews in order to make observations, record insights and to reflect on the content of participants’
interviews. These memos were used to inform coding and assess trustworthiness of later findings. The codebook draft was developed
using a mix of inductive and deductive codes and revised based on the coding of a subset of interviews. The revised codebook was then
peer critique through the authors’ research lab. Second-cycle coding began as the authors coded the rest of the interviews and pri
marily relied on pattern coding and focused coding methods. The authors developed categories, themes, and concepts related to factors
for technology integration. After the last interview, a subset of coded interviews was used to further revise and refine the codebook.
Analytic memos, cross-case analysis, and further iterations of the codebook yielded themes related to each research question. Each
transcript was read multiple times and coded with the latest iteration of the codebook before initial results were shared with
colleagues.
Constant comparison methods (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) were used to examine common barriers or enablers for
technology integration and how these factors influenced teaching with technology. Data from the follow-up teacher survey about
perceived barriers for technology use, confidence with technology, pedagogical beliefs, and technology practices during the COVID-19
pandemic helped contextualize interview data.
2.4.2. Survey data analysis

Interview and survey data were triangulated for patterns and to provide additional demographic information. Descriptive statistics
of barriers and enablers to teaching with technology were used to contextualize emerging themes from interviews. Demographic
information about teacher role, grades taught, years of teaching experience, and school FARL were taken together with individual
interview data to create detailed descriptions of individual teachers and their school context.
2.5. Validation & reliability
Creswell and Poth (2018) suggest “validation” is “an attempt to assess the ‘accuracy’ of the findings, as best described by the
researcher, the participants, and the readers” (p. 259). As such, different strategies for assessing the accuracy of findings, including
triangulation, reflection on positionality, participant feedback, peer review, and thick description to facilitate transferability were
used. The lead researcher conducted all coding and used peer-review processes to establish reliability, including a qualitative course
working group to provide feedback on codebook development. The researchers shared pieces of anonymized data with colleagues for
Table 3
Teacher-perceived barriers to student technology access. (X denotes inadequate access)
Participant Lower Resourced Schools 50-100% FARL
Devices Home Internet Appropriate Software
Harper × × ×
Viola × × ×
Bryan × × ×
Diane × × ×
Isabelle × × ×
Elizabeth × × ×
Emma × ×
Laura × × ×
Sofia × × ×
Louise ×
Evelyn ×
Teresa
Participant Well Resourced Schools 0-50% FARL
Devices Home Internet Appropriate Software
Ellen × × ×
Jonathan × × ×
Tina × ×
Clare × ×
Amelia ×
Sarah ×
Noelle
Olivia
6
open-ended coding to assess validity of interpretations. A random selection of 15% of interviews were then double coded by two
researchers to yield an average interrater reliability of 92% across codes. Analysis of follow-up teacher surveys were used during the
coding process to facilitate cross-case analysis.
3. Results
Exploring the enablers and barriers for technology use in K-12 SPED both prior to and during remote learning, we found that all
teachers spoke about student, teacher, and structural (e.g., school, district) level influences on technology integration. Though par
ticipants discussed issues at each level, further analysis indicated that these barriers were grounded in structural issues. Structures
related to resource allocation, student digital literacy training, teacher training, decision-making for technology, SPED job roles, and
home-school communication influenced how technology was used (or not).
3.1. Student level factors
Participants talked about the challenges of teaching with technology when students lacked devices, internet connectivity,
appropriate software, and digital literacy skills. These factors influenced how special educators used technology (or not) with students.
3.1.1. Device access

Student access to devices varied based on school resources and how resources were distributed, according to teachers. Over half the
teachers discussed students’ limited access to devices (see Table 3), echoing previous research on unequal device access (Boser, 2013;
Chandra et al., 2020). For participants, their students’ access to technology-enabled resources looked different based on schools’ FARL
status, where more SPED teachers at lower-resourced schools reported problems with students accessing devices, home internet, and
appropriate software compared to affluent schools. Please see Table 3 where “X” indicates insufficient access.
Participants described how certain departments sometimes received priority for devices when resources were limited. As Harper
described, "So, we had Chromebook carts, definitely, but we didn’t have enough. You know, we’re not a one-to-one school, but our
English department and some of our classes did have Chromebook carts … you know, of course, the cybersecurity and the pro
gramming classes always had computers, but there were definitely other parts of our campus that didn’t have enough."
Viola perceived a lack of equitable device distribution for SPED students in particular, saying, "I think when resources are limited.
It’s really hard to remember special ed. I don’t know how to say it politically correctly, but I think once resources are limited you want
more bang for your buck, so you give it to the students whose test scores are going to matter more."
Though direct comparisons between SPED and GE are not possible, some SPED teachers shared not getting access to devices when
GE did, limiting their ability to provide appropriate digital learning experience for their students. Though lack of devices is often
attributed as a student- or family-level barrier, respondents made clear that even within the same school, devices were not equitably
distributed among departments (and subsequently students), representing structural barriers to inclusive access.
3.1.2. Internet access

Connectivity was a commonly reported barrier by SPED teachers, especially for students in families with few financial resources.
During remote learning, participants described how students often resorted to mobile devices and data plans due to inconsistent or
absent internet connections at home. Elizabeth shared “they could do some of their work from their cell phones … but it wasn’t always
the easiest of course. It’s you know, smaller, so it’s harder for some of the kids that have writing difficulties and things like that.”
Additionally, limited data plans interrupted learning opportunities, as Emma reported “a lot of people are working, like, on hot spots
on their phone, and then when the data runs out, you don’t hear from them a lot for a while.”
Notably, Elizabeth also discussed how reliance on a small mobile screen, due to lack of internet infrastructure in homes, interacted
with students’ disabilities to create compounded barriers to learning. When schools did not offer hot spots or reduced-cost connec
tivity, some students relied on small screens or simply missed school altogether because they lacked ways to connect. This was an
important structural issue considering that almost all participants (N = 18) reported student internet access as a barrier to remote
learning.
3.1.3. Software Access (ibilty)

A device and internet connection are inadequate if software is inaccessible to students with diverse learning needs. Many par
ticipants (n = 11) discussed lack of software or a mismatch between school-chosen tools and the needs of SPED students. Participants
often described challenges accessing schools’ learning management systems (LMS) (e.g., Canvas, Blackboard, Schoology), explaining
that they were unnecessarily complex. Some teachers lamented the multiple steps needed for students to log into the LMS and find
course content. Sofia described her LMS as “not very user-friendly for students and for parents. It’s really, it’s very confusing … then
there’s not a lot of flexibility within the program to move things around.” SPED teacher described how students with diverse abilities,
parents, and teachers were not consulted in purchasing decisions, consistent with other studies of educational technology purchasing
processes (Digital Promise, 2014; Smith, 2019). Although other user-friendly platforms existed, teachers described being constrained
to the school-approved LMS.
Some teachers described how a lack of school-level resources impacted the learning experiences they could offer to SPED students.
Viola, along with four other SPED teachers, specifically talked about the benefits of Lexia Core5, a reading application designed for
struggling readers. But Viola described challenges accessing the program both before and during the pandemic, “I love Lexia Core5. But
7
as money runs out and time runs out, my access got removed. And so, I was crying about it and my school was like, you know, we can
look at buying it for next year Viola but we don’t have the budget for it.” Similarly, Diane reported a lack of software access prior to
remote learning, but her school made decisions after the shift to remote education to invest in more software programs. Diane
explained:
It seems like [the district] is [paying for more programs] because we have more available to us. I know years before, we didn’t
have Raz Kids, we didn’t have Epic! We would try to borrow a password from another school district to get into like Tumble
books or something from Scholastic so the students can have a book, at least read to them, you know, but these programs
actually give them a quiz and let them know how they are doing. So yeah, I think they’ve definitely invested in some more
programs.
Thus, software and applications used for technology-enabled learning were described as being heavily reliant on district- and
school-level decisions around purchases and funding. The majority of SPED teachers at lower-resourced schools reported software
access as a barrier to technology-enabled learning, while less than half of those at well-resourced schools identified this issue (see
Table 3).
3.1.4. Student digital literacy training

All participants described students’ digital literacy skills as barriers for using technology for teaching and learning, though it was
unclear if this applied broadly or during remote learning specifically. Participants across elementary and secondary settings described
difficulties teaching with technology when students did not know how to log in independently, navigate across tabs or windows, or use
hyperlinks. At the secondary level, Laura reported, “I couldn’t believe that they couldn’t navigate a particular page. Something that I
felt sure they had done numerous times before, and probably in numerous classes, like, maybe clicking on a link in a doc. Like, anytime
it’s in blue. And they just didn’t know to click on it.”
In addition to basic computer skills, digital literacy involves appropriate technology use and learning how to self-regulate use.
Participants spoke at length about K-12 students’ struggles both before and during the pandemic with basic digital literacy and
citizenship when schools and teachers did not build these skills into the school day. Student digital literacy skills impacted how
teachers were able to use technology, sometimes discouraging them from using technology at all and sometimes limiting students’
device access because of misuse. Without structures to help students learn with technology and build the skills to use technology
appropriately, teachers felt that students were losing out on the opportunities of technology-mediated learning.
3.2. Teacher-level factors
At the teacher level, special educators talked about how issues of teacher training and SPED job roles made it difficult to find time to
learn about technology and use technology with students.
3.2.1. Teacher training

Almost all participants (n = 18) reported insufficient technology training as a barrier. Many reported lacking access to technology-
related PD and issues with PD content (see Table 4). Schools sometimes conducted technology training without including SPED, so
special educators often reported just “figuring it out” on their own time. Elizabeth summarized, “A lot of it was sort of like in your own
departments, you know, here’s what we’re using, figure it out … because special ed kind of gets left out of all of the training.”
Overwhelmingly, special educators expressed needs for more specialized technology integration PD for teaching students with diverse
learning needs. Teachers used various strategies to develop this specialized training on their own, depending on access to resources and
time.
Many SPED teachers used combinations of self-directed learning and social networks, both online and offline, to compensate for
Table 4
Teacher Training Structures that Create Barriers for SPED.
Theme Identified Participant Quote
Lack of SPED teacher training “So, you know, really, basically, we didn’t have any professional development over it, we were just kind of, you know,
with Schoology, we had some directions on how to do the folders and so forth. But it was pretty well self-taught or, you
know, with the help of my daughter.“—Diane
Lack of training for SPED aides/ “So, it looks like I’m gonna have to learn that and then somehow have my aides learn that without me being able to
teaching assistants actually physically be with them, which is hard because my aides, as a general rule, are technologically challenged.”
–Tina
Lack of collaboration between SPED “I think also training [is needed] in how to collaborate effectively online too, like with other teachers. Like how are you a
and GE co-teacher in an online class? Like what does that look like?“—Clare
One-size-fits-all training “It’s usually, all of our PD is usually similar. And that’s something that I’ve been being more vocal about because it
became frustrating when I would go to a professional development, and they’d say well pick a grade level that you teach
and I’m like I teach seven grade levels, so it’s not going to help me to sit in on fifth grade and I don’t know what the
second graders are doing. So, I think that I’m being heard more than that saying I really want curriculum focused on
special education, like, like I was just saying, it’s important to know how Flipgrid works from a student’s
perspective.“—Evelyn
Lack of time to try technology “I’m sure there’s a world of technology I don’t even know about of, you know, videos or things like that … and time for
me to learn gets in the way”—Olivia
8
limited training. This work often took place outside of school hours, which was challenging. Sofia describes her experience teaching
herself how to teach with technology, "I spend time just Googling things. How do I do this? How do I do that? And one of my friends is a
tech specialist for the district I work at, he’s just not at my school. But every once in a while, I’ll give him a call and be like, “hey, how
do I do this?” And he’ll just guide me through it. Outside of work hours."
However, some teachers described not having the time or knowing where to start to learn on their own. School structures around
informal or formal teacher training determined the amount of PD teachers had access to and the content of PD. Further, SPED aides and
teaching assistants were rarely included in technology training, limiting what SPED teachers could do during class time without
trained assistance. Teachers reported positive experiences learning from other special educators either through social media, text
message group chats, or specialized training offered through their school districts. Schools with strong sharing cultures among col
leagues, specifically between general and special educators, also seemed to have positive impacts on SPED teachers’ technology
experiences.
3.2.2. SPED job roles

Special educators reported large workloads both prior to and during the pandemic including instruction, family communication,
one-on-one meetings with students, accommodating GE classwork, coaching students and families on technology, supervising class
room aides, completing paperwork, collecting data on student goals, holding Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meetings, writing
progress reports and annual IEPs, and more.
Participants described how their SPED job roles constrained technology use because they were rarely included by GE teachers in
planning and instruction. Over half of participants reported relationships with GE teachers as barriers to teaching with technology.
SPED teachers described following general educators’ lead or experiencing tension around technology integration for SPED students.
Noelle explained, “To some extent, I’m limited by what’s being done in the [GE] classroom, like if I really want to use math platform A,
but the homeroom teacher is using math platform B, like it makes more sense for me to use that platform B too, because that’s what,
like, everyone else around them is using.” Noelle’s choices to use platforms consistent with GE reduced the number of platforms
students had to navigate, but limited her ability to select platforms that would meet her students’ needs. In other cases, SPED teachers
described how a mismatch of beliefs about technology use between SPED and general educators created major barriers for SPED
teachers seeking to leverage technology.
Participants’ time constraints and job demands limited their ability to learn about technology. Amelia taught in a well-resourced
district and reported time as the only barrier to teaching with technology, explaining, “I think as teachers, we want to do something
different, but at the same time you have to be realistic like, Okay, how much time, am I going to have to invest in and do I have the
time? With just case managing and putting the effort, and the energy into three different courses.” Time to integrate technology
depended on school-level structures around special educator roles, collaboration practices, and administrator decisions about
scheduling. Collaborative relationships among teachers and specifically the relationships between SPED and GE were heavily shaped
by school structures around shared responsibility, communication between departments, and inclusive school communities.
3.3. School and district-level factors
SPED teachers described how decision-making around technology and home-school communication policies shaped their use of
technology. Participants shared how students’ diverse needs were often left out of school and district decisions about technology
programs, platforms, and devices to use for instruction and communicating with families.
3.3.1. Decision-making around technology

Schools purchased devices and software, often without the input of teachers, students, or families. Participants reported that
platforms chosen by schools were often inconsistent, creating barriers for teachers to coach their students on each platform. Elizabeth
explained what the lack of consistency looked like for her students:
What happened is someone’s using Google Sites, someone’s using Seesaw, someone’s using Google Classroom, someone’s using
Dojo, someone’s using, you know, what else is out there, Schoology. Like there’s just so many different sites that are great, but I
think it has to be uniform, especially like for special ed kids, cuz it’s just gets too much, and I think that’s what the problem was.
This lack of consistency meant that teachers invested their limited time in training themselves, students, and families on specific
platforms with no guarantee that these platforms would be used again when special educators were not involved in decision-making
process around technology.
3.3.2. Home-school communication

Before the pandemic, most schools and districts had policies for communication between teachers and families and then relied on
these structures in the shift to remote learning to connect students, facilitate day-to-day schooling, and mediate technology use across
home and school contexts. SPED teachers shared how home-school communication policies were factors for how they could teach with
technology. During the pandemic, the ability to communicate with students’ caregivers often meant the difference between students
attending school or missing out on technology-enabled learning experiences.
Most participants, especially those working with lower-resourced families, reported relying on texting and mobile devices to reach
parents. The shift to remote learning prompted some SPED teachers to reconsider how accessible their previous policies around home-
school communication were. Clare explained, "At the beginning of my teaching career, I was like I will never ever contact parents on
9
my cell phone. This is private. I started to not follow that as much, because there are just certain families that I couldn’t get in touch
with over the phone or email, but they would respond to my text in 30 seconds. Like, if I’m trying to meet the needs of all my students,
this is an option that I need to consider."
For many, relying on voice-only calls or email for home-school communication was not effective, and could unintentionally
alienated certain families without consistent access to the internet or the digital literacy skills to set up and maintain email
communication.
Special educators were in unique positions to facilitate remote learning because of prior relationships and their attention to
different needs of their student family populations. Evelyn described her successful process for getting students connected to learning:
I called parents and texted parents. I sent out emails, and I just systematically got in touch with all my parents, got my students
who had phones, I got them connected with me through Google Voice so we could text, and I used Remind with the parents who
spoke Spanish, so that I could get connected with them. And I had to wait until the following week to connect with some of our
bilingual support at my site so that they could call the parents and get them connected with me on Remind. But I did, I think I,
how many kids did I have? Like 27 or 28 kids and I think I was in touch with all of them before we went in and resumed school
that following week.
Evelyn and other SPED teachers’ success in leveraging texting, mobile apps, and translation services represents more inclusive
approaches to home-school communication that could facilitate learning across contexts. Some SPED teachers were well-aware of the
needs of their families and went to great lengths to communicate with them in effective ways. The strategies employed by SPED
teachers have implications for broader school efforts to reach all families and facilitate home-school partnerships, especially around
technology-enabled learning. Many participants felt that texting was more efficient for families that did not have easy computer or
internet access and noted that mobile applications like Remind or Talking Points had the added benefit of in-app translation services.
3.4. Structures as enablers
Participants described ways that schools and districts could rebuild and revise existing structures for equitable technology-
mediated opportunities (See Table 5). Teachers who had positive experiences with technology training talked about consistent
school structures that enabled them to develop their expertise with technology. These structures included content-relevant PD, a staff
culture of sharing, collaborative training, and more than “one-time” training. Participants discussed the benefits of shared planning
periods, regular staff development sessions before or during the school day, and one school even used the entire month of August as
staff development. These investments provided the time necessary for special educators to engage with technology, practice it, and
collaborate with colleagues on best practices for integration in SPED.
When special educators had roles in decision-making around technology, they could improve technology integration for a wider
community of students. Evelyn joined a district-level summer committee aimed at improving remote learning for fall 2020. At first,
Evelyn seemed alarmed by the exclusion of SPED from the conversation, “I knew right away I did the right thing because the first
meeting we’re talking about like, these are the things we’re going to talk about, and I said, ‘Where’s special ed?’” Fortunately, Evelyn’s
Table 5
Structures for equal access to student learning with technology.
Enablers Barriers
Teacher Training - SPED relevant technology training - SPED left out of tech teacher training
- collaborative training - aides left out of tech teacher training
- more than ‘one time’ training - one size fits all training
- staff culture of sharing - lack of time to try tech
- including SPED and aides in teacher training
Decision Making for - SPED teachers on advisory boards & leadership position -SPED left out of decisions about platform/integration
Technology - on-site tech support - inconsistent platform use
- quick approval for requested software - too many platforms
- positive SPED/gen ed relationships - inaccessible platforms
- shared responsibility between SPED/gen ed - punishment policies for tech misuse
- SPED as co-teachers on learning platforms (e.g., Google
Classroom, Canvas)
SPED Job Demands - shared planning time - too much paperwork
- co-teaching models - accommodating gen ed resources on back end
- supportive colleagues - conducting one on one sessions because gen ed class
- inclusion culture not accessible
- supportive leadership - lack of time
- poor gen ed/sped relationships
Home-School - translators - sole reliance on email
Communication - applications with built-in translation (school wide use) - glack of communication
- family liaisons
- mobile use/texting
10
presence and input led to more accessible technology plans because she had a seat at the table, allowing her to bring SPED students’
needs into conversations about scheduling, digital tools and communicating with students and their families. For example, Evelyn
suggested using a centralized app for communicating with families rather than every teacher using their own method. She also
advocated for an app with built in translation services because she knew that students and parents may feel more comfortable
communicating in a language of their choice.
Participants reported that the pandemic-induced shift to remote learning rolled out, in part, based on how well SPED and GE were
already working together. In some cases, prior school structures around co-teaching and SPED inclusion with GE helped special ed
ucators connect students to quality learning during periods of remote learning. Diane shared “We did have a consultant come in for the
past two years, to go over the co-teach models. And we were always told, don’t do ‘one teach, one assist,’ you can do parallel teaching,
you can do team teaching.” This shared understanding of co-teaching influenced Diane’s shift to remote learning, where she used small
group breakout rooms and station teaching through Zoom. Meanwhile, other special educators reported sitting in Zoom sessions
without a clear sense of their role.
Structures that consider diverse needs in resource allocation, teacher training, decision-making for technology, SPED job demands,
collaboration practices, and home-school communication can enable more technology-mediated learning, according to SPED teachers.
Schools that teachers viewed as successfully navigating the shift to remote learning were ones that pivoted to online formats relatively
quickly and reached most of their students. The structures these schools had in place could inform the return to in-person learning,
moving schools towards more inclusive technology integration practices.
4. Discussion
Technology has become an essential bridge to public education for many students both during and after remote learning (Chandra
et al., 2020). Before the pandemic, some schools leveraged technology-enabled learning to meet the needs of students, promote
family-school partnerships, and to develop digital skills (Barron & Levinson, 2019; Chandra et al., 2020; Darling-Hammond et al.,
2014; Selwyn, 2018). But the shift to remote learning illuminated many disparities in school-based technology access as well as drivers
of these gaps. Special educators’ experiences with technology confirm prior findings that SPED lacks the technology resources they
need to provide rich digital learning opportunities and that technology is underutilized for SPED populations, especially when re
sources are limited or SPED teachers are not trained (Basham et al., 2020; Darling-Hammond et al., 2014; Gallup, 2019). Participants
reported significant barriers to technology-enabled instruction at the student, teacher, and structural level. However, at its core,
barriers to technology use were primarily structural issues.
Findings suggest school- and district-level structures may exacerbate digital divides for SPED through (1) unequal resource allo
cation for devices and internet, (2) lack of student digital literacy training, (3) limited SPED teacher training, (4) omission of SPED in
decision-making about technology, (5) unsustainable SPED job roles, and (6) lack of inclusive home-school communication. These
structural barriers had significant consequences for SPED students’ access to technology and raised important questions about legal
rights to FAPE.
Most U.S. states rely on local funds for technology in schools (Chandrasekhar, Ittelson, Quinones, & Silberberg, 2012; SETDA,
2019), creating significant gaps in resources due to inequities in local funding across districts and states (Kirabo Jackson, Johnson, &
Persico, 2016). When resources were constrained, teachers felt that SPED was often forgotten or intentionally excluded from
technology-enabled learning, making it more difficult for SPED students and teachers to develop digital competence (Gallup, 2019).
Lack of financial investment in technology resources and infrastructure present challenges for many schools (Chandra et al., 2020;
Hohlfeld et al., 2017), and these interviews suggest that underinvestment is exacerbated for SPED. Though inadequate funding for
SPED is not new, these data speak to important and not well-documented ways in which underfunding limits technology integration in
SPED (e.g., insufficient devices, no/limited access to specialized apps, lack of teacher training). Participants highlighted how SPED was
often not given equitable access to resources compared to GE, even within the same district or school.
School-level decision-making about who gets what technology, who is involved in decision making, who is trained with technology,
and which technology tools (e.g., software) are purchased influence the use of technology in K-12 schools. Our findings echo previous
data showing that decision-making about technology does not usually involve principals, teachers, students, or parents, instead relying
on central office administrators to make decisions (Digital Promise, 2014). SPED teachers consistently highlighted the need for diverse
voices when making school-level technology decisions. Without a culture of shared decision-making and inclusion, the needs of diverse
learners will continue to be under-considered in technology integration (Alper, 2017).
As in prior research, this study documents the importance of considering the complex responsibilities and demands on SPED
teachers along with the support available to them (Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008). Equitable technology-enabled learning oppor
tunities for students with diverse needs are more likely when SPED teachers feel included, supported, and respected in their roles.
Structures are crucial to ensuring workable conditions for SPED teachers’ technology use, echoing previous findings on the importance
of administrator support for SPED in creating inclusive school culture, supportive and collaborative colleague relationships, and
reasonable working conditions (e.g., planning time, resources, caseload, schedule, paperwork) (Brush et al., 2008).
Participants consistently shared how the pandemic exerted additional demands on their job roles that outpaced their resources.
This trend is alarming considering the current shortage of SPED teachers nationwide and empirical evidence that workplace structures
drive SPED teachers out of the profession (Brush et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2020). As K-12 instruction becomes more
technology-driven, SPED teachers must be properly equipped and supported to prevent further attrition.
Participants described how structural choices around technology at the school and district levels often widened already existing
digital divides, especially in how schools communicate with families. SPED students’ families often report poor home-school
11
communication and that school-driven efforts to use technology for communication do not always consider nondominant perspectives
(Kohler, 1999; Noguerón-Liu, 2017; Spann et al., 2003). Our participants shared that leveraging technology to meet the diverse needs
of families was crucial for continued services during remote instruction, with implications for the return to in-person instruction.
Teachers reached more families, especially more marginalized families, using multiple methods of communication, including
texting and translation services in communication apps (e.g., Remind). They also felt that schools that prioritized using home language
and common modes of communication (i.e., texting) had accessible home-school communication structures. But when these structures
were absent, SPED teachers scrambled to reach families and often lost touch with students during remote learning.
These findings have implications for practice. The most prominent factors for technology use for SPED appear to be structural,
rather than teacher-level or student-level issues. School and district decisions about devices, connectivity, software, home-
communication methods and teachers’ time, training, and roles served as significant barriers or enablers for technology integration
in SPED. Thus, structural changes are needed.
First, schools must consider how they distribute resources among departments, including SPED, with a lens for equity. Technology
advisory boards, with diversity across departments (e.g., technology, GE, SPED, English Language Learning) and roles (e.g., admin
istrators, teachers, students, parents), at school and district levels could help. SPED teachers should be at the table and considered for
technology leadership positions.
Second, GE and SPED teachers’ collaboration and leveraging each other’s expertise to create technology-enabled curriculum that is
“born accessible” (U.S. DOE, 2017) should be supported. Teachers must work together to make sure technology-enabled learning is
accessible to everyone. Some strategies include school-level PD for co-teaching, planning time for collaborating teachers, and
communication between SPED and GE teachers about roles, expertise, and expectations for collaboration.
Third, technology training should include SPED teachers, even in general technology training, so they can work within school-
based systems, point out access issues, and leverage technology-enabled learning to help students meet their goals. Importantly,
SPED aides or paraprofessionals should be included in training as well. The shift to remote learning has increased online learning
opportunities for continued professional development, which could provide specialized technology training when school-level re
sources are limited. Additionally, special educators could be given the time and space to share among themselves and build learning
communities around technology integration. All of our participants described utilizing colleagues and online sources to learn about
technology or generate ideas for use. Providing formalized spaces for these commonplace practices might be highly beneficial.
Fourth, schools should support students’ digital literacy. Integrating digital literacy and citizenship programming into the
instructional day is crucial for ensuring students have equal opportunities to become proficient with technology (Buckingham, 2015,
Curran & Ribble, 2017). Schools might embed these skills in the general curriculum, offer elective courses, or hold regular digital
literacy lessons.
Fifth, home-school communication can be built and sustained with the help of technology. SPED teachers had valuable insights
about mobile devices, texting, and apps with translation services for maintaining communication with families. Such SPED practices
could inform larger school-home communication efforts.
5. Limitations and suggestions for future research
The present study addresses an important gap in technology integration literature by describing the enablers and barriers for
special educators’ use of technology. However, there are notable limitations. Given the small sample, the experiences shared are not
comprehensive of barriers for all schools and/or special education departments. This study did not explicitly ask special educators
about the race or ethnicity of their students or their own racial or ethnic identities. Given the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic
minority students in SPED (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Donovan & Cross, 2002), future work might take an intersectional approach
(Crenshaw, 1991) to investigate resource allocation for marginalized populations at the intersections of race and ethnicity, SPED
status, and SES.
Further, data were collected during remote, rather than in-person, instruction and participants were asked to recall and describe
their teaching practices before and during the pandemic. Given the changing nature of remote learning over the year and possible
errors in recollection, teachers’ reflections should be considered with this in mind. However, conducting interviews during the rapid
shift to remote learning helped reveal pre-existing cracks in school-based technology integration and highlight areas of need for SPED
teachers. These findings are an important first step towards understanding how growing gaps in digital equity manifest in K-12 schools,
in part through established categories like SPED.
6. Conclusion
When schools and districts did not consider the needs of SPED students and teachers in technology integration, barriers arose
related to device access, connectivity, teacher capacity, and platform inaccessibility. During remote learning especially, participants
described poor school structures as exacerbating digital divides for SPED students. Some of these structural issues might be relatively
easy to change, involving rearranging teacher planning schedules or inviting SPED teachers to already existing technology training.
Others would take significant effort (e.g., consistent technology funding, revising purchasing processes). Special educators in this study
offered valuable insights towards building structures and adopting strategies for supporting equitable technology use.
SPED teachers are crucial voices for understanding technology access for children with learning differences. Technology inte
gration can increase accessibility, differentiation, and collaboration, but its integration for SPED is understudied (Ciampa, 2017;
Edyburn, 2013; Smith & Okolo, 2010). These interviews offer unique insights into how special educators are using technology-enabled
12
instruction and what is facilitating or limiting that use. The rapid shift to remote learning and reliance on technology stressed school
systems in ways that illuminated the structural barriers that often are attributed to teachers or students and widen gaps in educational
equity. Special educators’ experiences identify practices that could help to close gaps for marginalized students, but such reforms
require structural changes at the school and district levels.
Credit author statement
Allison Starks: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing, Stephanie Reich: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Resources, Formal analysis, Writing,
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements & Funding
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Integrated Research Training: Language and Literacy Disabilities
(IRT-LDD) Personnel Preparation Leadership Grant, #H325D190031.
Appendix A
SPED Teacher Survey
Demographics.
Teaching with Technology Attitudes and Beliefs (Adapted from Blackwell et al., 2013)
• Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement. (Likert scale; Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
o Technology can improve individualized learning
o Technology can help to develop children’s critical thinking skills
o Technology can help to develop children’s higher order skills
o Technology can help to develop children’s content knowledge
o Technology is useful for social interactions among children
o Technology is useful for supporting dual language learners
o Technology is useful for assisting children with disabilities
o Technology can improve documentation of children’s learning
o Technology can improve my ability to communicate with parents and other caregivers
o Technology is useful for online professional development
o Technology use is limited by
⁃ My lack of time to use technology
⁃ Insufficient or lack of training provided to me
⁃ My lack of time to use technology in my classes
⁃ My lack of comfort with technology
⁃ My uncertainty of how to make technology relevant to subject areas
⁃ Technology changing too fast
⁃ Insufficient or lack of technical support
⁃ Insufficient or inadequate software
⁃ Insufficient or inadequate hardware
⁃ The unreliability of technology
⁃ Children’s inability to use technology appropriately
⁃ A lack of appropriate digital content for my students
COVID-19 Practices
• School policy about students with special needs and remote learning (Yes/No)
o If yes, please describe:
• Total times per week met with students during remote learning on average
• Model of technology-enabled learning used the most during remote learning
• Barriers to working with students during remote learning
o Please indicate how much of a barrier each item was for working with students (Not a barrier, A barrier, A major barrier)
⁃ Student access to device
13
⁃ Student access to reliable internet

⁃ Finding space for student to meet in their home
⁃ Student’s demands at home (e.g. taking care of family members, chores)
⁃ Student’s mental health
⁃ Student’s digital literacy skills
⁃ Your ability to communicate with student or family
⁃ Your access to device
⁃ Your access to reliable internet
⁃ Finding space in your home to meet with student
⁃ Your collaborative relationship with general educator
⁃ Your personal demands
⁃ Your mental health
• Supports for teaching with technology during remote learning (Check all that apply)
o Additional training on teaching with technology
o Additional technology resources
o Colleagues who are knowledgeable about technology
o Technology coach/specialist
o Instructional coach/specialist
o Technology support (e.g. troubleshooting, fixing items, accessing accounts)
o Time to think about how to use technology with students
o None of these
Confidence using Technology (Adapted from Hogarty et al., 2003).
o I am comfortable using technology during classroom instruction

o My use of technology enhances student performance
o Technology enhances my teaching
o I use technology effectively in my classroom
o I am developing expertise in the uses of technology in the classroom
o I am comfortable giving computer assignments to my students
o I am comfortable with technology terminology
o I have had adequate training in using technology
o Incorporating multimedia into lessons enhances teaching
Teaching Philosophy (Adapted from Becker, 2001).
o I believe in being a facilitator rather than explainer

o Student interest and effort is more important than textbook content
o Sense making and thinking are more important than the specific curriculum content
o Different students engaged in different project type activities is better than the whole class working at the same time on a series of
short duration assignments
o Students will take more initiative if they are free to move around the room
o Students should help establish the criteria on which their work is assessed
o Instruction should be built problems with clear, correct answers
o Teacher know more than students and shouldn’t let students muddle around
o Student learning depends on background knowledge–that’s why teaching facts is so necessary
o It is better for the teacher, not students to decide what activities are to be done
o A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning
Appendix B
● caseload
● school context
● SPED role
● grade taught
Factors for technology use
● Device Access
● Internet Access
14
● Software access
○ Platform accessibility
● SPED Bureaucracy
● Time
● Teacher Training
● Institutional choices about tech
● Gen Ed Collaborations
● Reliability of technology
● Resources
● Student digital literacy
● Student persistence
● Home-school communication
● Home factors for tech use
● Teacher confidence with technology
● Teacher beliefs about technology for teaching
Teacher practices with tech.

Innovations and Workarounds.
Differences between SPED & Gen Ed (for technology)
References
Alper, M., & Goggin, G. (2017). Digital technology and rights in the lives of children with disabilities. New Media & Society, 19(5), 726–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444816686323
Alper, M., Hourcade, J. P., & Gilutz, S. (2012). Adding reinforced corners: Designing interactive technologies for children with disabilities. Interactions, 19(6), 72–75.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2377783.2377798
Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Palmer, J. (2004). Culturally diverse students in special education: Legacies and prospects. In J. A. Banks, & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook
of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 716–735). Jossey Bass.
Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2020). As schools close due to the coronavirus, some US students face a digital ‘homework’ gap. Pew Research Center. https://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/03/16/as-schools-close-due-to-the-coronavirus-some-u-s-students-face-a-digital-homework-gap/.
Barron, B., & Levinson, A. (2019). Digital media as a catalyst for joint attention and learning. In P. Kuhl, S. Lim, S. Guerriero, & D. van Damme (Eds.), Developing minds
in a digital age (pp. 105–114). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c8b53b86-en.
Basham, J. D., Blackorby, J., & Marino, M. T. (2020). Opportunity in crisis: The role of universal design for learning in educational redesign. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 71–91.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Paper presented at the 2001 meeting of the American educational research association.
Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2017). Improving special education teacher quality and effectiveness. In J. Kauffman, D. Hallahan, & P. Pullen (Eds.), Handbook of special
education. https://doi.org/10.1080/14038190310017651
Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
Billingsley, B., Bettini, E., Mathews, H. M., & McLeskey, J. (2020). Improving working conditions to support special educators’ effectiveness: A call for leadership.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419880353
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.013
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2016). The influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood educators’ tablet computer use. Computers &
Education, 98, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.010
Boser, U. (2013). Are schools getting a big enough bang for their education technology buck? Center for American progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
education-k-12/reports/2013/06/14/66485/are-schools-getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/.
Brown, V. (2010). Review of research: Digital media learning supports individuals with cognitive disabilities. Childhood Education, 87(1), 68–71. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00094056.2010.10521443
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new
model. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure preservice teachers’ technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology
barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1–2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560802157972
Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy: What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 21–34.
Chandra, S., Chang, A., Day, L., Fazlullah, A., Liu, J., McBride, L., et al. (2020). Closing the K–12 digital divide in the age of distance learning. Common Sense Media.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf.
Chandrasekhar, V., Ittelson, J., Quinones, R., & Silberberg, K. (2012). Education technology task force recommendations memo. California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/edtechbi.asp.
Ciampa, K. (2017). Building bridges between technology and content literacy in special education: Lessons learned from special educators’ use of integrated
technology and perceived benefits for students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1280863
Courduff, J., Szapkiw, A., & Wendt, J. L. (2016). Grounded in what works: Exemplary practice in special education teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 31(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416633333
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Creswell, J. W., Poth, C. N., & M. B. F. X.. (2018). In M. Ribble (Ed.) (4th ed.,Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approachesP-20 model of digital
citizenship. New Directions for Student Leadership (pp. 35–46). Curran: SAGE Publications, Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20228, 2017(153.
Darling-Hammond, L., Zielezinski, M. B., & Goldman, S. V. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf.
Dolan, J. E. (2016). Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K-12 students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1),
16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147
15
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. The National Academies Press.
Edyburn, D. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440291308000107
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), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 23(2), 55–61. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10402454.2006.10784561
Evans, J. (2019). Digital learning: Peril or promise for our students. Project Tomorrow. https://tomorrow.org/Speakup/speakup2018-19-Digital-Learning-Peril-or-
Promise-october2019.html.
Gallup. (2019). Education technology use in schools. New schools venture fund. http://www.newschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Gallup-Ed-Tech-Use-in-
Schools-2.pdf.
Harper, K. A., Kurtzworth-Keen, K., & Marable, M. A. (2017). Assistive technology for students with learning disabilities: A glimpse of the livescribe pen and its impact
on homework completion. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2471–2483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9555-0
Heath, M. K. (2017). Teacher-initiated one-to-one technology initiatives: How teacher self-efficacy and beliefs help overcome barrier thresholds to implementation.
Computers in the Schools, 34(1–2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1305879
Hogarty, K. Y., Lang, T. R., & Kromrey, J. D. (2003). Another look at technology use in classrooms: The development and validation of an instrument to measure
teachers’ perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239322
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Wilson, M. L. (2017). An examination of seven years of technology integration in Florida schools: Through the lens of
the levels of digital divide in schools. Computers & Education, 113, 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.017
Hsu, P. S. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11528-015-0014-3
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). U.S.C. §, 20, 1400.
Izzo, M. V., Yurick, A., & Mcarrell, B. (2009). Supported eText: Effects of text-to-speech on access and achievement for high school students with disabilities. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 24(3), 9–20.
Kennedy, M. J., & Boyle, J. R. (2014). The promise and problem with technology in special education. In J. M. Kauffman, D. P. Hallahan, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.),
Handbook of special education (pp. 606–614). Routledge.
Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25
(3), 43–56.
Kirabo Jackson, C., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036
Kohler, F. K. (1999). Examining the services received by young children with autism and their families: A survey of parent responses. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 14(3), 150–158.
Marino, M. T. (2010). Defining a technology research agenda for elementary and secondary students with learning and other high-incidence disabilities in inclusive
science classrooms. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341002500101
McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student
learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Molnar, S. (2019). The precarious promise of emergent tech and UDL for learning. In S. L. Gronseth, & E. M. Dalton (Eds.), Universal access through inclusive
instructional design: International perspectives on UDL (1st ed., pp. 343–346). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429435515.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). U.S. Results from the 2018 international computer and information literacy study (ICILS) web report. https://nces.
ed.gov/surveys/icils/icils2018/theme1.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). Children and youth with disabilities. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
indicator_cgg.asp.
Noguerón-Liu, S. (2017). Expanding notions of digital access: Parents’ negotiation of school-based technology initiatives in new immigrant communities. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 50(4), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1395301
Promise, D. (2014). Improving ed-tech purchasing https://digitalpromise.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Improving_Ed-Tech_Purchasing.pdf.
Purcell, K., Buchanan, J., & Friedriech, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.
org/internet/2013/02/28/how-teachers-are-using-technology-at-home-and-in-their-classrooms/.
Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Bausch, M., Ault, M. J., & Chung, Y. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of Special Education
Technology, 24(1), 1–14.
Saldaña, J. (2016). Coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Schnellert, G., & Keengwe, J. (2012). Digital technology integration in American public schools. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 8
(3), 36–44.
Selwyn, N. (2018). Technology as a focus of education policy. In R. Papa, & S. W. Armfield (Eds.), The wiley handbook of educational policy (pp. 459–778). John Wiley &
Sons.
Shaheen, N. L., & Watulak, S. L. (2019). Bringing disability into the discussion: Examining technology accessibility as an equity concern in the field of instructional
technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1566037
Smith, A. (2019). Challenges and possible solutions for edtech procurement: Part 1. Digital promise. https://digitalpromise.org/2019/05/07/challenges-and-possible-
solutions-for-edtech-procurement-part-1/.
Smith, S. J., Basham, J., Rice, M. F., & Carter, R. A., Jr. (2016). Preparing special educators for the K–12 online learning environment: A survey of teacher educators.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 31, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416660834
Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257–272.
Spann, S. J., Kohler, F. W., & Soenksen, D. (2003). Examining parents’ involvement in and perceptions of special education services: An interview with families in a
parent support group. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(4), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576030180040401
State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). (2019). State K12 instructional materials leadership trends snapshot. https://www.setda.org/master/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/DMAPS_snapshot_3.26.19.pdf.
Stelitano, L., Perera, R., & Johnston, W. (2019). Supporting students with high-incidence disabilities in U.S. schools: National findings from the American Educator
Panels. In Supporting students with high-incidence disabilities in U.S. Schools: National findings from the American educator panels (Vols. 1–24). https://doi.org/
10.7249/rr2992
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use
in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(3), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-
9481-2
U. S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. http://tech.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Teacher shortage areas. https://tsa.ed.gov/#/reports.
16
U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Office of special education programs, individuals with disabilities education Act (IDEA) database. Inclusion of students with
disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59.
White, M., & Mason, C. Y. (2006). Components of a successful mentoring program for beginning special education teachers: Perspectives from new teachers and
mentors. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 29(3), 191–201. https://doi.
org/10.1177/088840640602900305
Wu, X. (2010). Universal design for learning: A collaborative framework for designing inclusive curriculum. I.E.: Inquiry in Education, 1(2), 6. http://digitalcommons.
nl.edu/ie/vol1/iss2/6.
17

1 s2.0 S0360131522002366 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0360131522002366 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 193 (2023) 104665

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

* Corresponding author. Allison Starks.

1.1. Technology access is unequal

1.2. Factors for tech integration

1.3. Factors for special education technology integration

1.4. School-level factors

1.5. Teacher-level factors

1.6. Student-level factors

1.7. Research questions

2. Material and methods

2.1. Participant recruitment & selection

2.2. Study participants

2.3. Data collection & instruments

Note: All names listed are pseudonyms.

2.4. Data analysis

2.4.1. Interview data analysis

2.4.2. Survey data analysis

2.5. Validation & reliability

Devices Home Internet Appropriate Software

Participant Well Resourced Schools 0-50% FARL

Devices Home Internet Appropriate Software

3.1. Student level factors

3.1.1. Device access

3.1.2. Internet access

3.1.3. Software Access (ibilty)

3.1.4. Student digital literacy training

3.2. Teacher-level factors

3.2.1. Teacher training

3.2.2. SPED job roles

3.3. School and district-level factors

3.3.1. Decision-making around technology

3.3.2. Home-school communication

3.4. Structures as enablers

5. Limitations and suggestions for future research

Credit author statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgements & Funding

SPED Teacher Survey

⁃ Student access to reliable internet

Confidence using Technology (Adapted from Hogarty et al., 2003).

o I am comfortable using technology during classroom instruction

Teaching Philosophy (Adapted from Becker, 2001).

o I believe in being a facilitator rather than explainer

Factors for technology use

Teacher practices with tech.

You might also like