Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Review article

Identifying emerging trends for implementing learning

technology in special education: A state-of-the-art review
of selected articles published in 2008–2012
Gi-Zen Liu *, No-Wei Wu, Yi-Wen Chen
Foreign Languages & Literature Department, Foreign Language Center, National Cheng Kung University, 1, University Road, Tainan 701,
Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: As electronic learning (e-learning) becomes increasingly popular in education worldwide,
Received 26 May 2013 learning technology (LT) has been applied in various learning environments and activities
Received in revised form 3 July 2013 to promote meaningful, efficient, and effective learning. LT has also been adopted by
Accepted 9 July 2013
researchers and teacher-practitioners in the field of special education, but as yet little
Available online
review-based research has been published. This review research thus carefully examined
the trends of LT implementations in special education, providing a comprehensive analysis
Keywords:
of 26 studies published in indexed journals in the past five years (2008–2012). Two
Learning technology
Special education research questions were addressed: (a) What are the major research aims, methodologies,
Review and outcomes in these studies of implementing LT in the field of special education? and (b)
Learning disabilities What types of LT are mainly used with special education students, and for what kinds of
students? Major findings include that examining the learning effectiveness of LT using was
the most common research purpose (75%); researchers primarily relied on experimental
studies (46%, 12 studies), followed by interviews and questionnaires (19%, 5 studies).
Moreover, the most common use of LT was computer-assisted technology (such as web-
based mentoring, educational computer games, laptop computers) in special education;
studies investigating the use of LT with mentally disabled students were more than those
with physically disabled ones. It is expected that the findings of this work and their
implications will serve as valuable references with regard to the use of LT with special
education students.
ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3619

1.1. Definition of learning technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3619
1.2. Special education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
2.1. Categories of research aims regarding LT implementations the field of special education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
2.2. Findings and inspiration from the previous studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
3. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
3.1. Data sources and criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620
4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3621

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 952179024; fax: +886 6 2387730.

E-mail addresses: gizen@mail.ncku.edu.tw, gizenliu@gmail.com (G.-Z. Liu).

0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.007
 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628 3619

4.1. Distribution of research aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3621

4.2. Distribution of research methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3623
4.3. Distribution of research outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3623
4.4. Distribution of LT use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3624
4.5. Distribution of the type of disabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3625
5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3625
5.1. Most studies focus on effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3625
5.2. Most studies adopted experimental studies, interviews and questionnaires as the primary research methods . . . 3625
5.3. The implications of positive and negative outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3625
5.4. Computer-assisted technology is most widely used in special education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626
5.5. LT is more often applied to mentally disabled students rather than physically disabled ones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626
6. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3627

1. Introduction

Learning technology (LT) refers to a wide range of technologies that can be used to support learning, teaching and
assessment in education (Jonassen, 2004; Liu, Liu, & Hwang, 2011; Liu, 2008; Rushby & Seabrook, 2008; Tsai & Hwang, 2013).
As electronic learning (e-learning) becomes increasingly popular, LT has been widely accepted and applied into many
learning environments and activities (e.g., Chen, Shih, & Liu, 2013; Chiu & Liu, 2013; Evans, 2008; Liu, Lo, & Wang, 2013;
Spence & Liu, 2013; Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008; Yesilyurt, 2011). These developments have prompted educators and
researchers to develop a number of educational applications for LT to improve both teaching practices and learning
outcomes.
Recently, LT has also been applied in the field of special education, and both teachers and students claim that it not only
helps improve academic achievement, but also makes learning activities easier (Chiang & Jacobs, 2010). Two literature
reviews (Fitzgerald, Koury, & Mitchem, 2008; Pennington, 2010) have synthesized studies of implementing LT into special
education. Fitzgerald et al. (2008) reviewed the use of technology to teach students with autism spectrum disorders, while
Pennington (2010) examined the literature on the effects of computer-mediated instruction on the learning outcomes of
students with mild and moderate disabilities. While these two studies provide valuable information, both only focused on
one type of disability, and they did not examine or categorize research trends in terms of research aims, methodologies, and
outcomes. It is these gaps in the literature that the current study addresses.
Based on a literature review conducted by Wu et al. (2012), the research trends of mobile learning studies in education
have been categorized into three main areas: evaluating the effectiveness of mobile learning, the design of educational
activities, and users’ affective responses. This categorization system was adopted in the present study to examine the
research aims of the focal literature for two reasons. First, mobile learning is one kind of LT (Liu & Hwang, 2010), which is also
the main focus of the present study, although the current work broadens the research area from mobile devices to all kinds of
learning technology, including computer assisted technology. Second, both the earlier and the current study examine
education, with the former taking a broader view, while this one only looks at the field of special education.
In sum, the aim of the current study was to identify the research directions, methods and trends in the related literature
over the past five years, from 2008 to 2012. It practically provides an organized framework for researchers and teacher-
practitioners planning further LT studies and activities.

1.1. Definition of learning technology

Learning technology (LT) refers to a wide range of technologies that can be used to support learning, teaching and
assessment (Liu, 2008; Liu & Hwang, 2010; Rushby & Seabrook, 2008). Liu and Hwang (2010) also use this term to refer to
electronic devices as well as information and communication technology (ICT) which can be used to develop new knowledge
and skills in all kinds of educational fields, including special education.
Three components of the paradigm shift that has occurred in e-learning are from e-learning to mobile learning (m-
learning; Hsu, Hwang, & Chang, 2013; Liu & Hwang, 2010), and then to context-aware ubiquitous learning (u-learning;
Hwang, Kuo, Yin, & Chuang, 2010; Hwang, Tsai, Chu, & Kinshuk Chen, 2012; Hwang, Tsai, & Yang, 2008; Liu & Hwang, 2010).
In the present study, LT will only refer to the electronic devices and ICT used in e-learning and m-learning. LT in e-learning
includes computer-assisted programs, specific software and computer networks; LT in m-learning includes any mobile
devices (such as smart phones, tablet PCs, iPad, iPods) which are capable of wireless communication (Kagohara et al., 2013).
The reason why u-learning applications (such as QR codes, RFID, and GPS) were not examined in this work is because in the
studies we examined applications of LT in u-learning have not been applied in the field of special education yet.
Different terms were used to refer to similar concept of LT. Fitzgerald et al. (2008) used the term ‘‘computer-related
instruction’’ to indicate teaching instructions that had LT involved in. ‘‘Computer-assisted instruction (CAI)’’ also referred to
the use of LT in teaching in Pennington’s (2010) study. The current paper will refer to them as ‘‘LT’’.
3620 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

1.2. Special education

Sometimes special education will be used exchangeably with special needs education, for people who are either mentally
or physically disabled, they need special care, equipment, and necessities to help them live well (Florian, 2007). The general
categories of special education include intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders (ASD),
emotional or behavioral disorders (ADHD), hearing impairment, speech and language disorders, vision impairment,
physically disabilities, and cerebral palsy (Florian, 2007). This work thus reviewed the studies which clearly state that the
focal learners fall into one or more of the above categories.
2. Literature review

2.1. Categories of research aims regarding LT implementations the field of special education

Based on Wu et al. (2012), we found that previous studies of implementing LT in special education fall into three broad
research directions: evaluating the effectiveness of using LT with special education students (e.g., Levy & Lahav, 2012; Garcia,
Loureiro, Gonzalez, Riveiro, & Sierra, 2011; Fernández-López, Rodrı́guez-Fórtiz, Rodrı́guez-Almendros, & Martı́nez-Segura,
2013); designing educational activities with the use of LT (e.g., Chu, Chen, Lin, Liao, & Chen, 2009; Ari & Inan, 2010); and
special education students and teachers’ affective responses toward LT (e.g., Dincyurek, Arsan, & Caglar, 2011; Campigotto,
McEwen, & Demmans Epp, 2013).
Researchers have used various different methodologies to examine how LT impacts the learning outcomes of special
education students. For example, studies have examined which approaches, including traditional instructional ones and
those applying LT, are more beneficial to special educational students, based on literature review (Fitzgerald et al., 2008), as
well as an indepth discussion of how LT has helped mentally disabled students to develop their psychomotor abilities (Karal,
Kokoç, & Ayyıldız, 2010), and a qualitative and quantitative investigation of special educational students’ affective respones
regarding the use of LT (Dincyurek, Arsan, & Caglar, 2011). In brief, different research methodologies can lead to research
outcomes with different breadths and depths, and thus inspire further researches in various directions.

2.2. Findings and inspiration from the previous studies

Two previous literature reviews examined the research trends with regard to the use of computer-related instruction
with special education students. Fitzgerald et al. (2008) considered the effects of computer-mediated instruction on
the learning of students with mild and moderate disabilities, based on a review of studies from 1996 to 2006. Empirically
based findings were reviewed and discussed in the basic skills areas of reading, writing, and mathematics, as well as in the
content areas of social studies and science. The results were interpreted and discussed regarding traditional teaching
methodologies in special education, as well as changes in the instructional ecology and expectations for students created by
the inclusion movement and reforms in general education.
Pennington (2010) reviewed research conducted between the years 1997 and 2008 that examined the use of computer-
assisted instruction (CAI) to teach academic skills to students with autism. The author concluded that CAI was effective for
teaching a limited set of academic skills to individuals with autism, although functional relations were found in few of the
single-case designs, and none of the group designs included a control group.
Inspired by these two earlier work, the present study extend its research scope by investigating how the use of LT,
including computer-related technology and mobile devices, has been implemented in the field of special education, based on
a review of several studies published from 2008 to 2012.
Specifically, two research questions are examined in this work: (1) What are the major research aims, methodologies, and
outcomes addressed in the studies on implementing LT in the field of special education? (2) What types of LT are mainly used
with special education students, and what types of disabilities do the students have?

3. Method

Our review was conducted from a data pool consisting of two databases, which are the ISI Web of Science (WOS) and
Science Direct. The selected papers were examined in two phases with different exclusion criteria. Through these
procedures, the rest of papers were confirmed to include in our survey.

3.1. Data sources and criteria

In the first phase, 118 studies were obtained from both databases, including 33 duplications, giving a total of 85 papers.
The search terms included combined terms, e.g. technology learning AND ‘‘special education’’, e-learning AND ‘‘special
education’’, computer AND ‘‘special education’’ and digital learning AND ‘‘special education’’. The quotation marks mean that
the words must appear as a phrase, to avoid non-related studies being returned, like special needs for education. In addition,
the inclusion criteria are that all the works are research or review articles published between 2008 and 2012. However, it
should be noted that in order to include the latest research, we also included papers published in January of 2013, since the
current study was conducted at the beginning of 2013.
[(Fig._1)TD$IG] G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628 3621

Web of Science & Science Direct Inclusion criteria:

118 papers (a) published in 2008 to 2012
(b) research and review articles

Elimination of duplications
85 papers

Exclusion criteria:
(a) LT not used for educational purposes
(b) Learners without clearly identified
disabilities
(c) Studies not involved in educational
activities when implementing LT in
special education
(d) The focus of the study not on the
learning outcomes of students
(e) Irrelevant studies to special education

26 papers

Fig. 1. Flow chart for the procedure of paper selection.

Next, the abstract of the 85 studies was examined by both authors of the present study. Studies were excluded based on
the following five criteria, including: (a) the LT was not used for educational aims, (b) the disabilities of the students were not
clearly identified, (c) the study does not examine educational activities that implement LT, (d) the focus of the study is not on
the learning outcomes of the students, and (e) the study is not related to the focus of the current work (e.g., it discusses safe
spaces for special education students, provides suggestions for students in the prison, examines how special education
policies are developed). If the information contained in the abstract was not clear enough to categorize the article, the
researchers examined the full text.
This survey aimed to include only high quality studies, with a quality paper being one that presented an overall
description of the research, including (a) research purpose, (b) learner demographics, (c) methodology, (d) use of technology,
(e) discipline-orientation, (f) educational context, (g) objectives, and (h) learning outcomes (Wu et al., 2012). Ultimately, 26
high quality articles that met above criteria were included in the current review (see Fig. 1).

4. Results

The results of the analysis are presented below. More syntheses and organized item-based information (including
participant information, methodology, learning technology use, and positive or negative research outcomes) are provided in
Tables 1–3.

4.1. Distribution of research aims

We classified each article into one of three categories according to its research purpose: (1) examining the learning
effectiveness of using LT with special education students, (2) designing educational activities with the use of LT, and
(3) investigating the special education students’ and teachers’ affective responses toward LT. As seen in Fig. 2,
examining the learning effectiveness of LT using was the most common research aim (75%), with 21 studies doing
this. This was followed by investigating the special education students’ and teachers’ affective responses toward LT
(14%), which includes 4 studies, and designing educational activities with the use of LT (11%), with three studies. It
should be noted that Campigotto et al. (2013) and Tan and Cheung (2008) both had two research aims, including
examining the learning effectiveness and investigating participants’ affective responses, and the final results includes
these overlapping ones.
 3622
Table 1
Analysis of studies which aim to examine the learning effectiveness of using LT with special education.

Study Participants Methodology Learning technology (LT) Outcome

Aziz et al. (2012) Malaysian special education students Observation Cloud computing; augmented reality Positive
(emotional or behavioral disorders)
Campigotto et al. (2013) Toronto students in grades 7 through 12 Action research iOS devices with the MyVoice application Positive; neutral
(intellectual disabilities; learning
disabilities; autism spectrum disorders)
Carmien and Wohldman (2008) Young adults with cognitive disabilities Experimental study A Compaq model 900c laptop computer Negative
Chiang and Jacobs (2010) 16 students in Special Education program Interview Kurzweil 3000 ! K-3000 (assistive Positive; negative
(learning disabilities) software that provides students with
reading support)
Everhart et al. (2011) Two children with moderate to intensive Case study Created individualized computer games Positive

G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

disabilities (intellectual disabilities)
Fernández-López et al. (2013) 39 students from Spain (autism spectrum Experimental study Picaa (a mobile platform based on iPad Positive
disorders; emotional or behavioral and iPod touch devices)
disorders)
Fitzgerald et al. (2008) Students with intellectual disabilities, or Literature review Computer-mediated instruction Positive; neutral
learning disabilities, or emotional or
behavioral disorders
Garcia et al. (2011) 30 children with cerebral palsy Questionnaire A computer-aided communication device Positive; neutral
Grant and Dieker (2011) Two Black males in high school Case study Web-based mentoring Positive
(emotional or behavioral disorders)
Groenewegen, Heinz, Fröhlich, & Huckauf (2008) 24 Mentally handicapped participants Experimental study Virtual worlds with an educational game Positive
and tasks
Karal (2009) 6 Students with speech and language Experimental study Computer-aided articulation material Positive
disorders
Karal et al. (2010) Turkey mild mental impairment students Case study Educational computer games Positive
(intellectual, learning and emotional or
behavioral disorders)
Kiboss (2012) Hearing impairment Experimental study Computer-based special electronic Positive
learning program
Peltenburg, van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 55 Netherland special education students Experimental study Computer-based text on subtraction Positive
& Robitzsch (2011) (learning disability)
Pennington (2010) Students with autism spectrum disorders Literature review Computer-assisted instruction Positive
Rodrı́guez et al. (2012) Voice disorders and pathologies patients Experimental study Developing activities called PreLingua Positive
in special education centers in Spain and with computer-aided voice therapy
Colombia
Stodden, Roberts, Takahashi, and Stodden (2012) 69 Hawai’I public school students with Experimental study Kurzweil 3000 text-to-speech (TTS) Positive
learning disabilities softeware
Tan and Cheung (2008) A 7 year-old child with emotional or Interview and Computer for collaborative work Positive
behavioral disorders questionnaire
Topaloğlu and Topaloğlu (2009) All kinds of special educational students Literature review Distance learning application Neutral
especially for handicapped ones.
Watson, Ito, Smith, and Andersen (2010) A public school special educational Experimental study Assistive technology (AT) for oral and Positive
students (learning disorders) written communication
Woodfine, Nunes, and Wright (2008) Students with learning disability Experimental study Computer for online text Negative
(reading)
Note: Campigotto et al. (2013) and Tan and Cheung (2008) were counted twice because they both fell into two categories of research aims.
 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628 3623

Table 2
Analysis of studies which aim to design educational activities with the use of LT.

Study Participants Methodology Learning technology (LT) Outcome

Ari and Inan (2010)
Chu et al. (2009)
Rodrı́guez-Fórtiz et al. (2009)
22 University students in Turkey Questionnaire Computer (internet); special software Positive
(hearing impairment; vision
impairment; physical disabilities)
Students with mild disabilities Descriptive study A problem-based e-learning (PBeL) Positive
(intellectual disabilities) model
Special educational school students Experimental study Augmentative and alternative Positive
(autism spectrum disorders and speech communication systems (a platform
and language disorders)

Table 3
Analysis of studies which aim to investigate the special education students’ and teachers’ affective responses toward LT.

Study Participants Methodology Learning technology (LT) Outcome

Campigotto et al. (2013)
Dincyurek et al. (2011)
Kortering, McClannon,
& Braziel (2008)
Tan and Cheung (2008)
Note: Campigotto et al. (2013) and Tan and Cheung (2008) were counted twice because they both fell into two categories of research aims.
Toronto students in grades 7 Action research iOS devices with the MyVoice Positive; neutral
through 12 (intellectual disabilities; application
learning disabilities; autism
spectrum disorders)
Students with orthopedic Questionnaire Computer assisted program Positive
impairment (physical disabilities)
54 Students with learning Experimental study Computer assisted universal Positive
disabilities and 6 students with design for learning
emotional or behavioral disorders
A 7 year-old child with emotional or Interview and Computer for collaborative work Positive
behavioral disorders questionnaire

4.2. Distribution of research methodologies

We classified the research methods into seven types. Fig. 3 indicates that researchers primarily relied on experimental
studies (46%, 12 studies), followed by interviews and questionnaires (19%, 5 studies). The rest of the studies included three
literature reviews, three case studies, one observation, one action research, and one descriptive study.

4.3. Distribution of research outcomes

Fig. 4 indicates that 23 studies (77%) reported positive research outcomes, while three (10%) studies reported neutral
outcomes and four (13%) studies reported negative ones. It should be noted that two kinds of outcomes were reported from
one study. For example, in Chiang and Jacobs (2010), both advantages and challenges were pointed with regard to using
specific software (K-3000) to enhance the self-perceived academic abilities of high school special education students.
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

Research Aims
11%
1. Evaluang the effect of
14% LT (21/28)
2. Desgining a LT for
learning (4/28)
3. Invesgang the affect
75% domain (3/28)

Fig. 2. Distribution of research aims.

[(Fig._3)TD$IG]
3624 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

Metholodogy
1. experimental
4% study(12/26)
4%
4% 2. interview &
quesonnarie(5/26)
12% 3. literature review(3/26)

46%
4. case study(3/26)

11% 5. observaon(1/26)

6. acon research(1/26)

19%
7. discrpve study(1/26)

Fig. 3. Distribution of methodologies.

[(Fig._4)TD$IG]
Research Outcomes
25 23

20
15
10
3 4
5
0
posive neutral negave

Fig. 4. Distribution of research outcomes.

4.4. Distribution of LT use

Fig. 5 shows that the most common use of LT is computer-assisted technology in special education (71%, 20 studies),
followed by specific software (18%, five studies) and mobile learning (11%, three studies). Among these, there were two
studies with overlapping technologies. For example, one observed cloud computing and augmented reality within the
context of special education (Aziz, Aziz, Yusof, & Paul, 2012), while the other one explored the attitudes of the students
[(Fig._5)TD$IG]

Fig. 5. Distribution of various types of learning technology.

[(Fig._6)TD$IG] G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628 3625

The Type of DisabiliƟes

9

7 7
6

4
3 3
2
1

Fig. 6. Distribution of the type of disabilities.

toward the use of computers and specific software in a writing class (Ari & Inan, 2010). Mobile learning (11%, three studies)
was examined by the fewest number of studies.

4.5. Distribution of the type of disabilities

Only nine types of disabilities are observed in the studies examined in this work, and no health impairments or
developmental delays are included, as shown in Fig. 6. Along the x-axis, 1–4 can be categorized as mental disabilities, while
the others are physical ones. It should be noted that two or more types of disabilities may be mentioned in one study.
Fig. 6 shows that students with mental disabilities were most often assisted by LT with regard to improving their
academic abilities. For example, in Everhart, Alber-Morgan, and Park (2011), computer games were successfully used to
improve the academic skills special of educational students. However, there were much fewer investigations of the
implementation of LT with physically disabled students, with only 13 times being mentioned in papers), such as Rodrı́guez,
Saz, and Lleida (2012), which illustrated that LT could effectively help students overcome speech disorders and learn how to
pronounce vocabulary.

5. Discussion

5.1. Most studies focus on effectiveness

As seen in Fig. 2, in the 26 studies examined in this work, 21 of them focused on the effectiveness of using LT with special
education students, a finding that was not reported in previous special education related literature surveys. More
importantly, this result corresponds with surveys of the literature in other technology-assisted learning contexts. For
example, Wu et al. (2012) pointed out that most studies of technology-assisted learning focus on the learning effectiveness of
mobile learning. Vogel, Canon-Bowers, Bowers, Muse, and Wright (2006) also indicated that most studies on game-based
learning focus on its effectiveness.

5.2. Most studies adopted experimental studies, interviews and questionnaires as the primary research methods

Fig. 3 shows that experimental studies were the primary research method (12 out of 26 studies), followed by interviews
(five). Quantitative approaches were thus favored over qualitative ones. Moreover, the result of only two studies falling into
the categories of case study was in line with Pennington (2010), which indicated that functional relations were found in few
of the single-case designs (Everhart et al., 2011; Garcia et al., 2011).

5.3. The implications of positive and negative outcomes

Fig. 4 shows that 77% of the 26 studies reported positive outcomes. For example, Chiang and Jacobs (2010) pointed out
that teachers and students in the field of special education expressed positive attitudes toward the use of Computer-based
3626 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

Instruction (CBI) in the classroom. More specifically, the teachers stated that this technology was a powerful tool that
enhanced teaching and learning, and that they observed improvements in the performance of the participating students
after integrating technology into their classroom instruction. Campigotto et al. (2013) also highlighted that technology that
is perceived to be ‘fun’ by students has greater potential to improve motivation in learning contexts. The results indicated the
strong potential for successfully integrating mobile technology within special needs classrooms, with a high-degree of
student support for using mobile devices to enhance classroom experiences.
Although negative outcomes were reported much less than positive ones, it is still important to draw attention to the
challenges of using LT in special education. Campigotto et al. (2013) highlighted the challenges of incorporating such
technologies into the curriculum in terms of practicality, teacher comfort, and the limitations of the devices. Chiang and
Jacobs (2010) also pointed out that time constraints, limited access to the necessary technology, and difficulties in managing
the class, were three common barriers encountered when integrating CBI into teaching. These issues worth our attention,
and solutions must be found to overcome the challenges they present.

5.4. Computer-assisted technology is most widely used in special education

As shown in Fig. 5, computer-assisted technology is very often used in special education, and this is attributed to the fact
that LT is beneficial for students’ learning outcomes. For example, Topaloğlu and Topaloğlu (2009) clearly stated that LT
means that students’ independent learning is not limited by time and space constraints. In addition, they also noted that LT is
relatively inexpensive, and can be used to apply distance education for special needs students.

5.5. LT is more often applied to mentally disabled students rather than physically disabled ones

As seen in Fig. 6, there were more studies investigating the use of LT with mentally disabled students rather than
physically disabled one. This implies that mentally disable students face more problems with learning target abilities such as
acquiring vocabulary (Rodrı́guez et al., 2012) and being able to understand geometry (Kiboss, 2012). Instead of helping
physically disabled students to learn academic knowledge with the aid of technology, it is more urgent to help them solve
more practical physical problems, such as the learning how to use active video games as a way to increase their energy levels
(Rowland & Rimmer, 2012).

6. Limitations

Although the present paper provides a systematic review of current trends with regard to using LT in special education,
it cannot represent the overall trends in this domain because of the following limitations. Our research only included
research and review articles, and not works from other sources. In future work, we recommend that the researchers can
include a different range of sources to provide more detailed and representative results, and use other definitions of special
education.

7. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to identify contemporary research directions and trends with regard to the implementation of
LT in the last five years (2008–2012). While two previous literature review-based papers provided insights into how LT could
be applied to students with autism spectrum disorders and students with mild and moderate disabilities, they failed to
examine how LT could be used with students with other mental and physical disabilities.
In our study, we conducted a systematic review of the overall research trends regarding the research aims,
methodologies, learning outcomes, types of LT used, and the types of disabilities in the focal students. The current paper has
the following five findings: (a) the research aim of most LT studies examined in this work were to evaluate the effectiveness
of LT; (b) the preferred methodology was experimental studies, followed by interviews and questionnaires; (c) most of the
research outcomes were positive; (d) the most common use of LT was computer-assistive technology; and (e) LT was
mainly used to help the mentally disabled students to acquire academic knowledge. The findings and implications of this
work are expected to provide both teacher-practitioners and researchers with valuable references and suggestions with
regard to the use of LT in the field of special education. We also expect that more context-aware ubiquitous learning
research and sensing technology (Hsu, Hwang, Chang, & Chang, 2013; Hung, Hwang, Lin, Wu, & Su, 2013; Liu & Hwang,
2010) will be applied to all types of special education in order to help learners with mental and physical disabilities
worldwide.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Matson, for their comments on an earlier
version of this paper. This work was partially supported by the National Science Council in Taiwan (NSC 102-2511-S-006-
005-MY3, NSC 100-2511-S-006-001-MY2, and NSC 98-2511-S-006-003-MY2).
 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628 3627

1
References
*Ari, I. A., & Inan, F. A. (2010). Assistive technologies for students with disabilities: A survey of access and use in turkish universities. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 9(2), 40–45.
*Aziz, K. A., Aziz, N. A. A., Yusof, A. M., & Paul, A. (2012). Potential for providing augmented reality elements in special education via cloud computing. Procedia
Engineering, 41(0), 333–339.
*Campigotto, R., McEwen, R., & Demmans Epp, C. (2013). Especially social: Exploring the use of an iOS application in special needs classrooms. Computers &
Education, 60(1), 74–86.
*Carmien, S., & Wohldman, E. (2008). Mapping images to objects by young adults with cognitive disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(2), 149–157.
Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted
Language Learning http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557
*Chiang, H. Y., & Jacobs, K. (2010). Perceptions of a computer-based instruction system in special education: High school teachers and students views. Work: A
Journal of Prevention Assessment & Rehabilitation, 37(4), 349–359.
*Chu, H. C., Chen, T. Y., Lin, C. J., Liao, M. J., & Chen, Y. M. (2009). Development of an adaptive learning case recommendation approach for problem-based e-learning
on mathematics teaching for students with mild disabilities. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5456–5468.
Chiu, L. L., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online dictionaries on high school students’ English vocabulary retention. Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0065-1
*Dincyurek, S., Arsan, N., & Caglar, M. (2011). The orthopaedically handicapped and computer usage: The case of trnc. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(1), 209–215.
Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491–498.
*Everhart, J. M., Alber-Morgan, S. R., & Park, J. H. (2011). Effects of computer-based practice on the acquisition and maintenance of basic academic skills for
children with moderate to intensive educational needs. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(4), 556–564.
*Fernández-López, Á. , Rodrı́guez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodrı́guez-Almendros, M. L., & Martı́nez-Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to
support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77–90.
*Fitzgerald, G., Koury, K., & Mitchem, K. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 38(2), 201–233.
Florian, L. (Ed.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of special education. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Garcia, T. P., Loureiro, J. P., Gonzalez, B. G., Riveiro, L. N., & Sierra, A. P. (2011). The use of computers and augmentative and alternative communication devices by
children and young with cerebral palsy. Assistive Technology, 23(3), 135–149.
*Grant, D. G., & Dieker, L. A. (2011). Listening to black male student voices using web-based mentoring. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 322–333.
*Groenewegen, S., Heinz, S., Fröhlich, B., & Huckauf, A. (2008). Virtual world interfaces for special needs education based on props on a board. Computers &
Graphics, 32(5), 589–596.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL
students. Computers & Education, 63(1), 327–336.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., Chang, Y. T., & Chang, C. K. (2013). Effects of video caption modes on English listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition using
handheld devices. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 403–414.
Hung, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Lin, Y. F., Wu, T. H., & Su, I. H. (2013). Seamless connection between learning and assessment- applying progressive learning tasks in
mobile ecology inquiry. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 194–205.
Hwang, G. J., Kuo, F. R., Yin, P. Y., & Chuang, K. H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context aware ubiquitous learning.
Computers & Education, 54(2), 404–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.024
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chu, H. C., & Kinshuk Chen, C. Y. (2012). A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a
science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 931–947.
Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. H. (2008). Criteria, strategies and research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2),
81–91.
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (second ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O‘Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., et al. (2013). Using iPods1 and iPads1 in teaching programs for individuals
with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 147–156.
*Karal, H. (2009). Evaluating the impact of computer aided learning material on articulation disorders. Egitim Arastirmalari – Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 8(34), 55–74.
*Karal, H., Kokoç, M., & Ayyıldız, U. (2010). Educational computer games for developing psychomotor ability in children with mild mental impairment. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 996–1000.
*Kiboss, J. K. (2012). Effects of special e-learning program on hearing-impaired learners’ achievement and perceptions of basic geometry in lower primary
mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 31–59.
*Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T. W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008). Universal design for learning a look at what algebra and biology students with and without high
incidence conditions are saying. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 352–363.
Levy, S. T., & Lahav, O. (2012). Enabling people who are blind to experience science inquiry learning through sound-based mediation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 28(6), 499–513.
Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 738–747.
Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 41(2), E1–E9.
Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria for English learning websites with university students and professors.
Computers & Education, 56(1), 65–79.
Liu, G. Z., Lo, H. Y., & Wang, H. C. (2013). Design and usability testing of a learning and plagiarism avoidance tutorial system for paraphrasing and citing in English:
A case study. Computers & Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.011
*Peltenburg, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2011). Special education students’ use of indirect addition in solving subtraction problems up to
100-A proof of the didactical potential of an ignored procedure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 79(3), 351–369.
*Pennington, R. C. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction for teaching academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 239–248.
*Rodrı́guez-Fórtiz, M. J., González, J. L., Fernández, A., Entrena, M., Hornos, M. J., Pérez, A., et al. (2009). Sc@ut: Developing adapted communicators for special
education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1348–1352.
*Rodrı́guez, W. R., Saz, O., & Lleida, E. (2012). A prelingual tool for the education of altered voices. Speech Communication, 54(5), 583–600.
Rushby, N., & Seabrook, J. (2008). Understanding the past-illuminating the future. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(2), 198–233.
Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of an English needs analysis of process integration engineers at a
semiconductor manufacturing company in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 97–109.
*Stodden, R. A., Roberts, K. D., Takahashi, K. P., & Stodden, H. J. N. J. (2012). Use of text-to-speech software to improve reading skills of high school struggling
readers. Procedia Computer Science, 14(0), 359–362.

1
Please note that the researchers used ‘‘*’’ in front of the first author’s last name of each paper to indicate the paper is cited for use in the review study.
3628 G.-Z. Liu et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 34 (2013) 3618–3628

Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing
learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
*Tan, T. S., & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Effects of computer collaborative group work on peer acceptance of a junior pupil with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Computers & Education, 50(3), 725–741.
*Topaloğlu, A. Ö. , & Topaloğlu, M. (2009). Distance education applications in concept acquisition for disabled individuals/special education for handicapped.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1008–1011.
Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). Issues and challenges of educational technology research in Asia. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 215–216.
Vogel, J. J., Vogel, D. S., Canon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulation for learning: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229–243.
*Watson, A. H., Ito, M., Smith, R. O., & Andersen, L. T. (2010). Effect of assistive technology in a public school setting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(1),
18–29.
*Woodfine, B. P., Nunes, M. B., & Wright, D. J. (2008). Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: Not necessarily the perfect match! Computers & Education,
50(3), 703–717.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 817–827.
Yesilyurt, M. (2011). Meta-analysis of the computer assisted studies in physics: A sample of Turkey. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B-Social and
Educational Studies, 3(1/2), 173–182.