Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Students with Disabilities and their Engagement in

Technology-based Computer Programming Games


Kate Myers
Abstract
Technology is now entering classrooms at a fast pace. As teachers use
of technology in classroom instruction increases in frequency, students
with disabilities may experience frustrations in the context of these
technology-based activities from a lack of necessary supports. The
purpose of my investigation was to observe the engagement levels of a
student with disabilities in computer-based activities involving coding
for a game. What is the level of engagement of a student with
disabilities in a coding activity? What kind of staff interaction and
support are observed while the student does this? What kind of peer
interaction and encouragement are observed while the student is
engaging in the activity? What supports may be needed for future
success in coding? I observed a class of elementary students at a local
school and assessed the engagement level of one student with
disabilities using an observation protocol. I identified successful and
needed supports based on Wile Model of Human Performance
Technology. The data collected in this study should contribute to
understanding how students with disabilities engage with computer
technology on their own and/or with the support of staff and peers.
Introduction
Including students with disabilities in general education
classrooms is a top priority in education. With the rapid growth of
technology happening in the classroom now, it is important for
students with disabilities to be utilizing it. One piece of technology that
seems to be growing is computer-programming games. General
education students find engagement in these computer-programming
games but do students with disabilities find it engaging as well? In our
study, we observed a student with a disability in an inclusive classroom
during coding activities. The students were using computerprogramming games (scratch.com, code.org) to learn basic
programming skills.
A manuscript to be published in Teaching Exceptional
Children provides practical evidence-based strategies for instructing
students with disabilities in computing education along with a vignette
and multiple examples to help teachers who have limited or no
experience with computing (Israel et al. in press). Specifically, this

article addresses empowering K-12 students with disabilities to


learn computational thinking and computer programming.
Recommended strategies include teaching a linear progression with
discrete computing skills or through open exploration/inquiry. Younger
students should begin with a tile-based program where students move
templates, whereas older students may be able to begin by typing
their codes. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is highly
recommended for teaching computer-programming skills to students
with disabilities, with a stress on student-to-student collaboration.
Student-to-student collaboration can be learned through cooperative
learning if a students disabilities make social interaction difficult.
There are several previous studies done in which the computerprogramming software, Logo, was used. Reviving the Turtle: Exploring
the Use of Logo with Students with Mild Disabilities (Ratcliff &
Anderson, 2011) took nine fourth grade students with a variety of
learning disabilities and introduced them to the Logo programming
language. They held three 90-minute sessions over four weeks. They
found Logo to help the students be actively engaged, attentive towards
tasks, and motivated. They also found the game helped students with
spatial relations and to apply math in alternative contexts, and
empowered them to be in control of their learning. Reeder and
Lemming (1994) looked at the effect Logo had on students of low
socioeconomic status, including students with disabilities. Thirty-six
third graders were randomly assigned into two groups, one used Logo
and the other remained a control group. Both groups were tested at
the end of the study with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). The test
results showed the students who had worked with Logo all performed
better on the test than students who had not received time with Logo.
Research Question
Through this research, we will address the following questions:
(1) To what extent is a student with disabilities engaged in computer
programming games? (2) What supports are provided and what
supports are needed to increase engagement in computer
programming games for a student with disabilities?
Research Methods
We observed in an elementary classroom during the spring
semester at an elementary school. Each observation lasted
approximately 30 to 45 minutes. We observed one 4th grade student
with disabilities who spent a majority of his day in the general
education classroom. We have given him the pseudonym Horatio.
Horatio had a primary diagnosis of autism and received special
education services for communication, math, and behavior/social
supports. He had a one-on-one teaching assistant, Mrs. Sheraton

(pseudonym) who worked with him throughout the day. Following the
observations, we interviewed the students general education teacher.
To assess engagement we used an observation protocol adapted
from the Scale for Teachers Assessment of Routine Engagements
(STARE; McWilliam, 2000). STARE looks at what the person is doing,
how they participate, what can they do on their own, and their
communication and social skills. The scale has five levels: (1) none of
the time, (2) little of the time, (3) half of the time, (4) much of the
time, and (5) all of the time. Associated with each number is a level of
engagement: (1) nonengaged, (2) unsophisticated, (3) average, (4)
advanced, and (5) sophisticated. We used these scales of engagement.
An example of observation form is presented in Figure 1.
Routine X
minutes
With adults
With peers
With materials
Independence:
Social Relationships:
Other students are:

Unengaged

Unsophisticate
d

Average

Advance
d

Sophisticate
d

Figure 1. Example observation form.

While observing the students engagement, we also recorded the


types of supports students werereceiving. According to
Conceptualizing the Supports and the Support Needs of People with
Intellectual Disability (Thompson et. al. 2009), there are four types of
supports: (a) normative or objective need, (b) felt need, (c) expressed
need or demand, and (d) comparative need. We included field notes
related to comparative need by documenting what other students in
the class were doing and what the student with a disability was doing
to allow us to compare the activities and identify needs based on
discrepancies between the activities of the class and the child with a
disability.
In the interview, we asked questions about the students abilities,
special education services, and academic performance. We also asked
the interviewee to identify the environments in which the student
works best in and what types of supports might be given to help the
student accomplish the task based on previous experiences of success.
Results
Observations. We collected observation data of Horatio during
the four phases of coding time: (a)set-up, (b) mini-lesson, (c) coding,
and (d) closing. We observed set-up time for a total of 39 minutes (5
minutes on Days 1-3, 5, 7; 10 minutes on Day 6; 19 minutes on Day 4).

Horatio could independently get his computer from the cart, open the
computer, and log in to his user account. During the second, fourth,
and seventh observation, Horatio also independently logged into
code.org, but he required assistance on this step during the third
observation. On the fifth observation he required assistance logging
into scratch.com. On the first, third, fifth, and sixth observation,
Horatio had little opportunity to demonstrate his skills as Mrs.
Sharaton, the paraprofessional who supports him, throughout his day,
logged onto the computer for him. Horatio is also able to follow verbal
directions from Mrs. Sharaton, observed during Observations 3 through
7 when Horatio easily tried different suggestions Mrs. Sharaton made
when he could not log into the computer because of a technical
difficulty. Table 1 is a summary of how Horatio was engaged during the
total number of minutes of set-up activity.
Table 1
Set-up 54
Unengage Unsophisticat
minutes
d
ed
With adults
33
9
With peers
54
With materials
26.5
9.5
Note. Numbers represent minutes

Averag
e
11

Advance
d

13

Sophisticat
ed
1
5

On day five, a mini-lesson was taught before the coding began.


We observed Horatio during the mini-lesson time for a total of 14
minutes. The students had received their computers before the minilesson began. Most students were listening to and responding to
questions from the teacher, and connecting them to a previously
taught math lesson. Horatio was playing on Starfall.com (a literacy
website for kids) during the mini-lesson and did not interact with or
attend to the teacher. Mrs. Sharaton prompted Horatio to watch and
listen to instruction. With prompts from Mrs. Sharaton, he went to
code.org and then did a web search for scratch.com, activities he was
supposed to do to follow along with the lesson. He showed no response
to a peer who came over to help Horatio reach scratch.com. However,
the second time the peer helped, he watched her type. Table 2 is a
summary of how Horatio was engaged during the total number of
minutes of the mini-lesson activity.
Table 2
Mini-lesson 14
minutes
With adults
With peers
With materials

Unengaged
3
13
5

Unsophisticate
d
5
1
3

Average
6
6

Advanced

Sophisticate
d

Note. Numbers represent minutes.

Observations were collected of Horatio during coding time for a


total of 164 minutes (30 minutes on Days 1-3; 11 minutes on Day 4; 17
minutes on Day 5; 21 minutes on Day 6; 25 minutes on Day 7). Table 3
is a summary of how Horatio was engaged during the total number of
minutes of coding activity. Mrs. Sharaton reported that she has minimal
skills in coding, as she is learning everything with the class. Therefore,
she was unable to provide direct, explicit instruction to Horatio. Most of
the time, Mrs. Sharaton worked on the computer, investigating how to
correctly code the activity on code.org. When she had built what she
hoped was a correct sequence, she would give the computer back to
Horatio and prompt him to run the script, which only required him to
click on a single icon on the screen. Horatio would independently click
on the correct button to run the script; given the opportunity, he was
also able to independently click on and drag code into the create
section and/or follow Mrs. Sharatons verbal directions to do so (see
average engagement with materials in Table 3).
Horatio showed nominal interest in watching Mrs. Sheraton work
on building code, watching her work for only 22 minutes (see
unsophisticated engagement with materials in Table 3). On Day 6,
Horatio correctly built a sequence in code.org and got the attention of
one of the researches, and showed her the correct sequence (see
advanced engagement with adults, materials in Table 3). On Day 7, a
researcher provided assistance to Mrs. Sheraton and Horatio. She
asked Horatios permission to use the mouse, narrated her thinking as
she tried different coding options, and asked open-ended questions,
which Horatio, answered with one or two-word replies. Horatio
completed levels 18- 20 this day and showed he could count the blocks
on his own and create a correct sequences of code but had trouble
discerning which direction to turn when the path was upside down on
his screen and struggled to use the repeat blocks to build a sequence
of code in fewer lines instead of using basic pieces that require
numerous lines of code to achieve the same effect.
Table 3
Coding 164
Unengage Unsophisticat
minutes
d
ed
With adults
88
32
With peers
164
2
With materials
93
33
Note. Numbers represent minutes.

Averag
e
43

Advance
d
1

36

Sophisticat
ed

The close of coding was brief and, during this time, Horatio was
required to log off of his account on the computer and return the

computer to the cart. We collected observations of Horatio during


closing time for a total of 4 minutes (three minutes on Observation 1;
one minute on Observation 2; zero minutes on Observations 3 -7).
Table 4 is a summary of how Horatio was engaged during the total
number of minutes of the closing activity. Horatio was capable of
independently logging out of his computer and returning it to the cart.
During Observation 1, Mrs. Sheraton completed all log-out steps but
the final click and asked Horatio to complete that step. During
Observation 2, Horatio completed all steps independently. We did not
observe closing during the remaining observations.

Table 4
Close 4 minutes

Unengage Unsophisticat
d
ed
With adults
3
1
With peers
4
With materials
2
1
Note. Numbers represent minutes

Averag
e

Advance
d

Sophisticat
ed

Interview We interviewed Horatios general education teacher,


Mr. Mitchell (pseudonym), and learned that Horatio is reading at or
close to grade level but has a very low comprehension level. He has
been known to use short, clipped, phrases when communicating with
peers but does not engage in, genuine conversations. Most of the
interactions with peers his teacher has observed happened on the
playground with chasing games.
Looking back on Horatios time in the classroom, Mr. Mitchell
said, If I could do it again, I would probably try to carve out some
more one-on-one with him. Mr. Mitchell reported that Horatio needed
supports across the school day for most academic and social tasks but
that he felt he had not enough time or supports from other people to
learn about what supports worked best for Horatio. As a result, Mr.
Mitchell felt he knew little about Horatios technological skill, saying
[What I know] about his ability is even less in that technology sense
than I do in other areas.
In addition to the supports Horatio needs across the school day,
Mr. Mitchell shared that school staff need supports as well. First,
teachers need to know how to code so they can teach the student. Mr.
Mitchell reported the school provided professional development
activities for teachers and paraprofessionals on coding, but that, in his

opinion, what you put into coding is what you get out of it, so youve
got to be going in with a good attitude or good mind-set. Mr. Mitchell
questioned if Mrs. Sheraton, Horatios one-on-one paraprofessional,
had a positive attitude about coding, and speculated that, as a result,
she may not be able to provide the best support for Horatio during that
activity.
Mr. Mitchell expressed that he felt that implementing strategies
to maintain students motivation over time to prevent students from
getting frustrated when they are working through more difficult levels
of coding would help all students stay engaged with coding, including
Horatio.
Overall, Horatios teacher feels like, [Horatio] kind of embraces
it [coding]. I mean, I dont think he minds his coding time. I dont think
he looks at is as a chore. Mr. Mitchell felt that Horatio had the ability
to learn to code but that he and Mrs. Sheraton lacked the skills and/or
the time required to successfully support Horatio as he learned.

Implications
Given our observations of Horatio during coding time and our
interview with his teacher, we concluded that Horatio needs supports
across his school day to be successful and that these same supports
are also necessary during coding time.
First, given the limited access he had to the computer during
coding time while Mrs. Sheraton worked to try to figure out the coding
task, it was difficult to ascertain to what extent Horatio had the skills to
code independently. Often, by the time Mrs. Sheraton resolved a
coding predicament, coding time was over and Horatio had not had
much access to his computer. Thus, Horatio may benefit from being
partnered with a staff member who is familiar and proficient with the
coding programs so that the staff member can provide explicit
instructions to support Horatio while coding. In addition, a second
computer may be provided for the paraprofessional so she can
troubleshoot while Horatio continues to work on the problem on his
own.
Second, given that Horatio requires special education supports
for math and many math concepts are incorporated into coding,
Horatio may benefit from supprts that help him develop the conceptual
skills necessary for coding. He may benefit from being allowed to work
at a slower pace than his peers so that he has time to independently
accomplish his coding tasks. Horatio may also benefit from having
visual prompts of step-by-step instructions, including pictures, to help
him complete coding with less adult assistance, as these supports are
often helpful for children with autism and other developmental
disabilities, but such supports have not been tried with Horatio.

Introducing computers into the classroom is a new concept, but


we learned is that, for this child with disabilities, the supports needed
to participate in coding were not new. Instead, we concluded that the
effective supports he needed across the school day were the same
supports necessary during computing. As this is a case study of a
single child, we cannot assume that this will be true for all children
with disabilities. However, we encourage educators who are
incorporating coding and computing into their classrooms to first
provide the supports students with disabilities need in other areas of
the school day and then evaluate if additional computing-specific
supports are needed.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen