The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0001-253X.htm

AP
58,4

Using ICT with people with

special education needs: what the
literature tells us

330

Peter Williams, Hamid R. Jamali and David Nicholas

Received 21 November 2005

Revised 20 May 2006
Accepted 8 June 2006

CIBER, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies (SLAIS),

University College London, UK
Abstract
Purpose To provide a review of the past studies on use of information and communications
technology (ICT) for people with special education needs (SEN) to inform a major research project on
using ICT to facilitate self-advocacy and learning for SEN learners.
Design/methodology/approach Literature review, encompassing academic journals indexed in
education, information science and social sciences databases, books, grey literature (including much
internet-based material), and government reports. Information was gathered on the perceived benefits
of ICT in SEN, and the use of some specific applications with people having various conditions. A
number of usability studies, mainly Internet and web technologies, are also outlined.
Findings Although the literature shows a great number of ICT initiatives for people with all kinds
of disabilities, there has been a surprising lack of research into the usability of the various applications
developed, and even less concerning those with learning difficulties. The review of existing literature
indicates a lack of attention to the application of ICT for people with SEN, compared to the other
groups of disabled people such as visually impaired.
Originality/value Findings highlight the need for more research on usability aspects of current
and potential applications of ICT for people with SEN.
Keywords Communications technologies, Education, Learning disabilities, Disabled people,
Aids for the disabled
Paper type Literature review

Aslib Proceedings: New Information

Perspectives
Vol. 58 No. 4, 2006
pp. 330-345
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0001-253X
DOI 10.1108/00012530610687704

Introduction
Although the use of ICT in mainstream education has its origins in the 1970s, it has
only been in recent years that the government has recognised the importance of and
paid special attention to the use of information and communications technologies
(ICTs) in special educational needs (Stevens, 2004). The current emphasis on inclusion
(Dyson et al., 2004; Ofsted, 2004), and the ever-advancing technologies have stimulated
much interest in using various ICT applications for both individualised learning and
for integrating students or pupils with disabilities into a mainstream school
environment.
This paper examines the literature on use of ICT for people with special education
needs (SEN) in order to present an overview of perceived benefits and use of some
specific applications including the internet, virtual environments and adaptive devices.
The article also gives an overview of how various systems have been used for people
having various conditions, and outlines a number of usability studies mainly web and
Internet technologies. One of the aims is to highlight those aspects and areas of the
application of ICT with people with SEN that have not received enough attention and

need to be better studied. The review was undertaken to inform Project @PPLe:
Accessibility and Participation in the World Wide Web for People with Learning
Disabilities, a cross-disciplinary initiative, funded by the Economic and Social
Research Councils (ESRC) PACCIT programme. The projects main focus is to develop
a multimedia learning environment (LE), providing learning resources and tools for
self advocacy for the SEN community. The LE aims to provide routes to learning
materials and accessible content for learners matched to individual needs and
preferences. Its evaluation in use will help to model effective approaches to the design
and delivery of multimedia for this audience.
Perceived benefits of ICT in SEN
Many writers have extolled the benefits of using ICT in a learning environment with
SEN. Florian (2004) described six such uses of ICT. These are:
(1) Facilitating tutor programmes: the tutor programme represents a type of
teaching with technology entailing individualised computer-based learning
programmes.
(2) Improving exploratory learning: with the help of technology, exploratory
learning environments have been developed, similar to tutor programmes.
Whereas the former are about teaching, exploratory learning environments
allow pupils to interact with the material and have more control over their
learning. The internet is an example of how ICT can be used in an exploratory
manner.
(3) Using ICT as a tool: this type of learning with ICT is about the skills involved in
using the tools of technology, such as word-processing programmes, in other
words, the tools found in non-educational environments such as the home.
(4) Help in communication: there are many assistive technology devices available
to help pupils communicate, such as voice synthesisers.
(5) Used for assessment purposes: a computer-based assessment system can be
more than just a device for recording and summarising data. Singleton (2004),
cited in Florian (2004), mentioned some advantages of computer-based
assessment including savings in time, labour and cost, interested test
motivation, greater precision and standardisation of administration.
(6) Used as a management tool: teachers of pupils with SEN are required to develop
individual education plans designed to address identified learning difficulties.
ICT can help teachers in this respect. The Internet is an increasingly popular
management tool for SEN professionals for the same reason.
Thomas (1992) felt that ICT could bring certain benefits to students with emotional and
behavioural difficulties. He regarded it as an enabler, whereby ICT can facilitate
access by students to learning which increases motivation, fosters self-competition and
confidence and improves self-esteem. There are other benefits of ICT mentioned in the
literature also, including its role in rehabilitation of disabled people. Midgley (1993)
pointed out that there is a consensus that one of the most useful forms of vocational
rehabilitation for many people with disabilities is training in the use of ICT. He
described three models for such training for people with disabilities, as follows:

Special education
needs

331

AP
58,4

332

(1) The workshop model. This appears to be the least used model for ICT training
despite its long history. The basic rational of the workshop approach is that
work experience is the key to rehabilitation.
(2) The educational model. In this model training is provided within regular
educational establishments, with the emphasis on education rather than
vocation.
(3) The systemic vocational rehabilitation model. This model refers to the creation of
a structured, goal-directed approach that combines more than one form of help
in order to meet peoples individual needs.
Based on the experience achieved from using IT in Meldreth Manor, a school for
students with severe learning difficulties, Banes and Walter (2002) echo Florians
(2004) claim that ICT can help in communication. They maintained that it is also
exciting to use and a positive challenge to most of the pupils. However, they also
warned that there is a possibility that its excitement overtakes its value to the pupil
and may lead to the exploration of issues that would be best explored in other ways,
such as using a telephone, computer, or books. Johnson and Hegarty (2003) also
discussed web sites as educational motivators for adults with learning disabilities.
Based on the results of their study, they argued that web sites can be a valuable and
motivating educational asset if quickly accessible, graphics-based and closely matched
to a students interest. They believe that these requirements do not mean that special
web sites for people with disabilities need to be developed: design-for-all principles,
applied to web sites, will in their view, improve accessibility and promote inclusion.
Use of specific applications
Use of the internet
The internet has been described as the most pervasive and educationally far-reaching
innovation in ICT (Hegarty, 2004, p. 129). It has now become so ubiquitous that many
organisations are trying to make their web sites accessible to people with special needs.
The Special School, Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) (which provide education for pupils
who are out of school for a variety of reasons, including exclusion or early pregnancy)
and the World Wide Web project (Abbott and Cribb, 2001) aimed to establish the
extent of internet use among special schools and PRUs in England and Wales. One of
the objectives of the project was to find out about the factors which might have
hindered or encouraged the use of the web in these institutions, especially with regard
to the creation of homepages or sites for the school or unit.
In order to understand the impediments to, and advantages of, web use from the
perspective of teachers, questionnaires were sent to all such institutions in England
and Wales. Of the 2,056 questionnaires sent, 55 per cent were returned. The first aim of
the survey was to establish the rate of internet access among these institutions before
the arrival of the standard fund equipment. It was suggested that well over 90 per cent
of secondary schools and possibly 50 per cent of primary schools had at least one
Internet-connected computer by late 1997. In special schools and PRUs, the survey
returns showed that only 25 per cent of institutions had an internet connection at the
time. A total of 2.4 per cent only had access through a staff members individual
accounts. Only 3 per cent of the institutions returning the survey had created an
institution web site. Where schools did not have internet access, their reasons varied

but were usually related to cost (45 per cent), lack of equipment (60 per cent). Very few
(6 per cent) saw no advantage at all in internet access and 5 per cent reported that staff
attitude was obstructive to development in this area. The survey indicated related
neglect in the area of development of ICT in special education in the past that appears
to be continuing, at least in some parts of the country, despite significant new funding
from government and local authorities. Besides the survey, four institutions were
selected as case studies for interview. Interviews indicated the possibility of using ICT
to bolster identity, reduce isolation, and bring the special skills to these schools and
units to the mainstream community, an activity which would be of mutual benefit. The
case studies also illustrated many obstacles, technical as well as ideological, which
may prevent positive developments. Funding turned out to be a major problem for
even the most innovative of schools (Abbott and Cribb, 2001).
A more recent survey by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2003)
showed an average of 31.3 computers per school in special education in 2003 compared
to 28.6 and 192.7 computers in primary and secondary schools respectively. The
survey also revealed that 99 per cent of special schools were connected to the Internet;
the figure is the same for both primary and secondary schools. The average number of
pupils per computer was 3.0 in special schools compared to 5.4 in secondary schools. Of
the special schools, 50 per cent also appeared to have their own web sites compared to
82 per cent of secondary schools (DfES, 2003).
Other research has shown poor internet access for people with disabilities. Another
study by the DfES (2001) found access to and use of the internet lower for disabled
people than for the general population. Of disabled people, 19 per cent as against 30 per
cent of the general population, had internet access. A later survey, on behalf of the
DfES, (Russell and Stafford, 2002) found the figures to be 36 per cent and 55 per cent
respectively, an increase, but with differential access maintained. This is cause for
concern, as studies have shown that the internet can be beneficial for disabled people.
For example, a UK survey carried out by the Leonard Cheshire charity (Knight et al.,
2002) found that 54 per cent of disabled respondents considered internet access
essential, as opposed to only 6 per cent of the general population. In their review of
literature on internet access for people with disabilities, Pilling et al. (2004, p. 7)
conclude that the evidence available is broadly very positive on disabled peoples
attitude to the Internet.
Virtual environments
A virtual learning environment (VLE) is a set of teaching and learning tools designed
to enhance a students learning experience by including computers and the internet in
the learning process. VLEs offer the potential for users to explore social situations and
try out different behaviour responses for a variety of simulated social interactions
(Kerr et al., 2002).
It has been suggested that VLEs are particularly useful for people with autism and
may provide the ideal method for social skills training. One of the challenges for the VE
developers is how to allow freedom of exploration and flexibility in interactive
behaviour, without the risk of users deliberately or inadvertently missing important
learning goals. Scaffolding embedded within the VLE software can aid the users
learning in different contexts, such as individual, tutored or group learning situations.
(Scaffold learning refers to structuring activities by organised materials, clear

Special education
needs

333

AP
58,4

334

instructions and a hierarchical system of prompts.) Kerr et al. (2002) described two
single-user VLE scenarios that were developed within an Aspergers Syndrome
interactive project, and presents observation results from initial trials conducted at a
user school. The VLEs were developed to promote social skills learning in adolescents
with Aspergers Syndrome: the first taking place in a virtual cafe and the second on a
virtual bus. In both scenarios the users task was to find a seat and sit down.
Cromby et al. (1996), as cited in Standen and Brown (2004, p. 97) named three
characteristics for VLEs regarding their application for people with learning
difficulties. First, VLEs create the opportunity to learn by making mistakes but
without suffering the real, humiliating or dangerous consequences. Second, the virtual
world can be manipulated in ways the real world can not be. And finally, in VLEs,
rules and abstracts can be conveyed without the use of language or other symbol
systems.
Rose and colleagues at the University of East London (e.g. Rose et al., 1999, 2002;
Mendozzi et al., 2000) have undertaken much work on the use of virtual environments
for people with cognitive disabilities and brain injuries. A particularly relevant paper is
that by Rose et al. (2002) on the efficacy of training people with learning disabilities in a
virtual environment. Two studies were undertaken. In the first, 30 students with
learning disabilities were placed in an active or a passive experimental group. Active
participants explored a virtual bungalow searching for a toy car. Passive participants
watched the active participant and searched for the toy car. All participants then
performed spatial and object recognition tests of their knowledge of the virtual
environment (Rose et al., 2002, p. 627). In the second study, 45 participants first
engaged in a steadiness tester task (guiding a hoop through a twisted piece of wire).
Their performances were noted before they were randomly allocated to three groups
a real training group, a virtual training group and a no training group designed to
enhance their steadiness skills. After training, the participants undertook a second test
trial on the steadiness tester.
Results showed that the learners were capable of using a virtual environment and
were motivated to use this training method. In the first study, exploration of the virtual
environment was found to enhance memory of the layout of the bungalow but not of
the virtual objects. In the second study, virtual training was found to transfer to real
task performance, suggesting the use of virtual environments can aid learning for this
user group.
A similar team (Brooks et al., 2002) examined the use of a virtual kitchen for
vocational training by 24 catering students with learning disabilities. Students were
first pre-tested on four food preparation tasks and identification of hazards in their own
training kitchens. They were subsequently trained on one food preparation task and
three hazards in:
(1) their own training kitchens;
(2) the virtual kitchen;
(3) specially designed workbooks.
They were then retested in their own training kitchens on all the tasks hazards.
Virtual training was as beneficial as real training and more beneficial than
workbook and no training in the food preparation tasks. However, there were no
differences in the hazard identification task. The researchers concluded that virtual

training had a more beneficial effect on real task performance, depending on the task,
than workbook training, even when the virtual kitchen was not modelled on the real
training kitchen.
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems include ICT applications
such as speech synthesisers, and hardcopy resources such as books and charts of
symbols, pictures, words. Many children who have little or no functional speech face
many barriers to communication and to developing peer relationships, so it is
important that they are helped by AAC systems. There is little understanding of the
characteristics of interaction between children using AAC and their speaking peers.
Clarke and Kirton (2003) report findings from an analysis of interactions between 12
children with physical disabilities using AAC systems and their speaking peers in
school. Results showed that the functions most commonly used by children using AAC
systems were confirmation/denial (38.2 per cent) and self/shared expression (30.9 per
cent). Children using AAC systems made fewer initiations (speaking first) and more
responses than their speaking peers but there was no significant difference between the
frequency of turns taken by children using AAC systems and their peers.
Adaptive devices
Nisbet and Poon (1998) point out many SEN learners have difficulty using the standard
keyboard and mouse. Hardy (2000) is amongst many commentators to discuss aids for
those with disabilities to aid Internet access. These include:
.
Mouse over control. Some people find it difficult to move the mouse pointer over a
link and then click the mouse button. A short javascript code enables automatic
activation when the mouse is moved over the link (command: on mouseover).
.
Autoscroll. People who do not have good control over the mouse may find it
difficult to scroll down a page. Java script can make a page scroll automatically
(see www.wsabstract.com/).
.
Link listing. Java script can list all links on a web page and assign a keyboard
letter to each, and the keyboard can be used to activate them.
The UK based Skill: The National Bureau for Students with Disabilities (at www.
skill.org.uk/), has a fact sheet explaining the different types of assistive technologies,
with advantages and suggestions for potential users (Skill, 2002). It includes:
(1) Access utilities software: which can alter the responsiveness of the keyboard,
slowing the rate at which a character will repeat when a key is pressed, so that
only definite depressions are recognised.
(2) Keyguards: which are rigid overlays of metal or plastic fitted over the keyboard
with holes to allow access to individual keys. This makes it harder to hit the
wrong key and therefore enables more accurate typing.
(3) Mouse alternatives: which include:
.
pointing devices used to provide access to computers for people who
cannot use any kind of keyboard;

Special education
needs

335

AP
58,4

336

touch screens fitted to the computer and allow software to be operated by

touching the screen. Touch screens cost between 230 and 350. Many
systems will need specialist software to allow the user the best access to the
computer; and
trackerballs or joysticks produce the same results as the mouse. A joystick
is a stick which can be moved to control the screen pointer. Trackerballs are
balls which are moved to control the screen pointer.

ICT for specific conditions

Visually impaired people
Visually impaired people (VIPs) have been the focus of many studies of ICT use. In
reports for the Library and Information Commission, Carey (2000) and Rovenscraft
(2000) discussed the results of a project for enhancing access to library-based ICT
services for VIPs. The reports discussed technological possibilities of allowing VIPs to
customise settings on terminals of a future library computer network in such a way
that their special needs are met. The authors reviewed the accessibility capabilities of
operating systems including Linux and Windows. According to findings, MS
Windows has relatively mature support for accessibility. However, Linux is becoming
popular for VIPs. Other software and hardware, including input and output devices,
are also reviewed.
Tzovaras et al. (2002) discussed the development and test of a virtual reality
training system that combines haptic[1] and sound information in an innovative way in
order to help visually impaired people, especially those blind from birth, study and
interact with various visual objects. The system was tested by 26 blind people and the
result showed the system was promising. In another study, Takagi et al. (2002)
reported the development of an accessibility transcoding system to make web pages
accessible for blind people. This system had the ability to transcode complete pages on
annotated sites into accessible pages without changing the original pages.
Asakawa et al. (2002) described auditory and tactile interfaces to represent visual
effects non-visually for blind users, allowing intuitive recognition of visual content that
appears on the web. Their research examined how visual effects could be recognised
by blind subjects using the senses of hearing and touch, aiming at integrating the
results into a practical system in the future. The researchers designed auditory and
tactile interfaces for web exploring by blind people. The results of the research showed
that the auditory interface was more useful for intuitive recognition, while the tactile
interface was useful for information requiring concentration.
People with language or writing difficulties
Larcher (2000) argued that success with ICT lies in the context of its use rather than in
the software itself. He maintained that collaborative play with computer games can
provide an opportunity for children to apply interactive communication and language
skills (such as vocabulary) that they have been taught elsewhere. The computer can
also help make more traditional learning activity fun; for example, the development of
class and individual pupil books offers enormous scope and infinite opportunities for
shared communicative context around the computer. Larcher identified some of the
ways in which computers can be used to assist children who have language difficulties.
Software exemplars were given for a number of categories of use and some open

content software identified which can be tailored to childrens specific interests and
vocabulary. Software in some of these categories teaches skills directly, while software
in other categories supports weaknesses (e.g. reading texts), some software could be
used in both ways (e.g. word prediction).
Paul Nisbet (Nisbet and Poon, 1998; Nisbet et al., 1999) has been involved in a
number of initiatives introducing computer programs and portable writing aids to
support people who have writing difficulties. These have included word processors,
portable computers, talking word processors, spell checkers, word banks, word
predictors and speech recognition programmes. Supportive writing technology
provides pupils with a means of compensating for some of the limitations and
difficulties they have during the writing process. The technology may help various
people, such as: writers with physical disabilities; pupils with poor motor control;
writers with specific learning/literary difficulties people with organisational difficulties
(i.e. difficulty in managing time and remembering things; pupils with speech and
language disorder; and writers with visual impairment.
Dyslexics
One of the main groups of people with special educational needs who potentially could
obtain many benefits from ICT is dyslexics. Keates (2000) explained the need of
dyslexic pupils to access ICT for learning and to introduce the appropriate ICT,
including hardware and software (such as different word processors), for this kind of
pupil. Different computer hardware and general software were introduced (such as
word processors, etc.), their function and specifications suitable for dyslexic students.
He says that, for example, software that has hidden menus should be avoided because
the dyslexic individual gets lost and confused. Dyslexic pupils face some difficulties in
the school including problems in the processing of sound and note-taking. ICT gives
access to the curriculum of the subject being taught for dyslexic pupils. Dyslexic pupils
often respond positively and quickly to using computer systems, fast realising the
support, facilitation and access to a learning environment that ICT affords them. One
chapter of the book was allocated to the use of ICT for identifying and screening
children who might be dyslexic. This relates to a fully computerised psychometric
assessment system known as COPS.
Dickinson et al. (2002) tried to develop a highly configurable word processing
environment by using what they called a pragmatic, obstacle-by-obstacle approach to
alleviating some of the visual problems encountered by dyslexic computer users. They
counted eleven visual difficulties associated with dyslexia such as short memory,
pattern glare, motor control, spell checking, visual memory, word recognition, poor
comprehension, and letter reversals. Their paper described the current version of the
software and the development methodology, as well as the results of a pilot study
which indicated that visual environment individually configured using the SeeWord
software improved reading accuracy as well as subjectively rated reading comfort.
They altered several features of the visual environment of the software including
spacing, font, synthesised speech, and character typeface among others.
Usability studies
The extent to which potential users of ICT systems are able to engage with them is an
issue both with disabled and non-disabled people. There has been a surprising lack of

Special education
needs

337

AP
58,4

338

research into usability, with regard to people with disabilities, and even less
concerning those with learning disabilities. Most of the usability studies so far have
dealt with web-based resources and service; and even in the case of the web, as
Harrysson (2003, p. 2) pointed out, as far as disabled people are concerned, accessibility
guidelines almost entirely . . . support people with low vision, while [those] for people
with cognitive limitations are almost non-existent.
In a rare example, albeit small-scale, of a usability study specifically designed to
examine computer use by people with cognitive (rather than physical) disabilities,
Harrysson et al. (2004) observed a small sample of users (seven) as they navigated
between different web pages using a standard web browser. Subjects, who ranged in
age from 15 to 44 years, were set a series of web navigation tasks, on a selection of
chosen web sites. Results suggested that the group were adept at navigation. They
used the forward/back buttons without difficulty, and recognised (and used)
hyperlinks. However, where text-input was required, the users had difficulty in
writing a URL, or a search term, for example. The researchers concluded that the
processing of text can impede accessibility to the internet for people with cognitive
disabilities (Harrysson et al., 2004, p. 141), and suggest that screen-readers, and
text-scanning technology would support this user group.
Brown et al. (2002) also examined the usability of a system for people with learning
difficulties, although not with the potential users themselves, but with a panel of
experts. The authors developed an interactive multimedia learning environment
(IMLE), designed to be used by socially excluded people. In addition to those with
SEN, the authors regarded a number of other groups as being at risk of exclusion
(Brown et al., 2002, pp. 587-588), including if:
.
they are young and their parents are poor or unemployed;
.
they are members of certain minority ethnic groups; and
.
they are in particular circumstances that create barriers to participation (such as
having) a physical disability, (being) carers . . . (etc.).
To examine the usability of the IMLE, an expert panel consisting of representatives of
a UK university, UK college, Mencap and other organisations was assembled. Five
tasks were set, the undertaking of which was accompanied by participants recording
problems encountered, and then feeding these back to testing groups. Commonly
occurring problems were isolated, and from these, guidelines were distilled. The
guidelines were accorded priority levels, based on the experts assessments of their
impacts on accessibility. They were also divided into six categories: accessibility,
navigation, pedagogic structure, aesthetics, games, and screen properties. Priority one
guidelines included:
.
Accessibility provide a speech alternative to all buttons and key text within the
IMLE.
.
Navigation each IMLE module should provide a menu that allows the user to
jump to any module in any order; and should have an exit button to exit the
application.
.
Pedagogic structure provide regular rewards, reinforcement, and tests (the
latter to ensure the user has learned the appropriate lessons).
.
Aesthetics there should be a maximum of three sentences per page.

Games no Priority one guidelines. Priority two includes the recommendation

that games should be fun and exciting to play for all users (Brown et al., 2002,
p. 596).
Screen properties view the IMLE on a screen with a minimum requirement of
800 600 resolution.

Special education
needs

Another rare example of a formal usability study with disabled users was that by the
The Disability Rights Commission (DRC), which commissioned the Centre for Human
Computer Interaction Design at City University, London, to survey a large and
representative sample of web sites used by the British public (DRC, 2004). The aim was
to investigate web site accessibility for disabled people. The investigation was
confined to publicly accessible sites, to which Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 (DDA) applies. Using a commercially available software tool, the home pages
of 1,000 sites were tested for technical compliance with W3C guidelines (W3C, 2004).
To establish how far compliance with the guidelines, as revealed by automated testing,
matches the practical accessibility and usability of the sites tested, 10 per cent of these
sites was selected for detailed evaluation by a group of 50 users with a variety of
impairments which influenced their methods of web access, as well as for evaluation
by accessibility experts.
The impairment groups represented in the user testing were blind and partially
sighted people, profoundly and slightly deaf people, people with specific learning
difficulties such as dyslexia, and finally physically impaired people.
Data were collected from five sources:
(1) Meetings with stakeholder groups, to identify the underlying barriers to web
accessibility.
(2) Focus groups for each of the impairment groups, to identify the concerns of
particular groups of disabled people.
(3) Automated testing of 1,000 home pages, to establish the current state of web
site accessibility in Great Britain.
(4) In-depth user and expert testing of 100 web sites, to establish the actual
problems real disabled users have in using web sites.
(5) A controlled study of the use of a sample of six web sites (three with high and
three with low accessibility ratings) by blind and non-disabled people. (DRC,
2004, p. 22)

339

A total of 100 web sites were selected from the original sample of 1,000 for in-depth
evaluation by disabled users and experts. Each user panel member was asked to
evaluate 10 sites and complete two tasks per site. With regard to task success, results
showed that blind and partially sighted users constituted the most disenfranchised
groups studied, with 47 per cent and 24 per cent of task failures respectively. The
dyslexic (17 per cent failed), physically impaired (15 per cent) and hearing impaired (15
per cent) performed similarly to each other. Panel members also rated how
difficult/easy they found the tasks to complete. Those with dexterity impairments
generally found the tasks relatively easy. Ratings given by deaf and dyslexic people
were significantly lower and the ratings by partially sighted and blind people

AP
58,4

340

significantly lower again - also suggesting this group had the most problems in
negotiating the web.
A total of 585 accessibility and usability problems were identified in the user
evaluations, either by the user panel members themselves or the experts working with
them. A number of key problems were experienced by each group. People with
learning difficulties, dyslexic users in this case, faced these problems (instances in
brackets):
.
unclear and confusing layout of pages (41);
.
confusing and disorienting navigation mechanisms (32);
.
inappropriate use of colours and poor contrast between content and background
(20);
.
graphics and text too small (14); and
.
complicated language or terminology (7) (DRC, 2004, pp. 29-30).
It was decided as part of the same study to examine the extent to which automatic
checklists such as the W3Cs can detect accessibility and usability problems which
cause disabled people difficulties. Results suggested that automatic checks alone do
not predict users actual performance and experience, and the great majority of
problems users elicited when performing their tasks could not be detected
automatically. The report concluded that automated tests alone are insufficient to
ensure that web sites are accessible and usable for disabled people and that it is
[therefore] essential that designers also perform the manual checks suggested by the
tools (DRC, 2004, p. 31).
Finally, the report suggested that many of the problems encountered by users are
of a nature that designers alone cannot be expected to recognise and remedy. These
problems can only be resolved by including disabled users directly in the design and
evaluation of websites (DRC, 2004, p. 32).
Rowan et al. (2000) also looked at usability, and although not themselves reporting
on a usability study, nevertheless recommended a practical methodology for use in
assessing web sites. The authors maintained that the majority of web-based
information, facilities and services is unnecessarily inaccessible to people with certain
disabilities, largely due to a lack of awareness of accessibility issues on the part of
developers, and argue that currently available accessibility evaluation methods are
unsatisfactory in the scope and presentation of their results. Consequently, there is a
need for a method which utilises the strengths of current methods, but which also
bridges their weaknesses. Rowan and colleagues outline a comprehensive, yet usable,
methodology for evaluating web sites for accessibility. Their methodology comprises
several steps:
(1) Initial impression obtaining an initial impression of the subject site by a
group of evaluators (end-users rather than experts) browsing the site together,
becoming familiarised with it and discussing any good and bad aspects which
they discover.
(2) Testing with automatic validation tools such as Bobby or W3C HTML
validation tool.

(3) Manual evaluation with accessibility guidelines samples of pages from the
subject site are evaluated for accessibility, by comparing them to a checklist
based on W3Cs web content accessibility guideline checklist (WCAG).
(4) General inspection, subject site is viewed under various conditions, such as with
different browsers and ICT facilities etc. and any accessibility problems noted
(such as style sheet or template not loading).
(5) Detailed exploration a detailed exploration is carried out of the subject site,
where an attempt is made to visit every page of the site.
(6) Viewing with browsers and assistive technologies in order that any
platform-specific accessibility problems can be spotted, it is vital that subject
sites are viewed under as many different browsing platforms as possible.
(7) Usability evaluation it is necessary because sites with a high level of
accessibility can have usability problems that may prevent people with
disabilities from finding the information that they need quickly.
(8) Making final evaluation and recommendation based on the results of former
stages (Rowan et al., 2000, p. 82-83).
Finally, another usability study was that incorporated in a project called NoVA or
non-visual access to the digital library (Craven and Brophy, 2003). As its name
suggests, the project looked at access to electronic resources for visually impaired
users. Four different electronic resources, including a search engine, a library online
catalogue, an online directory of internet resources and a commercial online shopping
site were selected for usability testing. The sample size comprised 40 users, split
equally between sighted (the control group) and visually impaired users. The following
four information seeking tasks were devised and piloted using each of the selected
resources. Tasks were consistently set so that comparative analysis could take place
between the sighted and visually impaired users. The tasks were:
.
Search engine look for a current weather forecast for the UK and then the most
recent weather forecast for Manchester.
.
Directory look for any resources relating to the Solomon Islands.
.
OPAC find details of the British Journal of Visual Impairment and then find
out who published it and what its former title was.
.
Online shopping site look for a selection of mens suits and then find any priced
between 100 and 200.
Pre- and post-task interviews consisted of a set of semi-structured questions including:
user profile questions; general questions such as how to tell a page is loading, initial
comments about the interfaces and the type of information provided; and usability
questions based on Ravden and Johnsons method of evaluating usability of human
computer interfaces (Ravden and Johnson, 1989, pp. 27-44, as cited in Craven and
Brophy, 2003). The usability questions were:
.
How easy did you find navigation of the interface to be?
.
Could you easily locate where to enter search terms?
.
Could you easily locate where the hypertext links are?

Special education
needs

341

AP
58,4

.
.
.
.

342

Were the results pages easy to read?

Was it clear where you were in the task?
How satisfied are you with the task performed?
Were any error messages or pop-up windows explained?

The results of the study confirmed the findings of a former parallel study conducted by
Coyne and Nielsen (2001, p. 5, Cited in Craven and Brophy (2003)) which estimated that
the Web is about three times easier to use for sighted users than it is for users who are
blind or who have low vision. NoVA findings also revealed that people using screen
magnification appear to have a higher success rate at searching and finding
information on the web than those using a screen reader, although the difference was
not statistically significant (Craven and Brophy, 2003).
Conclusion
Though it has been a few years since the British government recognised the
importance and benefits of the use of ICT for people with special educational needs,
research into different aspects of using ICT for people with SEN is not considerable.
While some groups of disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments,
have been the focus of many studies such as those examining usability or
accessibility, even in the case of web technologies it is difficult to find web sites or
services that are usable for people with SEN. This is despite the evidence that this
group are able to use computers and gain much benefit from doing so.
Project @pple is an attempt to redress this imbalance, both by providing a
personalised learning environment, in which the pupil or students needs and
preferences are facilitated, and by including the people with cognitive disabilities in the
development and testing of the system. By the end of the project, it is hoped to provide
authoritative guidelines for web and e-learning developers seeking to engage and
include this community more effectively.
Note
1. Haptic technology refers to technology which interfaces with the user via the sense of touch.
References
Abbott, C. and Cribb, A. (2001), Special schools, inclusion and the world wide web: the emerging
research agenda, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 331-42.
Asakawa, C., Takagi, H., Ino, S. and Ifukube, T. (2002) pp. 65-72, Auditory and tactile interfaces
for representing the visual effects on the web, in Assets 2002: Proceedings of the Fifth
International ACM SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, 8-10 July,2002,
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press,
New York, NY.
Banes, D. and Walter, R. (2002), Internet for All, 2nd ed., David Fulton, London.
Brooks, B.M., Rose, F.D., Attree, E.A. and Elliot-Square, A. (2002), An evaluation of the efficacy
of training people with learning disabilities in a virtual environment, Disability and
Rehabilitation, Vol. 24 Nos 11-12, pp. 622-6.

Brown, D.J., Powell, H.M., Battersby, S., Lewis, J., Shopland, N. and Yazdanparast, M. (2002),
Design guidelines for interactive multimedia learning environments to promote social
inclusion, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 24 Nos 11-12, pp. 587-97.
Carey, K. (2000), Enhancing Access to Library Based ICT Services for Visually Impaired People 1
HumanITy, Report No. 62, Library and Information Commission, London.
Clarke, M. and Kirton, A. (2003), Patterns of interaction between children with physical
disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers,
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 135-51.
Coyne, K. and Nielsen, J. (2001), Beyond ALT Text: Making the Web Easy to Use for Users with
Disabilities, Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont, CA.
Craven, J. and Brophy, P. (2003), Non-visual Access to the Digital Library (NoVA): the Use of the
Digital Library Interfaces by Blind and Visually Impaired People, The Centre for Research in
Library and Information Management, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester,
available at: www.cerlim.ac.uk/projects/nova/nova_final_report.pdf (accessed
28 September 2004).
Cromby, J.J., Standen, P.J. and Brown, D.J. (1996), The potentials of virtual environments in the
education and training of people with learning disabilities, Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 489-501.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2001), ICT Access and Use: Report on the
Benchmark Survey (Research Surveys of Great Britain Series), DfES, London, available at:
www.dfes.gov.uk/ research/data/uploadfiles/RR252.doc (accessed 28 Septebmer 2004).
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2003), Statistics of Education: Survey of Information
and Communications Technology in Schools, The Stationary Office, Darlington, available
at:
www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SBU/b000421/bweb05-2003.pdf
(accessed
28 September 2004).
Dickinson, A., Gregor, P. and Newell, A.F. (2002) pp. 97-103, Ongoing investigation of the ways
in which some of the problems encountered by some dyslexics can be alleviated using
computer techniques, in Assets 2002: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM
SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, 8-10 July, 2002, Crowne Plaza Hotel,
Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press, New York, NY.
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) (2004), Disability Rights Commission (DRC) The Web:
Access and Inclusion for Disabled People: A Formal Investigation conducted by the Disability
Rights Commission, The Stationary Office, London, available at: www.drc.org.uk/
publicationsandreports/report.asp (accessed 28 Septebmer 2004).
Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. and Gallanaugh, F. (2004), Inclusion and Pupil
Achievement, Department for Education and Skills, London.
Florian, L. (2004), Uses of technology that support pupils with special educational needs,
in Florian, L. and Hegarty, J. (Eds), ICT and Special Educational Needs: a Tool for
Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 7-20.
Hardy, C. (2000), Information and Communications Technology for All, David Fulton, London.
Harrysson, B. (2003), Web design for cognitive accessibility licentiate, thesis, Department of
Design Sciences, Lund University, Sweden, available at: www.eat.lth.se/Staff/Bjorn/
Aktuell%20lic.centrerad.pdf (accessed 28 September 2004).
Harrysson, B., Svensk, A. and Johansson, G.I. (2004), How people with developmental
difficulties navigate the internet, British Journal of Special Education, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 137-42.

Special education
needs

343

AP
58,4

344

Hegarty, J. (2004), Managing innovations in ICT, in Florian, L. and Hegarty, J. (Eds), ICT and
Special Educational Needs: a Tool for Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham,
pp. 128-46.
Johnson, R. and Hegarty, J.R. (2003), Websites as educational motivators for adults with
learning disability, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 479-86.
Keates, A. (2000), Dyslexia and Information and Communications Technology, David Fulton
Publishers, London.
Kerr, S.J., Neale, H.R. and Cobb, S.V. (2002), Virtual environments for social skills training: the
importance of scaffolding in practice, in Assets 2002: Proceedings of the Fifth
International ACM SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, 8-10 July, 2002,
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press, New
York, NY, pp. 104-10.
Knight, J., Heaven, C. and Christie, I. (2002), Inclusive Citizenship, Leonard Cheshire, London.
Larcher, J. (2000), Information technology for children with language difficulties, in Rinaldi, W.
(Ed.), Language Difficulties in an Educational Context, Whurr Publishers Ltd, London,
pp. 131-47.
Mendozzi, L., Pugnetti, L., Barbieri, E., Attree, E., Rose, F.D., Moro, W., Loconte, A., Corrales, B.,
Mai, L., Elliot-Square, A., Massara, F. and Cutelli, E. (2000), VIRTfactory trainer project.
A generic productive process to train persons with disabilities, Proceedings of the
European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies,
23-25 September, Sardinia, 2000, pp. 115-22.
Midgley, G. (1993), Three models of IT training for people with disabilities, in Floyd, M. (Ed.),
Information Technology Training for People with Disabilities, Jessica Kingsley, London,
pp. 36-47.
Nisbet, P.D. and Poon, P. (1998), Special Access Technology, CALL Centre, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Nisbet, P.D., Spooner, R.W.S., Arthur, E. and Whittaker, P. (1999), Supportive Writing
Technology, CALL Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2004), Special Educational Needs and Disability:
Towards Inclusive Schools, Ofsted Departmental Report (HMI 2276) HMSO, London,
available at: www.inclusive-solutions.com/ pdfs/HMI%202004%20Towards%20
inclusive%20schools.pdf (accessed 28 September 2004).
Pilling, D., Barrett, P. and Floyd, M. (2004), Disabled People and the Internet, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, York.
Ravden, S. and Johnson, G. (1989), Evaluating Usability of Human-Computer Interfaces:
A Practical Method, Ellis Horwood Ltd, Chichester.
Rose, F.D., Brooks, B.M. and Attree, E.A. (2002), An exploratory investigation into the usability
and usefulness of training people with learning disabilities in a virtual environment,
Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 24 Nos 11-12, pp. 627-33.
Rose, F.D., Brooks, B.M., Attree, E.A., Parslow, D.M., Leadbetter, A.G., McNeil, J.E.,
Jayawardena, S., Greenwood, R. and Potter, J. (1999), Preliminary investigation into the
use of virtual environments in memory retraining of patients with vascular brain injury:
indications for future strategy?, Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 548-54.
Rovenscraft, J. (2000), Enhancing Access to Library Based ICT Services for Visually Impaired
People e3 HumanITy, Report No. 64, Library and Information Commission, London.
Rowan, M., Gregor, P., Sloan, D. and Booth, P. (2000) pp. 80-4, Evaluating web resources for
disability access, in Assets 2000: Proceedings of the Fourth International ACM SIGCAPH

Conference on Assistive Technologies, 13-15 November, Arlington, Virginia, United States,

sponsored by ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press, New York, NY.
Russell, N. and Stafford, N. (2002), Trends in ICT Access and Use: Research Report 358, DfES,
London, available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR358.doc (accessed
28 September 2004).
Singleton, C. (2004), Using computer-based assessment to identify learning problems,
in Florian, L. and Hegarty, J. (Eds), ICT and Special Educational Needs: a Tool for
Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 46-63.
Skill (2002), Specialist equipment: sources of help and information, available at: www.skill.org.
uk/info/infosheets/equip.doc (accessed 28 September 2004).
Standen, P. and Brown, D. (2004), Using virtual environment with pupils with learning
difficulties, in Florian, L. and Hegarty, J. (Eds), ICT and Special Educational Needs: A Tool
for Inclusion, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 96-108.
Stevens, C. (2004), Information and communication technology, special educational needs and
schools: a historical perspective of UK government initiatives, in Florian, L. and Hegarty,
J. (Eds), ICT and Special Educational Needs: a Tool for Inclusion, Open University Press,
Buckingham, pp. 21-34.
Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K. and Maeda, J. (2002), Site-wide annotation: reconstructing
existing pages to be accessible, in Assets 2002: Proceedings of the Fifth International
ACM SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive Technologies, 8-10 July, 2002, Crowne Plaza
Hotel, Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press, New York, NY,
pp. 81-8.
Thomas, M. (Ed.) (1992), I.T. and Students with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, National
Council for Educational Technology, Coventry.
Tzovaras, D., Nikolakis, G., Fergadis, G., Malasiotis, S. and Stavrakis, M. (2002), Design and
implementation of virtual environments training of the visually impaired, in Assets 2002:
Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM SIGCAPH Conference on Assistive
Technologies, 8-10 July, 2002, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Edinburgh, Scotland, sponsored by
ACM SIGCAPH, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 41-8.
W3C (2004), Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, available at: www.w3.org/TR/
WAI-WEBCONTENT (accessed 28 September 2004).
Corresponding author
Peter Williams can be contacted at: peter.williams@ucl.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Special education
needs

345

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.