# Systematic review of technologies to collaborate and co-educate students with special educational needs and supporting their schooling

Eric Meyer, Hélène Sauzéon, Isabeau Saint-Supery, Cécile Mazon

► To cite this version:

Eric Meyer, Hélène Sauzéon, Isabeau Saint-Supery, Cécile Mazon. Systematic review of technologies to collaborate and co-educate students with special educational needs and supporting their schooling. IHIET 2023 - 10th International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, Aug 2023, Nice, France. pp.1-12, 10.54941/ahfe1004060. hal-04222434

HAL Id: hal-04222434

https://inria.hal.science/hal-04222434v1

Submitted on 29 Sep 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Systematic Review of Technologies to Collaborate and Co-educate Students With Special Educational Needs and Supporting Their Schooling

Meyer Eric<fnref n="1" />, Sauzéon Hélène<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Saint-Supery Isabeau<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, and Mazon Cécile<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />

## ABSTRACT

Since 1994, the inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEND) has been a vital part of the educational system (UNESCO, 1994). In the early 2000s, educational systems underwent reforms to accommodate this change, leading to increased communication and collaboration efforts between families and educational partners (Wehmeyer and Patton, 2017). These efforts are supported by the growth of digital technologies (Kefallinou et al., 2020; Zallio and Ohashi, 2022). Various models of family-professional collaboration, such as the “Sunshine Model” (Haines et al., 2017), “Whole School Model” (Lewallen et al., 2015), “Smart Holistic Model” (Hafidh et al., 2019) and polycentric approaches (Ebersold and Detraux, 2013), have been developed to involve the broader educational community. Despite the integration of technologies and the recognized importance of collaboration, limited research has been conducted on the potential of collaborative technologies in the educational context for SEND. However, relevant stakeholders endorse their use. To address this gap, a systematic review of international literature was conducted to identify collaborative technologies for the inclusion of SEND, along with their advantages and limitations. Out of 1360 identified articles, 10 were selected for analysis. These 10 articles focused on 8 different digital technologies that facilitate collaboration between families, education, and healthcare actors. The technologies were developed using various methodologies and aimed at different communication and collaboration objectives. Some technologies focused on communication related to student behavior or school activities, while others emphasized collaboration related to the student's inclusion project. We will present each of these technologies, their development context, as well as their advantages and limitations. We will highlight their relevance to the different theoretical models applied to family-professional collaboration, and their contributions. Finally, we will highlight the contributions of collaborative technologies to promoting SEND inclusion and reducing educational inequalities. 3, 8.

**Keywords:** Technologies, Student with special education needs or disabilities (send), Collaboration, Coeducation, Stakeholder

<footnote n="1">¹Project-Team FLOWERS, Centre de recherche INRIA Université de Bordeaux, 200 avenue de la Vieille Tour, 33405 Talence Cedex, Gironde, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Team ACTIVE, INSERM BPH, 146 rue Léo Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux, Gironde, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France</footnote>
40

## INTRODUCTION

41

The field of special needs education has witnessed significant advancements in promoting the inclusion of students with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) since the Salamanca Framework for Action in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994). Countries such as the U.K. (Great Britain Department for Education and Skills, 2001a, 2001b), the USA (Boehner, 2002; Castle, 2004), and France (French Gouvernment, 2013, 2005) have implemented inclusive education through policy reforms and legal acts, influenced by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Wehmeyer and Patton, 2017).

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

The most common form of “inclusive education” is the placement of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (Nilholm and Göransson, 2017) with an “Individualized Educational Plan”, which formalizes, through a multidisciplinary team composed of teachers, administrators, parents and service providers, the needs of the student and the appropriate teaching strategies and required classroom accommodations including assistive technologies (Fernández-Batanero et al., 2022; Francisco et al., 2020). Inclusion success relies on various factors, including a clear vision, shared commitment, teacher responsibility, collaborative team approaches, parent engagement, and principal leadership (Lyons et al., 2016). This disability-related social transformation of school is currently undergoing an unparalleled digital transformation with the growing development of digital educational systems, some of which integrate specific educational needs (Cinquin et al., 2019), or of educational technologies, some of which are for student with special education needs (McNicholl et al., 2021; Pontikas et al., 2022). Several studies have studied the positive impact of technology to foster the inter-professional collaboration in the management of disability-related care (Barr et al., 2017). At the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic review on digital technologies that includes and promote communication and collaboration between stakeholders of educational community surrounding the children with disability. Our aim is to provide an overview of technologies that focus on collaborative process into the child’s educational community including family, school, and care parties.

73

## BACKGROUND

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Collaboration and communication between school professionals, parents, and service providers have long been recognized as crucial for a child’s educational development. Effective communication between teachers and parents enhances educators’ awareness of a child’s specific needs and facilitates pedagogical adaptations (Walker et al., 2012). Parental involvement in schooling positively impacts children with SEND or disabilities, emphasizing the importance of family-school collaboration (Martinez et al., 2012; Parsons et al., 2009). However, several barriers to inclusion, particularly for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), exist, including inconsistencies between services, expectations, and support perceptions (Roberts and Simpson, 2016). To address these challenges, schools need to provide guidelines, resources, and foster proactive involvement between parents
and teachers. Digital technology has the potential to facilitate collaboration between parents and teachers, promoting better communication and collaboration (Olmstead, 2013). Models of parent-professional collaboration extend beyond family-school collaboration to include family-school-community collaboration (Larivée et al., 2017). In North America, “Sunshine Model” and “Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child” Model (ASCD and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014; Lewallen et al., 2015) emphasize partnerships involving all stakeholders impacting schooling and multidimensional collaboration among education and health actors. In Western Europe, researchers propose multi-professional (Emery, 2017) or polycentric approaches based on the child’s life project (Ebersold and Detraux, 2013). These models advocate for a student-centered approach and aim to connect home, school, and community.

Despite the importance of technology in schools and collaboration, surveys indicate that caregivers desire technology to facilitate planning and communication with teachers, highlighting the need for technology-based solutions in supporting inclusive education (O'Neill et al., 2020).

## RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Using a systematic literature search procedure, our goal is to explore the theoretical and applied aspects of collaborative technologies for the educational inclusion of children with educational needs particularly neurodevelopmental disorders such as ASD.

The overview of the field will be presented in terms of evidence-based information through three research questions to document the domain activity, the background scaffolding, and the research outcomes:

RQ1. *Domain characterization:* Is there existing literature that deals with digital technologies for supporting stakeholders’ collaboration to foster the school inclusion of children with special education need and disabilities? Who are the targeted children? Which journals and conferences have published them? How has the field evolved? What are the studies purposes?

RQ2. *Design of technologies:* How are these technologies designed? What are the technologies purposes? What functionalities do they offer to support collaboration? What are the obstacles to their development?

RQ3. *Main outcomes:* What research methods were used? What are the findings in terms of evaluation?

## METHODOLOGY

### Search Strategy

The databases searches were conducted in November 2022 using Scopus, Web of Sciences, EBSCOhost (all databases included PsycInfo, PsyArticles, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, SocINDEX, CINAHL), Pubmed and IEEE Xplore. According to the research question, we use the following key phrase: *Collaboration AND Stakeholder AND Inclusion AND (Autism OR special need) AND Pupil AND Technology NOT College.*
Table 1 details the keywords used associated with the different search terms of the key phrase.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Details of keywords used in key phrase.</caption><thead><tr><td>Categories</td><td>Research Keywords</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Collaboration</td><td>collab*; coop*; "working together"; communication; relationship; partnership; partner; alliance; connection; networking; "inter-relationship"; "inter-disciplinarity team"; "interagency collab*"; "information sharing"; coordinat*</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholder</td><td>stakeholder; caregiver; "profession* caregiver"; "health profession*"; "health care provider"; provider; "inpatient team"; parent; team; "school team*"; "school staff"; teacher; community; educator</td></tr><tr><td>Inclusion</td><td>inclusion; integration; "inclusive partner"; "transition support"; "iep"; "educator project"; "curriculum"; "individual* education plan"</td></tr><tr><td>Autism OR special need</td><td>asd; autism*; ndd; "learning disability"; "neurodevelopmental disability"; "cognitive disability"; "impairment"; "specific need"; "special need"</td></tr><tr><td>Pupil</td><td>pupil*; child*; adolesc*; schooler*; student*</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>tech*; "messaging system"; "health information tech*"; "ict"; "information and communication tech*"; "information tech*"; "communication tech*"; "computer"; "web"; "social media"; "mobile device"; "mobile app"; website; internet</td></tr><tr><td>College</td><td>College; university</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Eligibility Criteria

In this systematic review, we included all studies about the use of a digital technologies that supporting the collaboration between at least two types of stakeholders to promote the school inclusion of children with SEND. No restrictions were placed on the date of publication, but the included studies had to be in English. In addition, the studies were not to be about academic inclusion of college students and had to involve two different stakeholders. Finally, studies that were not journal or conference papers were excluded.

## Screening et Study Selection

The screening process, performed with the Rayyan tool (Ouzzani et al., 2016), started with removing irrelevant papers. Articles were first excluded based on titles and abstracts (n = 1360) resulted in 131 articles to go through to the next stage of full-article review. This title-abstract screening process was carefully evaluated by both authors. The full-text review of the remaining papers results to 129 papers comprising 10 studies included for the systematic review.

## RESULT

### RQ1. Domain Characterization

The literature review identified a total of six articles and four conference papers discussing seven different digital technologies that support collaboration among stakeholders in inclusive education. These technologies
include seven projects: AMP (Linstead et al., 2016), CareNexus (Ranade-Kharkar et al., 2018, 2017), CC-project (do Carmo Alonso et al., 2020), IEP-Connect (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021), SINSAE project (Bermeo-Zambrano et al., 2020), Smart-School Care Coordination System (SCCS) (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019), ToGather (Mazon et al., 2021), and a strategy based on ICT (Mendoza-González et al., 2019). These technologies have been developed in seven countries: the United States, Mexico, Ecuador, Brazil, France, and the United Kingdom. The studies have been published in ten different journals or conferences across fields such as computer science, medicine, engineering, education, and mathematics (see graph 1).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Graph 1:** Scientific fields of research.</figcaption></figure>

Out of the seven technologies, five were specifically developed for inclusive education, while the other three focused on care coordination teams. However, two of the care coordination technologies also incorporated information integration and involvement of school partners.

The target population for these technologies is children ranging from 0 to 25 years old. Three projects targeted K-12 students, one focused on preschoolers (0-5 years old), and the remaining technologies did not specify a particular age group. These technologies have been developed to support children with different disorders, in particular pupils with ASD (see graph 2).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Graph 2:** Educational needs or disorders targeted by technologies.</figcaption></figure>

The stakeholders involved in these technologies include health professionals, teachers, and parents. Health professionals were involved in all studies, while parents were engaged in all except one. Teachers were directly involved
in five of the technologies. Two technologies aimed to integrate a wide range of formal and informal care providers, extending beyond traditional education settings.

## RQ2: Design of Technologies

The literature review identified different design approaches used by researchers in developing technologies for collaboration in inclusive education. Half of the technologies were developed using participatory design, while two followed a generic user-centered design approach. The authors do not specify the design of the last two technologies.

CareNexus (Ranade-Kharkar et al., 2018, 2017), IEP-Connect (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021) and ToGather (Mazon et al., 2021) employed participatory design with continuous involvement of end-users in each phase and iteration. The CC-project (do Carmo Alonso et al., 2020) utilized a participatory design based on activity ergonomics. These studies emphasized the importance of addressing specific needs, including shared information, accessibility, and organization of technology. The SCCS project initially analyzed literature and conducted interviews with care providers to develop an ontology as a foundation for their technology (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019). The SINSAE project (Bermeo-Zambrano et al., 2020) adopted a generic user-centered design approach, considering the needs of various end-users. The first technology developed in this field (AMP (Linstead et al., 2016)) was focused on technological choices and later adapted to meet user needs. The strategy based on ICT utilized a specific usage of a social network platform to organize discussion groups among stakeholders (Mendoza-González et al., 2019).

The technologies mainly use a single web application or one associated with mobile applications. Only one technology offers only a mobile application (IEP-Connect (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021)).

The coordination approaches varied among the technologies. Six technologies facilitated cooperation through information sharing, commenting, and providing feedback, but with unequal rights among stakeholders. ToGather allowed collaboration with equal editing rights, enabling stakeholders to modify information provided by others (Mazon et al., 2021). SCCS did not specify the degree of coordination (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019).

The proposed architectures differed across technologies. AMP (Linstead et al., 2016) utilized an event feed for data management, while IEP-Connect (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021) and ToGather (Mazon et al., 2021) organized information via main pages. SINSAE project (Bermeo-Zambrano et al., 2020) employed a three-layer architecture, and SCCS (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019) proposed a six-layer architecture. CareNexus (Ranade-Kharkar et al., 2018, 2017), grouped all functionalities on one page. the ICT-based strategy is built around the use of a social network (Mendoza-González et al., 2019). CC-Project (do Carmo Alonso et al., 2020) has not yet proposed an architecture.

In terms of functionalities (see graph 3), all technologies offered information sharing on youth-related activities and events. Except for ICT-based strategy (Mendoza-González et al., 2019), they included profiles of young persons and team members. Six technologies facilitated sharing of school
information, and five included medical information. The main functionalities included monitoring and tracking, planning, solution sharing among care providers, evaluation of symptoms or behaviors, and internal organization of the follow-up team. Three technologies integrated machine learning-based modules for information analysis and decision-making support.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Graph 3: Shared information or features offered by the different technologies.**</figcaption></figure>

## RQ3: Main Outcomes

In the reviewed articles, five needs analyses were conducted to identify requirements and guidelines, while eight studies employed evidence-based approaches. Different methods were used to identify needs in each project. For example, observation and document examination were used in the IEP-connect project (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021), while a needs analysis interview was conducted for CareNexus (Ranade-Kharkar et al., 2018, 2017). The CC-project (do Carmo Alonso et al., 2020) utilized non-directed interviews, and the SCCS project (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019), involved official document analysis and interviews. The ToGather project (Mazon et al., 2021) conducted a questionnaire and interviews with various participants.

Several requirements and guidelines emerged from the needs analyses, including facilitating communication among stakeholders, easy access to information, minimizing effort and time required to use the technology, assessment and planning capabilities, coordination of interventions, integration with other services, and ensuring data security. Differences in perception and needs among stakeholders were highlighted in the CC-project (do Carmo Alonso et al., 2020), while specific categories of desired information were emphasized in the ToGather project (Mazon et al., 2021). The SCCS (Hafidh et al., 2020, 2019) project developed an ontology-based framework highlighting the contributions of different stakeholders.
246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

Evidence-based approaches varied among the projects. Hafidh et al. (2020) used case scenarios to test the ontology in SCCS and demonstrated its effectiveness as a real-time solution. CareNexus (Ranade-Kharhar et al., 2018) tested different interfaces using case vignettes, and usability and usefulness were assessed. The IEP-connect application underwent a Think Aloud study and usability assessment with the SUS scale (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021). The ToGather project employed iterative prototyping, refining the needs and interface based on feedback from professionals and parents (Mazon et al., 2021).

Four articles evaluated the benefits of the digital technologies, with three including field studies. The SINSAE project (Bermeo-Zambrano et al., 2020) tested the collaborative tool with volunteers who responded to a survey, indicating its potential for inclusive schooling. The AMP project (Mazon et al., 2021) involved 10 teachers who provided feedback through a questionnaire, highlighting the ease of use and multimedia data collection. The IEP-Connect study demonstrated positive attitudes toward the app's usefulness through think-aloud sessions and surveys (Siyam and Abdallah, 2021). The ICT-based strategy study showed that a communication strategy based on a social network facilitated collaborative work among stakeholders in achieving an inclusive school ecosystem (Mendoza-González et al., 2019). None of these studies used a control group or assessed the impact of the technologies on students or stakeholders. Where collaboration was assessed, this was done using non-standardized measures via a survey.

269

## DISCUSSION

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

Our review identified a total of seven digital technologies and one ICT-based strategy that support collaboration among stakeholders in inclusive education. These technologies have been developed in various countries and have targeted children with different disorders, primarily ASD. The stakeholders involved in these technologies include care providers, teachers, and parents. Regarding the design of technologies, different design approaches were used in developing these technologies: participatory design then user-centered design were the predominant approaches employed by researchers. These approaches emphasize the involvement of end-users throughout the design process, ensuring that the technologies meet their specific needs. The various functionalities and architectures of the technologies have been developed to facilitate cooperation and information sharing between stakeholders. Only one of the technologies has been developed to enable collaboration. The research reviewed highlights the potential of these technologies for school inclusion, to support care projects, and to facilitate collaboration. The studies identify key requirements and guidelines, including facilitating communication among stakeholders, easy access to information, minimizing effort and time required to use the technology, assessment and planning capabilities, coordination of interventions, integration with other services, and ensuring data security.

The technologies, whether they are designed with participative or classic design, can be part of the different models of collaboration between
the school, the family, and the care providers. Most of the technologies are part of the multi-professional approach or the whole community model. One technology was centered on the IEP's objectives and corresponds to the multi-focused approach on the pupil's future.

The studies reviewed have limitations. Especially, only the ICT-based strategy study assessed the impact on collaboration, health, or well-being of students, but the measures were not standardized. Furthermore, none of the field studies included control groups.

## CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this systematic review highlights the potential of digital technologies to support collaboration among stakeholders in inclusive education settings. The findings provide valuable insights into the design considerations, requirements, and guidelines for developing effective technologies in this field. Future research should focus on rigorous evaluations of these technologies' impact and effectiveness in promoting inclusive education and improving outcomes for students with special educational needs.

## REFERENCES

ASCD, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. Whole school, whole community, whole child: A collaborative approach to learning and health. Alex. VA ASCD.

Barr, N., Vania, D., Randall, G., Mulvale, G., 2017. Impact of information and communication technology on interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management: a systematic review. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 22, 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617714292

Bermeo-Zambrano, F., González-Arias, K., Gálvez-Quezada, J., Robles-Bykbaev, V., Leon-Pesantez, A., 2020. A methodological model based on expert systems to support the educational inclusion of children with special educational needs, in: 2020 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE). Presented at the 2020 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUNINE48860.2020.9149469

Boehler, J. A., 2002. H. R.1 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.congress.gov/ (accessed 9.16.22).

Castle, M. N., 2004. H. R.1350 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.congress.gov/ (accessed 9.16.22).

Cinquin, P.-A., Guitton, P., Sauzéon, H., 2019. Online e-learning and cognitive disabilities: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 130, 152–167.

do Carmo Alonso, C. M., de Lima, A. N., Oggioni, B. de M. P., Teixeira, M. R., Oliveira, E. P., Couto, M. C. V., Duarte, F. J. C. M., 2020. Contributions of activity ergonomics to the design of an electronic health record to support collaborative mental care of children and youth: Preliminary results. Work Read. Mass 65, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-193048

Ebersold, S., Detraux, J.-J., 2013. Scolarisation et besoin éducatif particulier : enjeux conceptuels et méthodologiques d'une approche polycentrée. Alter 7, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2013.02.001

Emery, R., 2017. La collaboration multiprofessionnelle dans les contextes d'institution spécialisée. Nouv. Rev. Adapt. Scolarisation N° 78, 193–209.
339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

Fernández-Batanero, J. M., Montenegro-Rueda, M., Fernández-Cerero, J., García-Martínez, I., 2022. Assistive technology for the inclusion of students with disabilities: a systematic review. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10127-7

Francisco, M. P. B., Hartman, M., Wang, Y., 2020. Inclusion and Special Education. Educ. Sci. 10, 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090238

French Gouvernment, 2013. LOI n° 2013-595 du 8 juillet 2013 d'orientation et de programmation pour la refondation de l'école de la République, Code de l'éducation.

French Gouvernment, 2005. Loi n° 2005-102 du 11 février 2005 pour l'égalité des droits et des chances, la participation et la citoyenneté des personnes handicapées, Code de l'action sociale et des familles.

Great Britain Department for Education and Skills, 2001a. Inclusive schooling: children with special educational needs. Dept. for Education and Skills, London.

Great Britain Department for Education and Skills, 2001b. Special educational needs: code of practice. Dept. for Education and Skills, Annesley, Notts.

Hafidh, R., Sharif, M. S., Al-Bayatti, A. H., Alfakeeh, A. S., Alassafi, M. O., Alqarni, M. A., 2020. An Effective Knowledge-Based Modeling Approach towards a "Smart-School Care Coordination System" for Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Symmetry 12, 1495. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091495

Hafidh, R., Sharif, M. S., Alsallal, M., 2019. Smart Holistic Model for Children and Youth with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, in: 2019 International Conference on Computing, Electronics & Communications Engineering (ICCECE). Presented at the 2019 International Conference on Computing, Electronics & Communications Engineering (iCCECE), IEEE, London, United Kingdom, pp. 130-135. https://doi.org/10.1109/iCCECE46942.2019.8941685

Haines, S. J., Francis, G. L., Mueller, T. G., Chiu, C.-Y., Burke, M. M., Kyzar, K., Shepherd, K. G., Holdren, N., Aldersey, H. M., Turnbull, A. P., 2017. Reconceptualizing Family-Professional Partnership for Inclusive Schools: A Call to Action. Inclusion 5, 234-247. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.4.234

Kefallinou, A., Symeonidou, S., Meijer, C. J. W., 2020. Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. PROSPECTS 49, 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2

Larivée, S. J., Bédard, J., Couturier, Y., Kalubi, J., Larose, F., Lude, P., Blain, F., 2017. Les pratiques de collaboration école-famille-communauté efficaces ou prometteuses: synthèse des connaissances et pistes d'intervention (Rapport remis au FRQ-SC dans le cadre du programme Actions concertées).

Lewallen, T. C., Hunt, H., Potts-Datema, W., Zaza, S., Giles, W., 2015. The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model: a new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students. J. Sch. Health 85, 729-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12310

Linstead, E., Burns, R., Nguyen, D., Tyler, D., 2016. AMP: A platform for managing and mining data in the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. Annu. Int. Conf. 2016, 2545-2549. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2016.7591249

Lyons, W. E., Thompson, S. A., Timmons, V., 2016. 'We are inclusive. We are a team. Let's just do it': commitment, collective efficacy, and agency in four inclusive schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 20, 889-907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1122841
389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

Martinez, D. C., Conroy, J. W., Cerreto, M. C., 2012. Parent Involvement in the Transition Process of Children With Intellectual Disabilities: The Influence of Inclusion on Parent Desires and Expectations for Postsecondary Education. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 9, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12000

Mazon, C., Etchegoyhen, K., Saint-Supery, I., Amestoy, A., Bouvard, M., Consel, C., Sauzéon, H., 2021. Fostering parents-professional collaboration for facilitating the school inclusion of students with ASD: design of the “ToGather” web-based prototype. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10073-w

McNicholl, A., Casey, H., Desmond, D., Gallagher, P., 2021. The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 16, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642395

Mendoza-González, A., Luna-García, H., Mendoza-González, R., Gamboa-Rosales, H., Arceo-Olague, J. G., 2019. A strategy based in ICT for inclusion of a student with multiple disability into regular education: a case of educational rehabilitation, in: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on ICTs for Improving Patients Rehabilitation Research Techniques. Presented at the REHAB 2019: 5th Workshop on ICTs for improving Patients Rehabilitation Research Techniques, ACM, Popayan Columbia, pp. 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364138.3364177

Nilholm, C., Göransson, K., 2017. What is meant by inclusion? An analysis of European and North American journal articles with high impact. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 32, 437–451.

Olmstead, C., 2013. Using Technology to Increase Parent Involvement in Schools. TechTrends 57, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0

O’Neill, S. J., Smyth, S., Smeaton, A., O’Connor, N. E., 2020. Assistive technology: Understanding the needs and experiences of individuals with autism spectrum disorder and/or intellectual disability in Ireland and the UK. Assist. Technol. 32, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1535526

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., Elmagarmid, A., 2016. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

Parsons, S., Lewis, A., Davison, I., Ellins, J., Robertson, C., 2009. Satisfaction with educational provision for children with SEN or disabilities: a national postal survey of the views of parents in Great Britain. Educ. Rev. 61, 19–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910802684755

Pontikas, C.-M., Tsoukalas, E., Serdari, A., 2022. A map of assistive technology educative instruments in neurodevelopmental disorders. Disabil. Rehabil.-Assist. Technol. 17, 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1839580

Ranade-Kharkar, P., Norlin, C., Del Fiol, G., 2018. Formative Evaluation of Care Nexus: a Tool for the Visualization and Management of Care Teams of Complex Pediatric Patients. AMIA. Annu. Symp. Proc. 2017, 1458–1467.

Ranade-Kharkar, P., Weir, C., Norlin, C., Collins, S. A., Scarton, L. A., Baker, G. B., Borbolla, D., Taliercio, V., Del Fiol, G., 2017. Information needs of physicians, care coordinators, and families to support care coordination of children and youth with special health care needs (CYSHCN). J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. JAMIA 24, 933–941. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocx023

Roberts, J., Simpson, K., 2016. A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 20, 1084–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145267
439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

Siyam, N., Abdallah, S., 2021. A Pilot Study Investigating the Use of Mobile Technology for Coordinating Educational Plans in Inclusive Settings. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 37, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033581

UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, UNESCO Bibliothèque Numérique.

Walker, S., Dunbar, S., Meldrum, K., Whiteford, C., Carrington, S., Berthelsen, D., Hand, K., Nicholson, J., 2012. The Transition to School of Children with Developmental Disabilities: Views of Parents and Teachers. Australas. J. Early Child. 37, 22–29.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Patton, J. R. (Eds.), 2017. The Praeger international handbook of special education. Praeger, An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbara, California.

Zallio, M., Ohashi, T., 2022. The Evolution of Assistive Technology: A Literature Review of Technology Developments and Applications. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2201.07152