The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Integrating Technology in Teaching Students with
Special Learning Needs in the SPED Schools in Baguio
City
Marilyn L. Balmeo, Erika Mae A. Nimo, Aubrey M. Pagal, Stephanie C. Puga, ArisDafQuiño, Jaleen L.
Sanwen	  	  The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
Leading-edge creation and development of technologies including those for the children with special
learning needs found common place in the educational system. Allowably, this study’s focal point
engages in the integration of technologies in the educational environments where students withspecial learning needs are housed. Respondents include 53 teachers employed in the special
education schools in Baguio City, who were to determine the availability and effectiveness oftechnology in their schools and the problems encountered in the integration of technologies. Results
indicate that availability and effectiveness of technologies are at limited level and that there areproblems encountered in technology integration. This is significant for the achievement of the aim ofstudents with special learning needs for they would be guided appropriately in the development of
their skills with the challenges of educational attainment and life itself.

Keywords: Technology integration; Special education; Baguio City SPED schools; Students withspecial learning needs.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction and Literature review
Technology is a term that originated from the Greek word technologia, which is a combination oftechne, meaning “craft” and logia meaning “saying”. As a result, technology might be considered thearticulation of a craft. In a formal manner, it is a branch of knowledge that deals with the creation
and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society and the environment, drawing
upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science and pure science (Random House
Dictionary, 2013).
Technology, which is known to be a growing part of any society today pervasively, had broughtsignificant changes in the different fields like health, medicine, entertainment, business, trade andcommerce, leisure, etc. The use of technology is at least one unavoidable reality twenty years after
the introduction of personal computer (Matulac, 2013). Moreover, Matulac (2013) stated that closing
our awareness regarding the changes brought by technology would mean death especially to
educators. Lensing into education, it is also a key factor on the radical changes in the educational
system (Bates, 2011). It turned classroom environment from teacher-centered to student-centered one.
It increasingly moved the boundary of educational resources. The use of computer has transformed
the traditional concepts of education (Shirley, Philip & Jennifer, 2007) confirming the statements ofhistoric educationists: Thomas Edison (1922) ‘motion pictures would replace textbooks inclassrooms’, William Levenson (1945) ‘radio receivers would be as common in classrooms as theblackboard, and B. F. Skinner (1960s) ‘new technology devices would vastly increase students’interest in learning’ (Norman, 1999).

Researchers conducted worldwide indicate that using

technology has a positive impact on teaching and learning (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010).

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Technology’s use in education is becoming an increasingly important part of higher and professional
education (Wernet, Olliges & Delicath, 2000). The U.S. Department of Education National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) (NCES, 2010) reported that novice teachers were more likely to use
computers or the internet to accomplish various teaching objectives. The NCES (2000) cited by
Rowand (2000), mentioned that 39% of the teachers surveyed use computers or the internet to create
instructional materials, 34% used computers or the internet on administrative record keeping, andless than 10% have reported to access model lesson plans or research and best practices. Almekhlafi
and Almeqdadi (2010) stated that teachers with utmost nine years of teaching experience were more
likely to report using computers or the internet to communicate with colleagues compared to teacherswith 20 or more years of experience.
Some reasons for teachers to use technology in classroom instruction are to promote student
agreement, to teach 21st century skills, to stay current, to have hands-on interactive learning, to vary
instructional methods, to conduct research, and to communicate (Hakverdi-Can & Dana, 2012;
Hechter & Vermette, 2012a). As transformative tools, computer technologies can help all students
develop their ability for structured yet flexible inquiry and investigation so that they can link ideas,
explore solutions and examine consequences to create value from information (Donovan & Macklin,
1999). Kotrilk and Redmann (2005) pointed out the results of the National Center For Education
Statistics (2000) survey to which: 44% reported using technology for classroom instruction, 42%
reported using computer applications, 12% reported using practice drills, 41% reported requiring
research using the internet, 20% required students to use technology to solve problems and analyze
data, 27% had students conduct research using CD-ROMS, 27% assigned students to produce
multimedia reports and projects, 23% assigned graphical presentations of materials, 21% assigned
demonstrations or simulations, and 7% assigned students to correspond with others over the internet.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

However, for many teachers, lack of personal experience with technology presents a challenge. In
order to incorporate technology-based activities and projects into their curriculum, those teachers
must first find the time to learn to use the tools and understand the terminology necessary forparticipation in those projects or activities (Starr, 2011). If these technologies are used properly, they
can be a tool for teachers as well as for students to help them gain experiences using newtechnologies. In relation to special education, teachers will need to understand how technology canbenefit student learning. Technology can allow teachers to access each and every child’s individual
learning style while providing a platform where students can work at their own pace. Technology canhelp teachers balance the limited instruction time by providing activities, project-based learning, andone-on-one coaching and peer support while making learning interactive and fun. Well-employeduse of technology in the classroom can allow teachers to tailor learning to student’s individual needs
while freeing up classroom time, leaving teachers more time for projects, one-on-one coaching, andmore creative activities (Starr, 2011).
Moreover, the use of technology needs to be re-conceptualized in areas such as students’ and learners’roles in using technology, how technology fits into the curriculum, what teachers should know, howteachers will learn about technology, and how the impact of technology be assessed (Budin, 1999;
Kotrilk & Redmann, 2005). As Matulac (2004) and Strommen and Lincoln (1992) mentioned, thekey to success lies in finding the appropriate points for integrating technology into a newpedagogical practice, so that it supports the deeper, more reflective, self-directed activity children
must use if they are to be competent adults in the future. Girgin, Kurt and Odabasi (2011) further
mentioned that not only do teachers need to learn how to use technology but they also need to learn
how to apply the technology to teaching and learning, where in they need to know which
technologies will most effectively meet children’s skills, abilities and needs.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

There are really barriers that hinder the effective implementation of technology into classroom
teaching and learning, such as factors like access, time, resources, training, attitudinal effects, beliefs,
practices, institutional and administrative support, experience, and resistance are as well restraining
forces to technology integration (Earle, 2002; Gulbahar, 2008).
The Philippine government initiated that by the end of 2009, there would be a: 1) provision of
appropriate educational technologies to all public high schools; 2) provision of a computer laboratory
with basic multimedia equipment to 75% of public high schools; 3) provision of electronic librarysystems to all public science-oriented high schools; 4) training of 75% of public secondary school
teachers in basic computing and internet skills as well as in Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI); 5)
integration of ICT in all learning areas, when appropriate; and 6) private sector support.
Technology is arguably even more relevant in special education than it is in general education
because it makes the complex simple and it addresses the individual needs of the learner (TheInternational Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, 2007). Similarly, Johanson(1998) posited that to create learning activities and to set up inclusive learning environments thatenable the child with disabilities to learn and play along with other children, technology is needed. In
addition, Hasselbring and Glaser (2000), pointed out that technology has equalized holistic
development by giving opportunities to children with disabilities, their families, and teachers. The
integration of technology in teaching to Special Education and in learning has positive influences on
students’ motivation, attitudes, achievement, and peer interactions in the classrooms (Schofield,
1995). Hence, technology could enhance children’s educational, social, and cultural experiences(Girgin, Kurt & Odabasi, 2011; Saba, 2009). Technology is then potential to become a vehicle to
make education for all children with disabilities a reality in developing countries (ICEVI, 2007) like
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

the Philippines. Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) define technology for students with special needs
based on federal laws as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquiredcommercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improvefunctional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.”
Computer-based technologies’ integration into the classroom for regular students is recognized but
few have come to the realization that there are great benefits that technologies may afford students
with disabilities (Espique, 2009; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). A knowledgeable teacher who
understands technology’s potential for education is involved in the effective technology
implementation in the preschool special education classroom or in any classroom (Johanson, 1998).
However, Espique (2009) pointed out that many teachers are not adequately trained on how to use
technology effectively in their classrooms. Bauer and Kenton (2005) found that teachers, who werehighly educated and skilled with technology, were innovative and adept at overcoming obstacles, butthey did not integrate technology on a consistent basis both as teaching and learning tool.
Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) and Judge (2001) affirmed that the lack of appropriate technology
training in pre-service and in-service teacher education programs is the most cited barrier in using
technology in the classroom. They further added that the lack of adequate training has an especial
strong impact on students with disabilities because technology is often a critical component inplanning and implementing an educational program for them. According to Zhao (2007), mostteachers were willing to use technology, expressed positive experiences with technology integration
training, increased their use of technology in the classroom, and used technology more creatively.
Kolb (2012) explained that different people naturally prefer a certain single different learning style.
Various factors influence a person's preferred style: notably in his Experiential Learning Theory
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

model (ELT) Kolb (2012) posited three stages of a person's development and suggests that our
propensity to reconcile and successfully integrate the four different learning styles improve as wemature through our development stages. He as well mentioned that knowing a person's (and yourown) learning style enables learning to be orientated according to the preferred method. That said,
everyone responds to and needs the stimulus of all types of learning styles to one extent or another –it is a matter of using emphasis that fits best with the given situation and a person's learning stylepreferences. In special education, many are limited to direct experience as a part of learning due tosome limitations that they acquire. But with the help of technology, experiential learning takes place.
In addition, with technology the child with special learning needs will be able to gain a more
concrete and more real scenario of what is learned inside the four corners of the classroom. Further,
Kolb (2012) mentioned that “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through thetransformation of experience.” Thus, transformation of the teaching learning process in theclassroom of children with special learning needs could be well acquired through the integration oftechnology.
Theory of Planned Behavior or Reasoned Action highlights the person’s behavior determination
through his or her intention to perform the behavior and that this intention is, in turn, a function ofhis/ her attitude toward the behavior and his/ her subjective norm. Moreover, intention is the
cognitive representation of person’s readiness to perform a given behavior, and it is considered to be
the immediate antecedent of behavior. To predict someone’s intentions, knowing these beliefs can beas important as knowing the person’s attitudes. Finally, perceived controlled behavior control
influences’ intentions that refers to people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behavior.
In the integration of technology in teaching students with special learning needs, the teachers must as
well be oriented in their intention and the intended way they would integrate technology in teaching
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

so that these students’ learning would be catered. There must be planned behavior that would also
refer for the teachers’ view of technology integration to be more deliberative.
Four areas of technology benefits that have not been thoroughly researched and are applicable tospecial education and technology has been delineated by Roblyer (2004). First is “research toestablish relative advantage,” that includes preventing inert knowledge (i.e., skills learned but neverused) and increasing cultural awareness and acceptance (e.g., internet projects to encourageappreciation of other cultures and improve attitudes about other ways of life). Second is “research to
improve implementation methods” that might include word processing and online chats andconferences. Thirdly is “research to monitor impact on important societal goals” that addresses
information literacy and visual literacy skills as part of high quality education for all students. Last is“studies to monitor and report on common uses and shape directions” that address how technologies
are used in practice and what impact they have on school life.
This study focused on the last need which is “studies to monitor and report on common uses andshape directions”. Specifically, it caters to a) the technologies integrated in classroom instructions inteaching students with special learning needs in the context of Baguio City, b) the extent ofeffectiveness of the technologies integrated in teaching students with special learning needs in
Baguio City, and c) the problems encountered in the use of these technologies in teaching students
with special learning needs.
This study can help special educators to have a deeper understanding in the integration of technology
in teaching students with special learning needs. Through this study, they will come up with easierand conducive ways to cater the needs of these students. For students, this study can provide clear

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

lines of information that not all technologies are for gaming, social networking and the like, but theyalso play a major role in supporting learners in a classroom setting.
Moreover, this study can provide future researchers with more information regarding the use oftechnologies in teaching students with learning disabilities. On the part of the researchers, this paper
can serve as a guide on how to present their lessons in a more meaningful way. It will also makethem aware of the needs and difficulties encountered by the learners and address these concerns tomake their learning more enjoyable and purposeful.
Methodology
This study utilized qualitative and quantitative approach. For the problems presented, descriptive
approach is employed, but predominantly quantitative method is utilized. The survey questionnaire
was formulated with the utmost care; hence, survey questionnaire method of formulation wasconsidered. It was validated by the experts in the field of technology and in Special Education; thenit was pre-tested at Benguet Special Education Department-Wangal, La Trinidad, Benguet who have
17 Special Education teachers. Using Kuder Richardson Formula 21 to test the reliability of thequestionnaire, it was considered reliable.
The self-made questionnaire consisted of 43 named hardware technologies and 13 named software
technologies that were assessed with their extent of use using a 4 point Likert scale (4=Always Used,
3= Frequently Used, 2= Sometimes Used, 1= Never Used), and their extent of effectiveness using a
4-point Likert scale (4= Always Effective, 3= Frequently Effective, 2= Sometimes Effective, 1=
Never Effective). Moreover, perceived problems in the integration of technology in teaching students
with special learning needs were assessed through a yes or no response. If the response is yes it is
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

equated to be a problem with the scale of 0.51-1.00. On the other hand, if the response is no, it isequated to be considered as a problem and is scaled to as 0.01-0.50.
Participants
The respondents to this study included 53 teachers from the different schools offering special
education, namely Special Education (SPED) Baguio, Bridges Learning and Tutorial Center, EasterCollege SPED Center, Just For Kids Tutorial Center, STI SPED Center, San Lorenzo Ruiz- deaf
Resource Center, and Northern Luzon Association for the Blind. These respondents were chosenbecause they belong to the context of schools who offer Special Education in Baguio City.
Settings and Arrangement
Guided with the letter approved by the Undergraduate Research Coordinator and the Dean of the
School of Teacher Education, the researchers personally asked the Schools Division Superintendent
for the Baguio City Division, Estela Leon –Cariño, Ed.D., CESO the permission to administer thesurvey questionnaire in the schools that offers Special Education in Baguio City. In addition, theresearchers asked the permission of the school heads of the schools before the questionnaires wereadministered. The researchers have personally administered the said survey questionnaire to be able
to discuss the purpose of the study and the way the survey questionnaire should be answered.
Findings and Discussion
For the acquisition of meaningful learning experiences to develop problem solving and higher order
thinking skills and to function in the world beyond the classroom, access to technology is an
essential element and its appropriate and successful integration into learning environments has thepotential to benefit all students (Blair, 2003). Only over 53% of the teachers do not routinely use
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

technology in the classroom and over half of the students responding to questionnaires reported thatthey use technology no more than once a week, unfortunately, this was the result in a large scale ofthe nationwide survey of teachers, students, and administrators (Abbott, 2003). In the report made byRodriguez (2007), the Philippines is ranked 48th in terms of preparedness and ability to absorb
advances and growth in information and communication technologies (ICT) among the 55 nations
included in the Information Society Index (ISI).
Study results show that in the special education schools in Baguio City, there is integration oftechnology, but not to an extensive level. This is in accordance to the fact that there is a relative
relationship between availability and effectiveness in the integration of technology. Ergo, the threemain concepts of this study that affects and collaborates together for the successful integration oftechnology in teaching students with special learning needs include availability, effectiveness, andthe problems encountered.
Table 1. Most available technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank

Technology

Mean

Descriptive Indicator

1

Whiteboard

2. 8490

B

2

Multimedia Software

2. 5492

B

3

Dictionary

2. 5094B

4

Computer

2.4905

C

5

Clock

2.4716C

Table 1 shows the most available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with thefollowing descriptive indicator: A- Always used (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently used (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes used (1.75- 2.49); DNever used (1.00- 1.74)

With the weighted mean of 2.8490 signified to be frequently used, whiteboard resulted to be one of
the most available technologies in teaching students with special learning needs in the SPED schoolsin Baguio City. It is approximately used three times a week for classroom interaction. With theobservation in the schools, whiteboard is commonly utilized by teachers and students for writing(through the use of a whiteboard marker) and for projecting pictures, videos and texts (through the
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

use of either an overhead projector or an LCD projector). With its affordability, considering its typeand size and with its usability for the betterment of the teaching- learning process, schools made away to provide it. A respondent said “I handled deaf students in my Algebra. I do not allow them touse calculators. My style of teaching makes use of whiteboard markers and whiteboard since
Algebra usually involves computation in problem solving”.
With a mean of 2.5492 interpreted as frequently used, Multimedia Software resulted to be the second
most available technology in teaching students with special learning needs. Experts advised thatteachers may use multimedia software to present more interactive, motivating, and relevant andplenty of action and novelty mannered lessons (Sponder & Hilgenfeld, 1994). Moreover, theelectronic means of linking various media in new and different ways in activities that can facilitate
fundamental learning and thinking is the educational role of multimedia (Haselbring & Glaser, 2000).
To affirm, multimedia can help deepen students’ conceptual understandings by linking visual
imagery and sound effects to information that is difficult to understand when presented in text alone(Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). The aforementioned roles of multimedia software and its accessibility
have furnished its result to be used recurrently in the classroom. Although, there is extensive debate
about the efficacy of laptop computers in the classroom, several studies have identified benefits suchas keeping students on task and engaged (Hyden, 2005), and helping students follow lectures via
PowerPoint or multimedia (Lauricella & Kay, 2010).
The third most common technology with a mean of 2.5094 is dictionary. It is an essential tool forteachers and students especially when it comes to words. Dictionary is as well the most reliable
source for defining words. In a study made by Man (1998) it was found out that there is a total of
66% of the students who answered they would use a dictionary very often or quite often during term
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

time. This tool is an exemplary tool for both students and teachers to be able to develop their sense ofcommunication. This comes in an affordable price depending on its type, size and publication. Its
affordability contributes to its accessibility and availability
The computer with the mean of 2.4905 is one of the most available technologies in teaching students
with special learning needs in the SPED schools in Baguio City. The researchers observed that, inorder for the students to experience manipulating the computers, a computer laboratory is taken as a
set-up. Moreover, other set-up noted from Tinio (2002) “in cases where no classroom is available at
all to be turned into the school’s computer room, computers are housed in the principal’s office orother administrative rooms”. The limited number of available computer units may have decided theschools to plan for a computer laboratory instead of having all classrooms equipped with computers.
Moreover, Rodriguez (2007) cited that the National Teacher Survey (2005) found that only 13
percent of teachers have one computer for every two or three students, and 10 percent have one-toone (1:1) ratio. When asked what the best ratio is for classroom teaching, a majority (54 percent) ofteachers replied that 1:1 would be their preference. The survey made in 2002 by the Philippine
Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture to the South-East Asian Ministers of Education
Organization Regional Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO INNOTECH),
reveals that there are only about 5,217 (14.28 percent) schools who have computers in thePhilippines (Rodriguez, 2007).
With the mean of 2.4716, clock is interpreted as frequently used. Scheduling of tasks is important tohumans. Work, personal care, transportation, and recreation are known to be included as life skills
which could be succeeded if there would be an employment of time management skill to direct thetasks under the aforementioned tasks (Green, Hughes & Ryan, 2011). In education, activities and
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

classes are needed to be scheduled, that is where clock enters. They may be always utilized knowingthat they are hanged on walls for time reference, but in this study, the focus points out on its usage inthe teaching- learning process. It is asserted that over the last few years there is decrease on the wayof describing time and this is made by moving away from analogue clocks proceeding to theutilization of digital clocks which are always accurate (Cotton, 2010).
Table 2. Least available technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
56

Technology
AbacusMean
1.0000Descriptive IndicatorD

55

Vibrating Watch

1.0556

D

53.5

Talking Calculator

1.1320

D

53.5

OCR

1.1320D

52

Raised Line Paper

1.1538

D

Table 2 shows the least available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with thefollowing descriptive indicator: A- Always used (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently used (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes used (1.75- 2.49); DNever used (1.00- 1.74).

Abacus (mean= 1.000), Vibrating watch (mean= 1.0556), talking calculator (mean= 1.1320), Optical
Character Recognition (mean= 1.1320) and raised line paper (mean= 1.1538) are included in theleast available technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs in the
SPED schools.
Abacus, an old time’s calculator, is not widely used and is less and less popular in the system oftoday’s learning scenario. As for the vibrating watch, Green, Hughes Ryan (2011) posited that it isused as a self-regulation and time management tool for students and for people with Intellectual
Disability. For the talking calculator, it is only aimed at students with visual impairment. On the partof the raised line paper, a low-tech tool for teaching line orientation is essential to students withdysgraphia or difficulty in writing and for mathematical computations if students experience
difficulties aligning their work (Ministry of Education and British Columbia School Superintendent’s
Association, 2011).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

On the other hand, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) existence had brought blind students’ability to place books or other print materials on a scanner and to have the text interpreted and readusing synthetic or digital speech. However, Gold and Lowe (2009) acknowledged that it is a hightechnology device that costs more than $3, 000.
Table 3. Most effective technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
1

Technology
Whiteboard

Mean
2.7169Descriptive IndicatorB

2

Computer

2.6792B

3

Dictionary

2.5849

B

4

Clock

2.5471B

5Laptop2.3962C

Table 3 shows the most effective technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: A- Always effective (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently effective (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes effective (1.75- 2.49); DNever effective (1.00- 1.74)

The study reveals that the use of whiteboard (mean= 2.7169) is frequently effective in teaching
students with special learning needs. Boards had a beneficial impact in motivating and getting theattention of students with special learning needs that gears towards effective teaching-learning
process (Somekh et al., 2006). Whiteboard nowadays is essential in the delivery of lessons in the
educational setting. It comes in different sizes and types that make it more accessible and easy tohandle. It may be permanently placed in the classrooms.
Computer’s extent of effectiveness have encircled the mean of 2.6792, which is under frequently
effective. In addition, the survey of the National Teachers Survey (2005) revealed that teachers rankcomputers as most effective for working on reading skills, writing skills, math drills and criticalthinking skills. To support, Gokhale (1996) mentioned that integration of computer simulation into
traditional lecture-lab activities enhances the performance of the students. Guided computer
simulation activities can be used as an educational alternative to help motivate students into selfdiscovery and develop their reasoning skills. Moreover, many studies (Christmann, Badget &
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lucking, 1997; Dwyer, 1994; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Liao, 1992; Losak & MacFarland, 1994; SivinKachala & Bialo, 1996) have shown that computers at school can have a beneficial effect not only on
student achievement but also on students’ learning motivation, on classroom atmosphere, and on theteachers’ willingness to experiment with new and innovative instructional approaches (Schaumburg,
2001).
This study also reveals that dictionary (2.5849) is frequently effective. This revolves to the notionthat its impact on the betterment of the teaching-learning process is great. Boonmoh (2003) claimed
that dictionaries are beneficial and facilitative in the teaching and learning context. Moreover, its
effectiveness involves skills and strategies that students acquire not only about dictionaries but also
about language (Man, 1998). In a study conducted by Dziemianko (2010) as cited by AlBulushy(2012), to determine students' actual use, the students consulting the electronic dictionary performedmuch better than those using the paper dictionary. Those who support the use of the dictionary
presume that it is more useful with receptive and productive tasks. They also argue that it is a better
learning tool since its use affects students' withholding of meaning and gives higher chances formore effective recovery of learned words. More recent studies (Chan, 2011, 2012; FrankenbergGarcia, 2011; Laufer, 2011) have proposed improving learners’ language awareness as part ofdictionary-skills training.
Clock’s extent of effectiveness reaching the mean of 2.5471 is specified to be frequently effective.
This technology is observed to be effective in the way the tasks of the students are assessed.
Schedule and duration in an activity where the students work are the areas that the teachers as
respondents consider.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Laptop, having been effective in its integration to classroom activities with the result as a basis
earning 2.3962, is concluded to be sometimes effective. Noted that, in the report made by Demb,
Erickson and Hawkins-Wilding (2004) mentioned by Lauricella and Kay (2010) 16% of overall
laptop use involved typing papers. On the other hand, Arend (2004) noticed that laptops are being
used in bulk for writing papers, using software programs, searching the Internet, and completinggroup projects.
Table 4. Least effective technology integrated in teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
52

Technology
Vibrating Watch

Mean
1.2264

Descriptive Indicator
D

53

Dual Time Watch

1.2641

D

54.5

OCR

1.3018D

54.5

Talking Calculator

1.3018

D

56

Smart Board

1.3996

D

Table 4 shows the least effective technologies that are integrated in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: A- Always effective (3.25- 4.00); B- Frequently effective (2.50- 3.24); C- Sometimes effective (1.75- 2.49); DNever effective (1.00- 1.74)

Included in the technologies assessed to be never effective are vibrating watch (mean= 1.2264), dual
time watch (mean=1.2641), optical character recognition and talking calculator mean which have thesame mean at 1.3018, and smart board (mean= 1.3996). The vibrating watch and dual time watch areutilized for time. A clock may have been used to surrogate their function in the classroom instruction.
To have a clear view, it is asserted that over the last few years there is decrease on the way ofdescribing time and this is made by moving away from analogue clocks proceeding to the utilizationof digital clocks which are always accurate (Cotton, 2010).
Optical Character Recognition, talking calculator and Smart Board are signified to be never effective.
From the allowable time, the researchers have not really come across Smart Board and Optical
Recognition Character in the schools that served as respondents. This may have been due to the factthat the schools could not provide it for they are of high value. For example, the SMART board costs
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

$5000, depending on size and features for its installation only, not considering the material itself(Preston & Mowbray, 2008). Moreover, because of its non-provision, teachers have not come acrossit yet- thus concluding for these technologies to be not effective in their presumption.
Table 5. Most common problem in integrating technology teaching students with special learning needs
Rank
1

Statement
Mean
Descriptive Indicator
The school does not provide the existence of new 0.5577
P
technologies due to its cost.
2
My students have no sufficient hardware and0.5192P
software skills that make instructional time being
consumed by technical issues rather than thecontent of the lesson.
3
There are limited available technologies to be
0.5
pused in my classroom.
Table 5 shows the problems encountered in the integration of technology in teaching students with special learning needs with the following
descriptive indicator: NP- not a problem (0.01- 0.50) and P- problem (0.51- 1.00)

Hasselbring and Glaser (2000) mentioned that one of the serious considerations for all schools is thecost of the technology needed to help students with disabilities participate in regular classroom
settings, especially the computer systems needed for students with more severe disabilities.
Moreover, it was cited that funding for technology can be obtained from a variety of sources, butthese sources are not always adequate. For example, two federal acts attempt to address the needs ofstudents with disabilities, but their goals exceed their funding levels.
However, because of limited funding, school districts are not obligated to purchase a specificcomputer technology, even if it is identified as potentially beneficial. Individual schools are often
hesitant to provide the necessary technology because they must fund these purchases themselvesrather than rely on the school district’s resources (Hasselbring& Glaser, 2000). Tremendously, costof technologies varies from upwards of $3, 000 for certain high- tech devices and as little as a few
dollars for low- tech devices as it was confirmed from Gold and Lowe (2009). It is accepted as wellthat “many AT electronic devices are expensive, hard to use and hard to keep track ” (Green, Hughes& Ryan, 2011).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

“My students have no sufficient hardware and software skills that make instructional time being
consumed by technical issues rather than the content of the lesson”, garnered a mean of 0.5192. The
result indicates technological knowledge to be a problem in technology integration. Hence,technological knowledge must be modeled and emphasized (Ludlow, 2001; Martin, 2004; Martin &Crawford, 2004; Martin & Crawford, 2005). Students are perceived to acquire basic skills regarding
technology manipulation by the end of their fourth year according to the school’s goals (Tinio, 2002).
The basic skills targeted include operating a computer and writing documents with a word processor,
calculating with spreadsheets or writing simple programs. It is remarkable that with this set- up,students are still on their way to suffice their skills in handling the technologies available. However,Wartella, Schomburg, Lauricella and Robb, Flynn’s study (2010) suggested that technology must be
introduced to children before the age of 3. Furthermore, operational skills, functional skills, strategic
skills, and social skills are important skills in successfully incorporate technology (Green, Hughes, &Ryan, 2011; Behnke & Bowser, 2010).
Having a mean of 0.5, teachers employed in the special education schools noted that there are limited
available technologies to be used in their classrooms. In surveys conducted, some schools reported
that principals decided that all the computers that were received from the Department of Education
will be placed in their office as an interim measure while waiting for a secured computer room.
Computers are made available to students’ use although clearly, the set up is not ideal and may limit
access (Tinio, 2002). Reiterating the experiences of most schools, technologies with limited numbers
are handled by the principals or the heads and are reserved by the teachers if ever they are needed.
This denotes that there are no permanently situated technologies in the classrooms. Another thing
considered is the security of the technologies, where some classrooms in the schools do not reallyhave security tools (e.g., security locks).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  
Table 6. Least common problem in integrating technology teaching students with special learning needs
Rank

Statement

Mean

12.5

I don’t have sufficient knowledge in manipulating technology in
my classroom.
The technology does not improve my creativity.

0.0769Descriptive
Indicator
NP

0.0769NP

12.5

Table 6 shows the statements assessed as not included as problems encountered in the integration of technology in teaching students with special
learning needs with the following descriptive indicator: NP- not a problem (0.01- 0.50) and P- problem (0.51- 1.00)

Sufficient knowledge in manipulating the available technologies in the classroom (mean= 0.0769)
have been noted to be one of the least common problems in the integration of technologies inteaching students with learning needs in the SPED schools in Baguio. Bauer and Kenton (2005)
found that teachers, who were highly educated and skilled with technology, were innovative andadept at overcoming obstacles (Almekhlafi & Almeqdadi, 2010). Gulbahar (2007) as cited by
Almekhlafi and Almeqdadi (2010) stated that teachers and administrative staff felt themselvescompetent in using ICT available at the school. Moreover, the survey result that newer educators
were less likely to believe their training to use technology in several areas was adequate, but they
were still more likely to be satisfied with their overall knowledge and ability to use technology. This
is in contrast to what is practiced wherein computer training for further skills enhancement is only
duly implemented in the high school level- specifically in the area of Technology and Home
Economics (THE) (Rodriguez, 2007).
Technology not improving the teacher’s creativity (.0769) is also one of the least common problems.
In reference to creativity, knowledge on manipulating technology may have brought the teachers andrespondents to discover the unlimited capabilities of technologies that could allow them to express
their creativity. In addition, it is known that as teachers integrate technology they could come acrossan evolutionary process (Sandholtz & Ringstaff, 1997; Dwyer, 1999) which includes entry, adoption,
adaptation, appropriation, and invention (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2005). Anent this, assurance that
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

through the extraordinary storage and delivery capabilities of computers and advancements insoftware and communications technologies today by the educators, it is possible to present learning
information in new meaningful ways, engage various senses, record and assess learner’s choices andperformance, and suggest remedial feedback based on the learner’s performance (Akour, 2006).
The study shows that there are available technologies integrated in teaching students with special
learning needs but to a limited level only. Much of these technologies are provided by schoolthemselves. Some technologies available in the schools that served as respondents depend on thestudents that they cater. The generally used technology-computers, dictionaries, clocks, whiteboards,
etc- could be observed in the schools. On the other hand, technology utilization, when teaching
students with special learning needs is effective. This is because it helps not only the teachers todeliver well the learning, but also the students to be able to effectively grasp the learning. Thus,
teaching-learning process is undertaken more effectively with the use of technology. Results showthat there are problems encountered when integrating technology in teaching students with special
learning needs. Some of which have been noted to be on the side of the teachers, some problems
could be observed because of the students and some were from the technologies themselves.
Observantly, these have affected the flow of the teaching-learning process.
Conclusion
In this study, the respondents included 53 teachers from the different schools offering special
education in Baguio City. They answered to a self-made questionnaire consisting of 43 named
hardware technologies and 13 named software technologies. Whiteboard resulted to be one of themost available technologies in teaching students with special learning needs, followed byMultimedia Software and electronic dictionary.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

With the data collected from the teachers themselves, technology integration appears to be aneffective method in teaching students with special needs, whether this technology may be in softwareor in hardware form. Various factors, including time, knowledge in manipulation, financial resources,
and the availability of this technology has affected teaching efficiency and student learning. Anentthese factors, the administration, teachers and the students are considered to be the main proponents
in the integration of technology for teaching-learning process to take place effectively.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Abbott, J. A. (2003). Integrating technology into preservice literacy instruction: A survey of
elementary education students’ attitudes toward computers. Journal of Research on Computing
in Education, 33(2), 149–61.
Akour, M. A. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on Jordanian college students‘achievements in an introductory computer science course. Electronic Journal for the
Integration of Technology in Education, 5, 17-24.
Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in
the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 13, 165-175.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_1/16.pdf.
Arend, B. D. (2004). New patterns of student engagement. About Campus, 9(3), 30-32. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/102874/.
Bates, Y. (2011). Integrating technology and professional developments. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://prezi.com/xouttvrt_p_t/integrating-technology-and-professional-developments/.
Bauer, J., and Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/4728.
Blair, M. E. (2003). Independence Through Assistive Technology Act of 2003. A “From the Field”
feature in the Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97(10), 667-668.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Boonmoh, A. (2010). Teachers’ use and knowledge of electronic dictionaries. ABAC Journal, 30(5),56-74. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.abacjournal.au.edu/2010/sep2010/article05_Teacher.pdf.
Cortiella, C. (2009). The State of Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/Courses/EDS%20243/state.of.ld.2009.pdf
Cotton, T. (2010). Understanding and teaching primary mathematics. Pearson Education Limited.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttps://www.hope.ac.uk/media/liverpoolhope/contentassets/documents/education/media,25539,
en.pdf.
Demb, A., Erickson, D., & Hawkins-Wilding, S. (2004). The laptop alternative: Student reactions
and strategic implications. Computers & Education, 43(4), 383-401. Retrieved August 10,
2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/66682/.
Donovan, M., & Macklin, S. (1999). The catalyst project: Supporting faculty uses of the web withthe web. Cause/Effect, 22(3).
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises andchallenges. Educational Technology Magazine, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.asianvu.com/bookstoread/etp/earle.pdf.
Espique, F. (2008). Integrating computer technology in handling students with special learningneeds. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/congress2008/contents/ESPIQUE/Espique%20PAPER.pdf.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Girgin, U., Kurt, A. A., & Odabasi, F. (2011). Technology integration issues in special education
school in Turkey. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.world-education-center.org/index.php/cjes/article/view/209/pdf_34.
Gokhale, A. (1996). Effectiveness of computer simulation for enhancing higher order thinking.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(4). Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v33n4/jite-v33n4.gokhale.html.
Gold, M., & Lowe, C. (2009). The integration of assistive technology into standard classroom
practices: A guide for K-12 general educators. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society
for integration technology and teacher education international conference 2009 (pp. 39643968). Chesapcake, VA. AACE. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/31275/.
Green, J., Hughes, E., & Ryan, J. (2011). The use of assistive technology to improve time
management skills of a young adult with an intellectual disability. Journal of Special education
Technology, 26(3), 13-20. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://blogs.hpedsb.on.ca/ec/sets/files/2013/02/mobile_devices_and_students_with_disabilities.
pdf.
Hakverdi-Can, M., & Dana, T. M. (2012). Exemplary science teachers’ use of technology. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 94-112. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://internationalschoolsandict.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/how-do-exemplary-scienceteachers-use-technology/.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Hasselbring, T. S., & Glaser, C. H. (2000). Use of computer technology to help students with special
needs. The Future of Children: Children & Computer Technology, 10(2), 102-122. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://familiestogetherinc.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/08/COMPUTERTECHNEEDS.pdf.
Hechter, R., Phyfe, L., & Vermette, L. (2012). Integrating technology in education: Moving the
TPCK framework towards practical applications, 39, 136-152. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://www.erpjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ERP-Submission-Sept-26.pdf.
Hyden, P. (2005). Teaching statistics by taking advantage of the laptop's ubiquity. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 2005(101), 37-42. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.184/abstract.
International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment (2007). The educator: Low
vision. (Volume XX, Issue 1). ICEVI Secretariat No. 3 Professors’ Colony.
http://icevi.org/pdf/educator_july_2007.pdf.
Johanson, J. (1998). Teaching and learning with technology. ACTTive Technology 13(1), Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.wiu.edu/thecenter/articles/teachlearn.html.
Judge, S. L. (2001). Computer application in programs for young children with disabilities: current
status and future directions. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 29-40. Retrieved
August 10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/91625/.
Kotrilk, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2005). Extent of technology integration by adult basic educationteachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 200-219. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://aeq.sagepub.com/content/55/3/200.short.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Lauricella, S., & Kay, R. (2010). Assessing laptop use in higher education classrooms: the laptop
effectiveness scale. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 151-163.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/lauricella.pdf.
Man, L. A. (1998) Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom. Euralex 1998 Proceedings Part 2.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex1998_2/Man%20Lai%20Amy%20CHI%20Te
aching%20dictionary%20skills%20in%20the%20classroom.pdf.
Matulac, M. (2004). Experiences in technology integration. ICTs in Basic education. First National
Congress. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/ictcongress/paper/fullpapers/matulac.pdf.
Ministry of Education and the British & Columbia School Superintendent’s Association. (2011).
Supporting students with learning disabilities: a guide for teachers. Retrieved August 10, 2014
from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/specialed/docs/learning_disabilities_guide.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Distance education at postsecondary education
institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Preston, C., Mowbray, L. (2008). Use of SMART Boards for teaching, learning and assessment inkindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50-53. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://smartboardita.pbworks.com/f/smartboard+with+kindergartener.pdf.
Random House Dictionary (2014). Etymology Dictionary. Random House, Inc. USA: New York.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://dictionary.refernce.com/.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Roblyer, M. D. (2004). If technology is the answer, what’s the question? Research to help make thecase for why we use technology in teaching. In Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology and Teacher Education, 2004(1), 27-38. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://www.editlib.org/p/13687.
Rodriguez, C. (2007). Building teachers’ capacity to make better use of ICT in Philippines schools.
ICT in teacher education: Case studies from the Asia-Pacific region, 74-85. Retrieved August
10, 2014 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ungc/unpan040181.pdf.
Rowand, C. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the internet in public schools. Stats in Brief, ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. 442463.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating studentcentered classrooms. Teachers College: New York, 211 pages.
Schaumburg, H. (2001). The impact of mobile computers in the classroom – Results from an
ongoing video study. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://notesys.com/copies/aect01.pdf.
Schofield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sponder, B., & Hilgenfeld, R. (1994). Cognitive guidelines for teachers developing computerassisted instruction. The Computer Teacher, 22(3), 9-15. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ493273.
Starr, L. (2011). Integrating Technology in the classroom: It takes more than just having computers.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech146.shtml.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Strommen, E., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism Technology and the Future of Classroom
Learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 466-476.
Tinio, V. (2002). Survey of information & communication technology utilization in Philippine publichigh schools preliminary findings. Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.fited.org/downloads/ICT%20Utilization%20Survey.pdf.
Wartella, E., Schomburg, R., Lauricella, A., Robb, M., & Flynn, R. (2010). Technology in the livesof teachers and classrooms: Survey of classroom teachers and family child care providers.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.fredrogerscenter.org/media/resources/TechInTheLivesofTeachers.pdf.
Wernet, S. P., Olliges, R. H., & Delicath, T. A. (2000). Post course evaluation of web ct (web course
tools) classes by social work students. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4), 487-504.
Retrieved August 10, 2014 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/13_1/16.pdf.
Zhao, Y. (2007). Social studies teachers’ perspective of technology integration. Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 311-333. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.editlib.org/p/20005.
Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2005).Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to highlevels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration afterstate mandated technology training, Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in
Education, 5, 53-62.