Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

eliability was conducted between <strong>the</strong> researchers
on all three parts of <strong>the</strong> ELLCO.
Additionally, an Assistive Technology Self-
Assessment Survey was delivered to participants
in person, prior to classroom observations
and interviews (see Table 3). The
paper-pencil survey was developed using recommended
best practices from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Division</strong>
for Early Childhood (DEC) (Sandall,
McLean, & Smith, 2000) for <strong>the</strong> application
of technology in settings for young children
who attend early intervention and early
childhood special education programs. Content
of <strong>the</strong> survey included <strong>the</strong> definition of
assistive technology according to IDEA and
16 questions related to DEC’s recommended
technology practices. The format of
response options followed a five-point common
rating scale focusing on agreement and
disagreement (Fink, 1995).
Data Analysis
This study employed collective case study
methodology (Stake, 2000), involving <strong>the</strong>
study of more than one case in order to “investigate
a phenomenon, population, or general
condition” (p. 437). This approach assumes
that investigating a number of cases will
lead to better comprehension and better <strong>the</strong>orizing.
Cross-case analysis was used to analyze
each individual participant responses as a
whole entity. A comparative analysis of all participant
responses was <strong>the</strong>n conducted which
allowed researchers to see processes and outcomes
across many participants, <strong>the</strong>reby developing
a deeper understanding of <strong>the</strong>
emerging phenomena through more powerful
descriptions and explanations (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
After completion of <strong>the</strong> interviews, data
were analyzed using a line by line multiple
coding approach (Barbour, 2001). The researchers
<strong>the</strong>n met frequently as a group and
developed categories based on <strong>the</strong>ir individual
line-by-line coding. Disagreements about
<strong>the</strong> categories were discussed, categories were
refined, expanded, and/or deleted as needed,
and concordance was reached (Barbour). The
constant comparative method by which researchers
continually returned to <strong>the</strong> data for
analysis was used as an overall methodological
framework (Charmaz, 2000). Three members
of <strong>the</strong> research team (i.e., three faculty members
in a Midwestern university’s Department
of Special Education) analyzed <strong>the</strong> data.
NVivo © 2.0, a data management software program,
was used to manage <strong>the</strong> data (Richards,
2002).
Confirmability
Confirmability of <strong>the</strong> findings was achieved
through three approaches: (a) triangulation
(Creswell, 2002) of incidences that occurred
across cases and confirmed through observations
in <strong>the</strong> classroom, results of <strong>the</strong> ELLCO,
and responses to an Assistive Technology Self-
Assessment Survey; (b) respondent validation
(Creswell, 2002), i.e., confirmation of graphic
and textual findings presented to participants
regarding <strong>the</strong> researchers’ understanding of
observations; and (c) member checks (Janesick,
2000), or allowing participants and <strong>the</strong> school
principal <strong>the</strong> opportunity to review and
quotes used in this report. All participants
confirmed <strong>the</strong> findings.
Findings
Four major <strong>the</strong>mes emerged from <strong>the</strong> data
analysis: (a) perceptions of technology, (b)
perceived challenges to implementing technology,
(c) perceptions of AT and literacy,
and (d) self-reported AT use. Each of <strong>the</strong>se
<strong>the</strong>mes is discussed in <strong>the</strong> following sections,
with participant quotes supporting <strong>the</strong> findings
(see Table 2).
Theme 1: AT Use
80 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008
The use of AT was assessed by two means:
observations and self-reports. Prior to <strong>the</strong>
structured interviews conducted with teachers,
observations were made by two of <strong>the</strong>
researchers using <strong>the</strong> ELLCO. An Assistive
Technology Self-Assessment Survey was also completed
by each of <strong>the</strong> participants.
Observed AT use. Limited use of AT was
observed in <strong>the</strong> classrooms identified as “atrisk”
and, while <strong>the</strong>re was more use of AT in
<strong>the</strong> classrooms which had students with disabilities,
not all classrooms used AT at <strong>the</strong>
same level. The ELLCO instrument was used
as an observation tool because it has a section
that focuses on <strong>the</strong> use of AT in preschool