Teachers’ use of assistive technology in Saudi special education schools: A mixed-methods enquiry

Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine assistive technology (AT) use, elements teachers take into consideration when selecting AT, and barriers from the standpoint of teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. To answer the research questions, the researcher employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design. A self-administered online survey and interviews were conducted to collect data. A total of 92 special education teachers from four special education institutes were surveyed, and five teachers were interviewed to provide interpretations for the analysed quantitative data. Results demonstrated there were cultural factors that could influence AT use with students. Findings revealed there was a lack of AT use, with teachers reporting higher use of low-tech than mid-tech and high-tech. The most reported barriers were lack of AT devices and lack of training. The results also revealed there were statistical differences in AT use between the four special education institutes and between teachers with previous AT training. Four major themes and several sub-themes emerged from the interviews. The themes were (a) AT use, (b) considerations, (c) barriers, and (d) professional development. These themes made it possible to interpret and elaborate on the quantitative data. The findings suggest the necessity of professional development for teachers, an increase in financial support, and provision of appropriate curriculum for successfully using AT in classrooms.

Introduction

Researchers have recently been paying more attention to enhancing technology-driven teaching and learning in classrooms of students with diverse abilities (Lancioni et al. 2019, Stasolla et al. 2019, Syriopoulou-Delli and Gkiolnta 2020). International Business Machines (IBM) (1991) pointed out, “For most people, technology makes things easier. For persons with disabilities, technology makes things possible” (p. 2). For students with disabilities, assistive technology (AT) is a major tool that helps them communicate with others (Stasolla et al. 2015, Ricci et al. 2017, Lancioni et al. 2019, Syriopoulou-Delli and Gkiolnta 2020).

According the World Health Organization (WHO) (2017), there are about 1 billion individuals with a disability around the world who are in need of AT. This number could increase by 2030 to about 2 billion people (WHO 2017). The more complex disabilities are, the greater the necessity for AT in the lives of individuals with those disabilities. Lancioni et al. (2012) believe that the students with disabilities who are seen as most eligible for AT services fall into two groups: students with physical disabilities and communication disorders, and students who have severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (Lancioni et al. 2012). Individuals with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities require more support to be more integrated into their communities, and AT may assist them in overcoming the barriers they may face in areas such as adaptive skills, learning, communication, leisure activities, and self-care (Lancioni et al. 2017, Stasolla et al. 2019, Syriopoulou-Delli and Gkiolnta 2020). The AT devices that can be used with this group of students have been divided into several categories: low-tech, mid- tech, and high-tech (Constantinescu 2015). The nonelectronic AT devices are known as low-tech, which are accessible and easy to adapt (Alkahtani 2013, Constantinescu 2015). The Mid-tech electronic devices are easy to use with students with disabilities and require little training. The complex high-tech devices are difficult to find, expensive, and require more training.

Despite research that indicates the importance of AT use, particularly among individuals who experience severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (Lancioni and Singh 2014, Almalki and Al-Harthi 2020, Khanlou et al. 2020), AT devices and services are used less frequently with this group of students (Ajuwon and Chitiyo 2016). Ajuwon and Chitiyo (2016) conducted a study to investigate teachers’ implementation of AT with students with disabilities in Nigeria. The researchers surveyed 165 teachers to explore their perspectives regarding AT use. Among other findings, teachers reported that among all students with different types of disabilities, the percentage of all students with Down syndrome and autism using AT was smaller than the AT-use percentage for any other category of student.

This lack of use may be due a variety of challenges faced by special education teachers and limit their students’ use of AT services and devices in the classroom. Studies have shown that AT devices and services are not used as much as they could be to assist students with disabilities in schools (Alkahtani 2013, Ajuwon and Chitiyo 2016, Al-Moghyrah 2017, Chukwuemeka and Dominic 2020), because certain barriers hinder special education teachers from using AT among their students with disabilities (Flanagan et al. 2013, Chambers et al. 2018). Flanagan et al. (2013) conducted a study to explore what special education teachers in middle school perceived as barriers that hinder their use of AT among students with disabilities. Among other findings, the most reported barrier that teachers perceived was the high cost of the AT devices and the lack of teacher training on AT.

Considerations regarding AT use

The provision of AT devices by itself cannot guarantee the intended benefit (Lancioni 2017). When using AT, a number of factors should be taken into consideration before, during, and after the implementation. One of the most significant considerations and initial steps is to plan for the AT in the IEP. Recently, Chambers et al. (2018) explored teachers' perspectives on the use of iPads in K-12 schools with students with disabilities. The study included 393 teachers and other professionals from the United States, UK, Canada, and Australia. About 33% of teachers reported the use of iPad was incorporated in the IEPs. The role of the IEP team members is critical for successful use of AT devices and services (Jones and Hinesmon-Matthews 2014).

The SETT framework provides detailed guidelines developed by Joy Zabala (1995) to assist IEP team members in selecting the most appropriate AT for students with disabilities based on four major areas: the students and their abilities to use AT, the environment and how it supports the use of AT, the tasks and how they will be done using AT tools, and finally the tools and how they improve students’ performance. Zabala (1995) indicated that IEP team members should carefully review and evaluate the student, the environment, and the tasks before they select the appropriate tools.

AT in Saudi Arabia

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), a number of studies have been conducted on several issues related to AT such as teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perspectives of AT use with students with disabilities (Alfaraj and Kuyini 2014, Al-Moghyrah 2017, Alsolmi 2017, Alharbi 2018, Almalki and Al-Harthi 2020). In the study conducted by Al-Moghyrah (2017) to explore teachers’ attitudes on AT, a total of 50 teachers from five inclusive schools were surveyed. Teachers indicated a lack of skills regarding AT use and a lack of time, support, and resources. These results suggest there is a need for more support for AT implementation in schools.

Most recently, Alharbi (2018) conducted a study to investigate AT knowledge among elementary teachers in inclusive schools. Findings from 346 participants indicated most of the teachers did not use AT with their students in schools. Alkahtani (2013) surveyed a total of 127 teachers and interviewed three to gather data on their knowledge, skills, and use of AT in their classrooms. Results revealed the majority of teachers (93.7%) did not use AT evaluation, approximately 94% did not consider the AT devices and services in their students’ Individual Education Plan (IEP), and about 91.3% of the participants reported that AT devices were not available in the schools. These results showed that there was a lack of AT use among the participants, as well as a lack of knowledge and skills.

Although the Saudi Arabian studies referred to above addressed important issues related to teachers’ attitudes, experience, and knowledge regarding AT use, they were conducted in inclusive schools of students with mild to moderate disabilities. There is generally a lack of research, however, regarding students with severe disabilities enrolled in special education institutes in the country, both in terms of how they are taught and, more specifically, the use of AT. Although students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities are in a great need of AT devices and services (Lancioni et al. 2012), there is little known about the use of AT among this group of students, particularly in special education institutes in Saudi Arabia. There is, therefore, a great need to study the use of AT with this group of students, including factors such as the types of AT used, considerations when selecting AT, and barriers from the standpoint of teachers.

Results of research on the use of AT with students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities in special education institutes from teachers’ standpoint will have a significant contribution to the fields of special education, AT, and severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Moreover, this study will provide teachers, researchers, educators, and decision-makers in the Department of Special Education in the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia with a better understanding of the current issues related to the use of AT and the challenges that hinder the use of AT in such institutes.

Research questions

This study was guided by the following questions:

• (1) How do teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities perceive their implementation of AT in special education institutes? The following two sub-questions help understand the factors that relate to AT use.

  1. What types of AT do teachers report using with their students and how frequently?

  1. What elements do teachers report considering when selecting AT?

• (2) How do teachers perceive the barriers to AT use with their students?

• (3) Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives of their implementation of AT (i.e., types and frequency of AT use, considerations, and barriers) based on

  1. their previous training experiences?

  1. their special education institutes?

Method

To get in-depth understanding of the issue being studied and a comprehensive picture of the nature of the AT use and the related aspects among teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities in special education institutes, both quantitative and qualitative research were utilized (Check and Schutt 2011, Creswell 2015). The research design was a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, an approach in which the researcher collects the data in two phases (Ivankova et al. 2006). The rationale used in selecting this method was that the first, quantitative, phase would provide data on AT use and relevant environmental variables. The second phase would then provide qualitative data that would help extend and explain the quantitative data (Creswell 2015). In the first phase, the researcher obtained quantitative data via an online survey questionnaire and then analysed the data. The second phase began with gathering qualitative data through semi-structured interviews and then analysing the qualitative data to elaborate and interpret the analysed quantitative data (Ivankova et al. 2006, Clark and Creswell 2008). The last step was integrating the quantitative and qualitative findings.

Population and participants

The target population of this study was special education teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities in special education institutes in Riyadh, KSA. In Riyadh, there are two institutes for males with 185 male teachers and two institutes for females with about 106 female teachers and 289 students in both institutes.

Sampling strategy and sample size

A purposeful snowball sampling strategy was employed to recruit teachers for this study (Creswell 2015, Patton 2015). Particularly in the second phase of the study, the researcher asked teachers to recommend other special education teachers to be interviewed. A number of teachers were also asked, during the first phase, to send the online survey questionnaire link to their colleagues, who meet the eligibility criteria for the study, in order to recruit as many teachers as possible. The criteria of eligibility included: (a) teachers who were working in one of the four special education institutes; (b) teachers had at least one full year experience in teaching students with disabilities in one of the four special education institutes; and (c) teachers had a certificate in special education.

The link for the online survey questionnaire was disseminated to all 291 teachers in the four institutes concerned. A total of 148 surveys were returned, with a response rate of 51%. In 56 surveys, only the demographics and a few other items were answered, and those surveys were therefore excluded. A total of 92 surveys were fully completed (N = 92). From the 92 teachers participated in the first phase, only 5 teachers responded to the second survey and were found eligible and willing to participate in the second phase.

Instrumentation

In this study, a self-administered online survey (Qualtrics) and online interviews (FaceTime) were utilized to gather data from teachers. The online survey consisted of items derived from a review of the literature and were designed to answer the research questions. The researcher used three categories of AT (low-tech, mid-tech, and high-tech) and defined them with examples on the first page of the survey. Additional examples were given each time the categories were mentioned. In regard to selecting AT for students, all items given in the survey questionnaire were suggested in the literature and recommended by the SETT framework.

The survey consisted of four sections as follows: (1) demographics, (2) the use of AT (types and frequency and elements when selecting AT), (3) the barriers to the use of AT, and (4) an open-ended question to write comments and provide more answers on any of the items and domains.

Data collection and analysis

First, the survey link was distributed to four teachers, who played the role of mediators and distributed it to all teachers in the four special education institutes using their WhatsApp groups. To collect the qualitative data, a link was included at the end of the survey that pointed to another survey, which asked teachers whether they would be willing to participate in a 30-to-45-minute online interview. The additional link was used to separate interviewees’ contact information from their survey and keep the surveys anonymous.

In the first stage, descriptive and inferential statistics (a two-sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance ‘ANOVA’) were employed to analyse the data gathered from the online survey. The data from the survey’s open-ended question were analysed using content analysis, and categories and sub-categories were created from the obtained data. In the study’s second phase, interview questions focused on outcomes from the first phase. The researcher used thematic analysis and coded the common themes and sub-themes in the transcribed interviews.

Results

With a view to gaining a better understanding of the teachers and their background, data were collected regarding their demographic information. Table 1 presents information regarding gender and teachers’ previous training on the use of AT. Table 2 demonstrates the sample from each institute.

Table 1.

Participants’ demographics.

Gender	Population	Sample	Percent of Total Population	Percent of Total Sample
Male	185	40	21.7	43.5
Female	106	52	49	56.5
Teachers’ previous training	Frequency	Percent
Yes	49	53.3
No	43	46.7
Total	92	100.0
Type of Training	Frequency	Percent
During College	7	7.6
Professional Development Programs	33	35.8
Self-Learning	20	21.7
None	43	46.7

Table 2.

Special education institutes.

Special Education Institute	Population	Sample	Percent	Percent of Total Sample
The Intellectual Education Institute for Boys in eastern Riyadh	110	18	16.3	19.6
The Intellectual Education Institute for Girls in eastern Riyadh	61	28	46	30.4
The Intellectual Education Institute for Boys in western Riyadh	75	22	29.3	23.9
The Intellectual Education Institute for Girls in western Riyadh	45	24	53.3	26.1
Total	291	92	31.6%	100.0

First phase: Quantitative analysis

AT use

What types of AT do teachers report using with their students and how frequently? In regard to the first item (low-tech), a majority of 59 teachers (64.1%) indicated they used low-tech almost every day. As presented in Table 3, 26 of the teachers – less than one third (28.3%) – reported that they used mid-tech 2 to 3 days a week. Finally, there was an obvious lack of high-tech use, as approximately half of the teachers (N = 44) indicated they never used it with their students. All means and standard deviations reported in Table 3 were computed from the total scores the teachers provided to each type of AT.

Table 3.

Teachers’ use of AT.

Taype of AT	Never (1)		1-2 days a week (2)		2-3 days a week (3)		3-4 days a week (4)		Almost everyday (5)		M	SD
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Low-Tech	2	2.2	4	4.3	12	13.0	15	16.3	59	64.1	4.36	1.01
Mid-Tech	4	4.3	24	26.1	26	28.3	19	20.7	19	20.7	3.27	1.19
High-Tech	44	47.8	25	27.7	14	15.2	5	5.4	4	4.3	1.91	1.11

Considerations

What elements do teachers report considering when selecting AT? As illustrated in Table 4, less than half of the teachers (47.8%) reported they always took each student's ability into consideration before selecting the appropriate AT. Approximately one third (37%) of teachers indicated that they never met with the IEP team members to discuss and select the appropriate AT for their students, while approximately 29% reported they did so rarely. All means and standard deviations reported in Table 4 were computed from the total scores the teachers provided to each item of the considerations' section.

Table 4.

Considerations of selecting AT.

Considerations	Never (1)		Rarely (2)		Sometimes (3)		Often (4)		Always (5)		M	SD
	n	%	n	%	n	n	n	%	n	%
I take into consideration each student's ability before selecting the AT	1	1.1	1	1.1	9	9.8	37	40.2	44	47.8	4.32	.78
I take into consideration each student's preferences before selecting the AT	0	00.0	7	7.6	20	21.7	40	43.5	25	27.2	3.9	.89
I take into consideration the availability of the AT in my institute before I decide what AT best suit my students.	6	6.5	5	5.4	17	18.5	1.13	39.1	28	30.4	3.81	1.12
I meet with the Individual Education Plan (IEP) team members to discusses and select the appropriate AT for my students	34	37.0	27	29.3	23	25.0	5	5.4	3	3.3	2.08	1.06
I decide myself what AT devices best suit my students	1	1.1	8	8.7	12	13.0	37	40.2	34	37.0	4.03	.97

Barriers

How do teachers perceive the barriers to the use of AT with their students? The majority of teachers (85.9%) either agreed or strongly agreed that the high cost of certain AT devices hindered them from using AT with their students. As illustrated in Table 5, approximately 77.2% of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that there was a lack of training on the use of AT. All means and standard deviations provided in the following table were computed from the total scores that teachers reported to each item of this section.

Table 5.

The barriers to AT use.

Barriers	Strongly disagree		Disagree		Neutral		Agree		Strongly agree
	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)		(5)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	M	SD
The high cost of some AT devices prevents me from using AT with students.	0	0.00	7	7.6	6	6.5	34	37.0	45	48.9	4.27		.89
There is a lack of funding on purchasing the needed AT devices.	1	1.1	1	1.1	5	5.4	36	39.1	49	53.3	4.42		.74
There is a lack of AT devices that I need to use.	2	2.2	14	15.2	7	7.6	37	40.2	32	34.8	3.90		1.10
There is a lack of teachers’ knowledge of using AT.	6	6.5	21	22.8	13	14.1	32	34.8	20	21.7	3.42		1.24
There is a lack of training in AT use	3	3.3	8	8.7	10	10.9	33	35.9	38	41.3	4.03		1.08
There is a lack of support for teachers in how to deal with AT devices in the classroom.	0	00.0	3	3.3	9	9.8	49	53.3	31	33.7	4.17		.73
Some of AT devices are too difficult for me to use.	7	7.6	24	26.1	31	33.7	22	23.9	8	8.7	3.00		1.08
Some of AT devices are too difficult and complex for my students to use.	0	00.0	29	31.5	20	21.7	27	29.3	16	17.4	3.32		1.10
I do not think that my students make an improvement by using AT.	50	54.3	32	34.8	6	6.5	1	1.1	3	3.3	1.64		.91
My students sometimes do dot prefer to use AT.	49	53.3	35	38.0	4	4.3	1	1.1	3	4.3	1.63		.88
There is a lack or no maintenance services for the AT devices in my institute.	4	4.3	5	5.4	13	14.1	44	47.8	26	28.3	3.90		1.02
Using AT in the classroom requires additional time and effort, which makes it difficult sometimes to use AT.	19	20.7	27	29.3	8	8.7	28	30.4	10	10.9	2.81		1.36

Training experiences

Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives on their implementation of AT (i.e. types and frequency of AT use, considerations, and barriers) based on their previous training experiences? A two-sample t-test was conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference between teachers’ previous training and their perspectives of their AT use, considerations, and barriers. As Table 1 demonstrates, a total of 49 teachers (53.3%) reported that they received training on the use of AT, while 43 teachers (46.7%) reported they did not receive any previous training.

AT use and teachers’ training. The results of the two-sample t-test demonstrated that the difference in teachers' use of AT with their students based on whether or not they had previous training was statistically significant – t = 2.85, p=.005 with a significance level of 0.05 – which indicated that p <.05 (Table 6). In other words, the findings indicated that teachers’ previous training experience in the use of AT had a statistical significant influence on AT use in the four institutes.

Table 6.

Two sample t-test of AT use, considerations, and barriers based on previous training.

Area	Previous Training on AT Use	N	M	SD	df	t	p
AT Use	Yes	49	10.18	2.15	90	2.853	.005
	No	43	8.84	2.38
AT Considerations	Yes	49	18.29	2.88	90	.380	.705
	No	43	18.07	2.52
Barriers	Yes	49	39.06	5.56	90	−2.429	.017
	No	43	42.30	7.21

Note. N = number, M = mean, SD = standard deviation.

Barriers and teachers’ training. The findings of the two-sample t-test indicated the difference in teachers' perspectives on the barriers to the use of AT based on whether they had previous training or not was statistically significant – t=-2.429, p=.017, which was p <.05 (Table 6). The results illustrated teachers with training experience reported fewer barriers than teachers without.

Considerations and teachers’ training. No statistical differences were found in teachers' perspectives on the considerations taken when selecting AT based on whether they had previous training or not (Table 6).

Special education institutes

Are there significant differences in teachers’ perspectives on their implementation of AT (i.e. types and frequency of AT use, considerations, and barriers) based on their special education institutes? In answering this question, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to test the significant differences.

AT use and special education institutes. The results of the one-way ANOVA showed that the differences between teachers' use of AT in the four institutes were statistically significant, as p<.05 (Table 7). Thus, a Tukey post hoc test was conducted to obtain further details about the differences in teachers' use of AT from all institutes. The findings indicated that the significant differences were between both boys’ institutes and both girls’ institutes, which means female teachers tended to make more use of AT.

Table 7.

One-way ANOVA of AT use, considerations, and barriers in the four institutes.

Area	Source	SS	df	MS	F	p
AT Use	Between Groups	136.78	3	45.59	11.024	.000
	Within Groups	363.95	88	4.13
AT Considerations	Between Groups	25.65	3	8.55	1.175	.324
	Within Groups	640.21	88	7.28
Barriers	Between Groups	105.45	3	35.15	.813	.490
	Within Groups	3805.02	88	43.24

Consideration, barriers, and special education institutes. No statistical differences were found in teachers' perspectives on the barriers and considerations taken when selecting AT based on the four special education institutes (Table 7).

Open-ended question

Of the 92 teachers, only 37% (n = 34) responded and added their comments. The following major categories were identified from responses:

1. Professional Development

2. Personal Devices

Each of these categories has sub-categories, as demonstrated in Tables 8 and 9. Surprisingly, a large number of comments revealed that female teachers tended to bring their own devices to the institutes and paid for the necessary maintenance.

Table 8.

Professional development.

Sub-categories	Criteria	Descriptions and Examples
Practical Knowledge	Comments about the type of professional development needed.	Some of the teachers indicated they preferred professional development to be focused more on the practical use of AT, rather than the form of lectures or presentations. Examples: ‘As teachers we need training on how to use AT not presentation on what AT is’ ‘I want to know how to design lessons’
Sustainability	Comments on how professional development should be provided.	Some of the teachers suggested that professional development should be provided regularly so that they could gain more benefit. Example: ‘I think once or twic training cources per a semester on the use of AT would be better for us’
High-tech	Refers to the types of AT specified by respondents.	Teachers reported there was a need for more professional development on the use of high-tech, since the focus of their training had been primarily on low-tech. Example: ‘I have attended two training courses so far, and there were so much information about using cards and pictures, new devices were not covered.’

Table 9.

Personal devices.

Sub-categories	Criteria	Explanations and Examples
Students’ Needs and Wants	Teachers bring their own devices.	Female teachers reported they brought their own laptops, iPhones, and iPads to the classrooms because they thought students were in need of such devices. Example: ‘some of the students learn better by playing games, and I had no choice other than bringing my devices to the classroom.’
Variety of options	The advantage of using personal devices.	Female teachers indicated that they had more options in the classrooms when they brought their own devices. Example: ‘when I bring them, I can use more teaching strategies.’
Cost	High cost of maintenance.	Teachers said they paid their own maintenance costs. Example: ‘I had to pay to fix my computer’

Second phase – qualitative: Findings and interpretations

After collecting and analysing the quantitative data, certain statistical results needed further clarification. In order to triangulate the data and to more fully understand and clarify those results, in-depth interviews were conducted with five teachers. The interviews consisted of four open-ended questions with sub-questions; further sub-questions were available based on interviewees’ answers. The following four major themes – together with several sub-themes – emerged: AT use, considerations, barriers, and professional development (see Table 10).

Table 10.

A summary of participants' responses.

Theme	Sub-themes	Comments and Examples
AT use	Personal devices	‘The laptop I am using in the classroom is mine, and I sometimes use my iPhone to teach my students in different ways to make them more active.’
	Sensory learning tools	Teachers indicated a shortage of sensory learning tools.
Considerations	Lack of planning	‘AT use is not a priority in IEP, at the end of the semester, we check the box of AT if we really used it.’
	Shortage of IEP team collaboration	Teachers reported a lack of collaboration among the IEP team members.
Barriers	Curriculum	‘We have been given a curriculum without the AT we need in order to deliver the curriculum and teach its’ lessons’
Professional development	Limited accessibility	Teachers pointed out that all the AT training courses were offered outside their institutes.
	Creativity	‘Training programs should promote the creativity in teachers.’

Use of AT

As previously discussed, the quantitative data revealed that there were statistical differences in the use of AT between the boys’ and girls’ institutes, as the two girls’ institutes reported higher use of AT. To address these differences in the use of AT through in-depth interviews, it was important to understand first how teachers use AT. First, teachers were asked to describe how they use AT with students. Personal devices and sensory learning tools emerged during the interviews.

Personal devices. During the interviews, teachers were asked whether they used their own devices or not and what motivated them to do so. All the female teachers indicated they used their own devices. Not surprisingly, all the teachers who stated in the open-ended question in the online survey that they used their own devices were females. One of them described, ‘The laptop I am using in the classroom is mine, and I sometimes use my iPhone to teach my students in different ways to make them more active.’ Unlike female teachers, male teachers indicated they never used their own devices in the classrooms. For example, one male teacher commented, ‘I often use my printer at home, if I need to, and print some papers for my students, but no, I do not use my devices and I never paid for any AT.’

This raised a significant question: Why is it only female teachers that pay for AT devices or use their own devices in the classrooms? First, when asked why they did not choose to use their own devices if they did not have any high-tech in the classroom, the male teachers replied that they did not have to. Furthermore, when the researcher asked them why they did not pay for AT if they did not have sufficient AT devices in the classrooms, they said there were two reasons. All three male teachers indicated that providing the necessary classroom equipment and supplies, including all types of AT, was the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. Another reason was as a male teacher described, ‘My salary barely covers the basic needs of my whole family and me.’ On the other hand, when the two female teachers were asked why they preferred to use their own devices in the classrooms, they indicated that there was no high-tech in their classrooms and their students always want to play and learn by using smartphones.

Sensory learning tools. Almost all teachers relied more on pictures, papers, and cards. However, some of them indicated there was a shortage of sensory learning tools although students with severe developmental disabilities needed to touch, hold, and play with tools in order to learn.

Considerations

Teachers identified several points regarding their selection of AT, and the following sub-themes emerged during the interviews: lack of planning and shortage of IEP team collaboration.

Lack of planning. Teachers acknowledged, in the IEP they only write whether they used AT or not. As one teacher stated, ‘AT use is not a priority in IEP, at the end of the semester, we check the box of AT if we really used it.’ Another teacher said, ‘We have to use a certain IEP form, and that form does not require us to plan or explain how or why we use AT with our students.’

Shortage of IEP team collaboration. All teachers indicated that they did not collaborate with their colleagues with regard to planning and implementing AT in the classroom. However, some teachers indicated they sometimes shared their experiences of AT use with other teachers and benefited from each other’s experiences.

Barriers

Curriculum. Teachers indicated that the curriculum was one of the barriers that limited their use of AT with their students. They reported, they were given a certain curriculum, whose goals and teaching strategies they had to follow. As one teacher described,

We have been given a curriculum without the AT we need in order to deliver the curriculum and teach its’ lessons…I cannot use the traditional teaching strategy, I mean the lecture, with my students, they will never learn that way, there should be AT, especially for the group of students I teach.

As the teachers acknowledged, all students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities in KSA were given the same curriculum for each grade level. As a result, teachers indicated they started adapting the curriculum and adding the necessary goals, strategies, and tools to be able to teach students in an appropriate manner.

Professional development

Teachers mentioned various aspects and issues related to their experiences in professional development and what they needed as part of their professional development. Two sub-themes emerged under professional development: limited accessibility and creativity.

Limited accessibility. Teachers indicated all the AT training courses were offered outside their institutes. Moreover, these training courses were usually held during the school day. They claimed it was not easy to register for such courses due to considerations relating to time, cost, and location.

Creativity. Teachers indicated that most of the training sessions were lectures or presentations rather than training as such. They acknowledged that they needed to learn something new and creative in the training courses. One teacher said, ‘Training programs should promote the creativity in teachers.’

Discussion

The use of AT

Notably, teachers’ use of high-tech with students seems to be most lacking. Not surprisingly, other studies have also shown that high-tech is the type of AT used least often by special education teachers (Flanagan et al. 2013, Chukwuemeka and Dominic 2020). This shortage of AT use is consistent with other findings. Alharbi (2018) and Alkahtani (2013), have explored teachers’ use of AT in inclusive schools, and among other findings the two studies revealed that most of the special education teachers reported that they did not often use AT with their students, and furthermore, students with disabilities rarely even had access to AT devices in their schools. However, unlike the studies mentioned above, the current study was able to determine the reason for the lack of AT usage. The results indicated that the explanation for this lack of AT usage in the four special education institutes was due to the severe shortage of funding, which, in turn, led to a paucity of high-tech devices.

Consideration

The outcomes concerning the elements teachers took into consideration and their collaboration with colleagues to select and use AT for students demonstrated that teachers lacked preparation, collaboration, and planning for AT use in their students’ IEPs. This mirrored previous findings. Chambers et al. (2018) found that only 33% of teachers and other professionals included the use of iPad in their students’ IEPs. However, the lack of collaboration among IEP team members may explain the absence of using SETT framework as a strategy for selecting and using AT. Therefore, IEP team members' collaboration might open the door for appropriate AT selection and then effective AT usage with students in the future.

The barriers to the use of AT

The most striking and surprising barrier to emerge from the data was the curriculum. In Saudi Arabia, there is one curriculum for each subject per grade school level in special education. For instance, all students with intellectual disabilities in the first grade in Saudi Arabia have the same curriculum. Teachers indicated the way that the curriculum is designed and its goals did not serve the use of AT. This barrier has not been evident in the current literature; there might be reasons for this. Most of the studies on AT in KSA that have aimed to examine teachers’ use of AT have been primarily quantitative. Using a survey questionnaire could either prove or disprove the barriers found in the literature. Furthermore, interviews enable researchers to gather information and to interpret what teachers actually experience in their classrooms. Another possible reason that might explain why this, curriculum, barrier has not been evident in the literature is that this barrier might be more evident among students with severe disabilities due to the severity of the disability of this group of students (Lancioni et al. 2012) and the great challenges faced by teachers when teaching them (Jones et al. 2015).

Training and AT use

It was certainly disappointing to discover that only 53% of teachers who participated in this study received previous training in AT. However, the significant difference between AT use and previous training was examined. The results indicated that teachers’ previous training experience in the use of AT had a statistical significant influence on AT use in the four institutes. Furthermore, teachers with training on the use of AT faced fewer barriers than their colleagues without previous training. Similarly, professional development for AT usage has been linked to teachers’ use of AT (Jacobsen 2012, Flanagan et al. 2013, Constantinescu 2015, Ajuwon and Chitiyo 2016, Nordström et al. 2019). This implies that providing teachers with the necessary professional development may increase the use of AT and may, moreover, decrease the barriers faced when they implement AT.

Cultural factors and AT use in special education institutes

Surprisingly, cultural factors were found to influence the use of AT in classrooms. In the quantitative phase of this research, the results showed that teachers in special education institutes for girls reported a higher AT use than in the institutes for boys. In the interviews, interpretations and explanations were provided by teachers as to why there were differences and how these differences manifested.

Female teachers acknowledged that they had purchased new ATs for their students, had used their own devices in the classrooms, and had also paid a substantial amount of money for the maintenance of these devices. In contrast, male teachers did not indicate that they had ever used their own devices for teaching purposes with their students in the classrooms. This is possibly due to the fact that in Saudi Arabia, men, unlike women, are responsible for their family households. Women, based on the law, religion and culture, are not required to pay for their living costs, regardless of their income. This implies that Saudi male teachers have more financial responsibilities. This might allow female teachers to be more generous in providing AT devices for their students and in paying for maintenance costs. These findings could explain why female teachers reported a higher use of AT than male teachers in the four special education institutes.

Limitations of the study

There were two limitations to this study. The first limitation was related to the sample size of the first quantitative phase. The response rate was relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the study’s outcomes. Another limitation was related to recruiting teachers for interviews. The researcher could not visit the special education institutes and recruit teachers; therefore a link was used for recruitment of teachers at the end of each questionnaire and teachers were asked to recommend other special education teachers to be interviewed. This purposeful snowball sampling strategy resulted to having 5 teachers with only one female teacher with a previous training where more female teachers were needed to better understand their previous training on AT and how it influenced their actual use of AT.

Implications

The findings of this study suggest several ways for improving AT use among teachers. First, the results show the significance of professional development in teachers’ use of AT and how it could increase the level of use among teachers who had previous training on AT use. Other studies have demonstrated that the absence of professional development on AT use may lead to teachers being limited in their ability to use AT successfully and effectively (Jacobsen 2012, Flanagan et al. 2013, Constantinescu 2015, Ajuwon and Chitiyo 2016). Thus, it is highly recommended that teachers attend more training programs/courses on AT, especially those teachers who have not had a chance to attend any training program before.

Another way for increasing the level of AT use entails collaboration and IEP planning. Zabala (1995) has suggested that teachers should always plan and consider the students’ use of AT in their IEPs. The outcomes of the current study revealed a shortage of AT planning in students’ IEP. It is challenging to use AT with students without planning and without any collective decision- making. Taking account of students’ use of AT in their IEPs plays a critical role in implementing it accurately and effectively (Jones and Hinesmon-Matthews 2014). Thus, it is important that teachers include more details on the use of AT in students’ IEP and that they collaborate with each other in order to increase the level and the effectiveness of AT use.

The outcomes of the current study indicate that approaching the problem of the current study through utilizing a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach is beneficial for addressing the issue studied. By employing this mixed methods approach, the interpretations of the quantitative results justified the significant differences in teachers’ use of AT and further explained the barriers encountered by teachers.

Recommendations for future research

According to the outcomes of this study, the recommendations for future research on AT use among teachers of students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities in Saudi Arabia are as follows.

Professional development

The findings of this study revealed a shortage of professional development among special education teachers regarding the use of AT. Moreover, the literature on professional development on using AT in KSA is lacking; hence, either quantitative or qualitative research studies could be conducted to further explore the reasons for the shortage of this professional development. Such studies will be advantageous in the light of absence of professional development on AT. Outcomes may contribute to further understanding of obstacles to professional development and teachers' needs regarding knowledge and skills of AT.

Teacher collaboration

The shortage of collaboration among teachers was one of the major barriers that limited teachers’ planning for AT use in students’ IEP. Thus, other studies could investigate the factors behind this lack of collaboration in terms of planning for AT use with students. Results will be important in order to understand how to enhance collaboration and team-based decision-making among teachers regarding using AT with students with disabilities.

Curriculum

In the second phase of the study, teachers acknowledged that the curriculum they were given for students with disabilities is not appropriate for AT use. Further research should be conducted to provide a better understanding of the relationship between the curriculum and the use of AT with students with disabilities in KSA. Investigating how curriculum affects AT usage among students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities may contribute to understanding how to effectively use AT with this group of students in the light of the current curriculum. Moreover, results could provide insights into how and why the current curriculum is not appropriate for AT usage with this group of students as teachers indicated in this study.

Conclusion

Although the response rate in this study was relatively low and did not represent every teacher in the four special education institutes, the quantitative and qualitative data gathered in the two phases were sufficient to describe, interpret, and understand teachers' perspectives of AT use with students. To sum up all those findings, the evidence from this study suggests that teachers face ongoing challenges associated with curriculum, training, and financial support. These challenges play a significant role in limiting teachers' use of AT with students with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. Therefore, the outcomes reveal the necessity of professional development for teachers, an increase in financial support, and provision of appropriate curriculum for successfully using AT in classrooms.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.