Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As society has gotten increasingly digitalized, schools have made extensive efforts to accommodate to that development. With the digitalization of school, the special education practice and the roles of special education needs coordinators (SENCOs) and special education teachers (SETs) change. However, there is a lack of research examining this transformation, a gap which this exploratory study opens up for new understandings of. This mixed method study explores the special education practice in a municipality in Sweden, one of the most digitalized countries in the world. The findings show that SENCOs and SETs have highly positive beliefs about digital tools in special education, but at the same time their frequency of use varies greatly. Also, the study identifies special educational activities engaging with digital technology, describing a work practice with complex expectations of the special education professionals also in the area of digital teaching and learning. Furthermore, the competencies considered as necessary for handling the expectations are discussed.

Keywords

digitalization pandemic education special education needs coordinator special education teacher Sweden

Digital technologies (e.g. electronic tools, systems, devices and resources) are integrated today in life in almost every part of the world (Voogt, Knezek, Christensen, & Lai, 2018). To accommodate and adapt to this transformation, schools and educational institutions throughout the world have made extensive efforts to become increasingly digitalized in terms of introducing and using computers, tablets, computer-assisted instruction and games for learning purposes (OECD, 2019), and digital technology for educational purposes has in general become more available to teachers and students (Ross, 2020). Several arguments about the effects of this transformation have been published stating that schools have undergone a change that challenges the idea of what kind of knowledge and competence is considered important as well as the traditional ways of teaching and learning (Bates, 2019; Fischer, Lundin, & Lindberg, 2020; Lund & Aagaard, 2020; Sharma, 2018).

This development is also true in Sweden, one of the most digitalized countries in the world (International Institute for Management Development, 2021; MORI, 2019), and the current access, amount, and standard of digital technology is high in Swedish education (MORI, 2019; Wastiau et al., 2013). However, the amount of digital technology says very little about a school system’s degree of digitalization given that digitalization is more connected to the use of and competence to implement technology adequately in educational practice for learning (Klaassen & Löwstedt, 2020; Siljebo, 2020). Therefore, access to digital technology is an important precondition for digitalization but not a guarantee.

Special education has a unique and complex role in school, with responsibilities that require specialized and general competencies (Fitzgerald & Radford, 2020; Hallett & Hallett, 2010). Scholars have made thorough efforts to conceptualize this role (e.g., Fitzgerald & Radford, 2020; Hornby, 2015; Richards, 2019), but most works lack an explicit analysis of special education’s role in the digitalized schools, strengthening arguments that the digital transformation of work practice in special education is sparsely researched (Anderson & Putman, 2019). Special education needs coordinators (SENCOs) and special education teachers (SETs) have argued that special education has been an area of knowledge and practice in transformation for a long time (Wedell, 2018). Regarding digitalization, the discrepancy between the opportunities that digital technology can offer students with learning difficulties and disabilities and the teaching–learning situation they may face in school is an example of interprofessional discussions based on experiences from the field (Wedell, 2013).

The Digitalization of the Swedish School

The first nationwide governmental initiative to digitalize the Swedish school system occurred in the late 1960s and focused on including computers in education as working tools and an area of knowledge. Since then, numerous large- and small-scale projects have been initiated, implemented, and completed (Fransson et al., 2018; Gu & Lindberg, 2021; Karlsohn, 2009) with the goal of digitalizing the Swedish school system. One of the latest policy initiatives within this context, the National Digitalization Strategy for the School System (Swedish Ministry of Education, 2017), declares that the aim is for Sweden to become the world-leading nation in taking advantage of the opportunities that digital technology brings. This statement emphasizes the advantage of appropriate use of digital technology in school but has proven difficult to realize and put into practice (Gu, 2022; Olofsson, Fransson, & Lindberg, 2019; Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, 2019).

With the implementation of ICT and digital technologies in education, the issue of ‘the digital divide’ has emerged. This concept has earlier been limited to the access of ICT and has been related to factors such as socio-economy, gender, age, demography and disabilities (Lebens, Graff, & Mayer, 2009). However, even though the ‘access divide’ in most European countries has been bridged, the divide regarding ICT skills and usage seems to remain (Van Dijk, 2020). Studies have shown that the digital divide regarding ICT skills and usage still remains for students in need of special support compared to peers without special needs (e.g.Wu et al., 2014) and that diminishing this divide would enhance the learning opportunities for this group of students (Courduff, Szapkiw, & Wendt, 2016; Deschaine, 2018; Olakanmi, Akcayir, Ishola, & Demmans Epp, 2020; Roberts-Yates & Silvera-Tawil, 2019).

Special Education in Sweden

There are two professions dedicated to caring for special education needs in the Swedish school system: SENCOs and SETs. In short, the SET is supposed to work with students in need of special support/with disabilities, either at the individual or group level, and the SENCO mainly is supposed to work as a consultant to regular and special education teachers at the organisational level (Brodin & Lindstrand, 2003a). However, research has shown that the division of labour between the two professions is not as clear as policy states (Göransson, indqvist, Klang, Magnusson, & Nilholm, 2015; Göransson, Lindqvist, Möllås, Almqvist, & Nilholm, 2016; Klang, Möllås, Gustafson, & Göransson, 2017; von Ahlefeld Nisser, 2014), possibly because of the rather complicated history of the special education roles in Sweden.

Since the introduction of the in-service training for SETs back in 1962, various names for the special education professions have been launched and withdrawn, and the terms “SENCO” and “SET” have at times coexisted and at other times have been used alternately. Currently, SENCOs and SETs coexist in the Swedish educational system, but the ambiguous history has resulted in a tangled and overlapping distinction between the two roles’ responsibilities, so the work that SENCOs and SETs are assigned are often similar (Göransson et al., 2016; Klang et al., 2017). This overlap is also notable in many policies and guiding documents in which SENCOs and SETs often are treated as a unit with the same directives. Also, internationally, the special education role is described as metamorphosed and paradigm-shifted, moving from a focus on supporting learners to strategic leadership (Cowne, Frankl, & Gerschel, 2018; Ekins, 2015; Middleton & Kay, 2021), situating the SENCO in a complex and erratic role (Kearns, 2005; Lin, Grudnoff, & Hill, 2021).

The SENCOs and SETs are expected to provide specialist knowledge within the school organisation (Fitzgerald & Radford, 2020). In Sweden, the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (NASNES) functions as consultants when formulating policy and interpreting and implementing policy in special education practice. Examples of the latter are the recommendations for the roles that SENCOs and SETs should play in the process of a school’s digitalization. NASNES (2020) suggested that SENCOs and SETs function as (a) educators of teachers and students in the use of software and methods that support students with disabilities, (b) qualified interlocutors/sounding boards for school leaders and colleagues, and (c) key people in the work with digital learning and special education.

Thus, the special education professionals are facing new expectations regarding their responsibilities as school is more digitalized. Similar expectations have historically proven hard to meet, even with targeted and funded training initiatives (Brodin & Lindstrand, 2003b). Therefore, there is a great need for research on how to expand the understanding of this transformation of work practice and how this work practice may affect the way special education is enacted in increasingly digitalized schools.

This article examines Swedish special education professionals’ experiences of using digital tools in special education activities. With the digitalization of society at large and the school system more specifically, the aim is to contribute knowledge about the transformed conditions in the special education professions. To that end, this article provides an initial understanding of the special education work practice in a digitalized school. The study was guided by the following research question:

• To what extent and with what motives do SENCOs and SETs use digital tools in special education activities, and what are the specific special education activities in which SENCOs and SETs engage with digital technologies?

Method

This exploratory study was conducted in 2020/2021, when the COVID-19 pandemic periodically caused school lockdowns, often with digital learning as a solution (Börnert-Ringleb, Casale, & Hillenbrand, 2021; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021) and thus a time of assumably increased use of digital technology in education. The study was conducted in collaboration with the municipality’s school strategists for digital learning in a medium sized municipality in Sweden, asking for an overview of how frequently the digital tools the employer provided were used. Early analyses of the survey raised new questions of interest. To that end, three in-depth interviews were conducted. In-depth interviews are characterized by smaller samples, making deeper analysis possible. Thus, the intention was to gain authentic insights into the informants’ experiences (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006), opening new entrances to a field with very limited previous research. Given the scope of the study, the guidelines of the University Ethical Review Board was consulted and ahead of survey distribution it was decided that no approval was needed.

Data Sources

The digital survey with multiple choice answers was constructed in collaboration between the author and the digital strategists and was distributed to the SENCOs/SETs via the municipality’s special education networks which might explain the, for web surveys, relatively high response rate (55%). The motive for employing this method was to reach the participants quickly and easily. The survey was responded anonymously, and no incentives were offered. The questions focused on 12 digital tools that the employer purchased and provided to all employees and students in the municipality. These tools were considered a basic supply of tools useful in most contexts. For each question about frequency of use, a follow-up question about the motive for using or not using the tool was asked, see example in Table 1.

Table 1.

Example of Survey Questions about Digital Tools in Special Education Practice.

Question	I don’t know what it is, %	Never, %	Once a semester, %	Once a month, %	Once a week, %	Almost daily, %	No answer/Invalid, %
2a) In average, how often do you use Google Classroom in your work practice?	2.8	33.3	13.9	13.9	19.4	13.9	2.8
	I don’t know what it is, %	I lack knowledge, %	I don’t see the purpose with it	I am obligated to use it	It is a good or necessary tool		No answer/Invalid
2b) Why do use Google Classroom to the extent stated in the previous question?	2.8	13.9	8.3	2.8	50		22.2

The semi structured interviews were guided by questions related to digital features in special education practice (see Figure 1). The COVID-19 pandemic was not included as a theme in the interview guide, but since all the informants talked about this subject at some point in the interview, the semi structured approach allowed for follow-up questions to expand on their experiences of the pandemic solutions. Because of COVID-19, the interviews were conducted by phone, and with permission, recorded and stored on Umeå University’s digital platform for safe file storage. The author conducted and transcribed the interviews, and analysed them using Nvivo (QSR International).

Figure 1.

Interview guide.

Participants

At the time of the survey distribution, the municipality special education network consisted of 66 SENCOs/SETs defined as the survey population. Out of those 66 possible recipients, 36 answered the survey giving a response rate of 55%, distributed as Table 2 shows.

Table 2.

Distribution of Survey Participants.

School years	SENCOs	SETs	Total
1–3	7	9	16 (44%)
4–6	4	4	8 (22%)
7–9	2	4	6 (17%)
Upper secondary (10–12)	5	1	6 (17%)
	n = 18	n = 18	n = 36

The three interview participants were recruited from the survey participants. The argument for the small sample of interviews was that all three described the same activities in which they engaged with digital technologies, which provided a solid ground for the purpose of indicating what the special education practice in a digitalized school can be. Table 3 lists the profession-related characteristics of the interviewees, all females. To present the results without revealing any personal information, each participant was given an alias.

Table 3.

Descriptions of Interview Participants.

	“Ann”	“Beth”	“Carol”
Special education diploma	SENCO	SENCO	SET
Year of exam	2015	2013	2013
Current employment	Upper secondary	7–9	Upper secondary
Years of work experience	5	7	7

Analysis of the Survey

In the analysis of the survey, the 12 digital tools were classified into four categories (Table 4). The categories are inspired by and expand on previous work by researchers such as Berg et al., 2001; Research for Action 2020; Rubeneet al., 2021, customized to fit special education purposes. By going from the specific digital tool to categories of digital tools, the results are possible to compare with those from other cases or municipalities that use different tools but for the same purposes.

Table 4.

Descriptions of Included Tools Per Category.

Category	Description of included digital tools
Tools for Production	Tools for creating texts, presentations, spreadsheets, audio, video, and/or graphics. Digitalized teaching materials/assignments in which students produce assessable products
Tools for Learning Management	Digital learning management systems for information and communication between school leaders, teachers, students, caretakers, etc. Platforms for creating, distributing, sharing, and grading student assignments
Compensatory Tools	Plugin programs aiding with spelling and grammar in writing. Tools offering speech synthesis to help in reading. Tools and websites providing books/texts for listening. Software for symbol-supported literacy. Tools for transforming speech into text
Tools for Skill Training	Tools for training specific skills, such as linguistic abilities (phonological skills, syllables, vocabulary, etc.) or mathematical abilities (arithmetic methods, mathematical units, number perception, etc.)

Categories of Digital Tools in Special Education Activities

The framework for presenting and analysing the survey results of this study includes four areas of activities in which digital technology can be used for special education purposes. Table 4 presents a summative description of the tools included in each category.

Tools for student production

A common way of mediating thoughts, knowledge, and learning in school is for the student to produce an assessable product (e.g., a text, speech, presentation, or video). Therefore, using digital tools to produce material connected to school assignments is a common task for all students, including students in need of special support. SENCOs’/SETs’ function with this category of tools is to teach teachers and students how and when to use them and when not to use them (NASNES, 2020).

Tools for learning management

In this category of tools, SENCOs/SETs can post and take part in information and communication within the organisation. Test results, grades, students’ progress, individualized educational plans, and special support action programmes—important information for SENCOs and SETs to be involved with and have access to—are digitally documented in the learning management system. Also, having insight into and influence on teachers’ digital classrooms is a way of keeping an eagle-eye perspective on the teaching and learning going on at the school.

Compensatory tools

A compensatory tool can be described as an “educational and technological tool which replaces or facilitates performance required in the deficient ability” (Della Volpe, 2016). Therefore, these tools are meant to compensate for lack of abilities or knowledge, making education more equal, accessible, and inclusive. One of the responsibilities for SENCOs/SETs is to be key figures in creating an inclusive educational school environment (Curran & Boddison, 2021), and digital tools have proven abilities to achieve this goal (Ok & Rao, 2019; Roberts-Yates & Silvera-Tawil, 2019; Sorensen & Andersen, 2017).

Tools for skill training

Digital tools for skill training are meant to improve specific skills or content knowledge. For a student in need of special support, the process of learning a skill may require extended time, adapted instructions, specially designed materials, and/or more repetitions than their peers (Rodgers, Weiss, & Ismail, 2021). Regarding the work of SENCOs and SETs, this category of tools is applicable when students are identified as in need of strengthening a certain skill or falling behind in areas of specific content knowledge (Ciampa, 2017; Cozad & Riccomini, 2016; Florian, 2004; Stultz, 2017).

Thematic Analysis of Interviews

The interview data was analysed using thematic analysis, which is a flexible method for identifying, analysing, and reporting data patterns in qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In contrast to other closely related analytic methods, such as discourse analysis and grounded theory, thematic analysis is not bound to a specific theoretical tradition and therefore offers a more accessible form of analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The framework for data analysis in this article has the characteristics of what Braun Clarke, Hayfield, and Terry (2019) described as a reflexive thematic analysis. The word “reflexive” refers to the researcher’s active role in identifying themes or patterns within a data set. This process is guided by the research questions, the goal of reflecting the participants’ expressions of reality/experiences, and the researcher’s preunderstandings of the subject area, with the aim to provide a coherent interpretation grounded in the data (Braun et al., 2019). In this tradition of qualitative analysis, the importance of a theme is not dependent on quantitative measures but on its contribution and significance to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Based on Braun and Clarke’s (2006, p. 87–92) purposed phases of TA, the author reflexively engaged with the data using an inductive approach when repeatedly close-reading the transcriptions. In this school of TA, a code is conceptualized as an analytical unit capturing at least one observation, whereas a theme captures multiple observations (Braun & Clarke, 2021). 22 codes were collated into seven sub-themes generating two final themes: Special educational activities engaging with digital technologies and Digital competencies for special education (see example in Table 5). The themes, subthemes and codes were discussed with two other researchers to strengthen the process towards a trustworthy analysis.

Table 5.

Example of the Analysis Process.

Theme	Subtheme	Codes	Quotes
Special education activities engaging with digital technologies	Teaching students in need of special support	Teaching; planning; providing student support	“It is really a lot of digital tools that I use with students, so if we’re going to talk about that we will have to talk for a really long time” “then we have all the digital teaching materials that we use in different courses” “since I also teach, I work with students ‘hands-on’ to teach them how a digital tool can help”

Results

The characteristics of a small-scale study include limited opportunities for generalizations. Therefore, the results can be read as an entry to new understandings, an entry that can highlight aspects for future research to expand the study and further investigate its premises. As Crouch and McKenzie (2006) pointed out, the nature of exploratory studies is to indicate rather than conclude and to formulate rather than verify propositions.

The Extent and Motives of Using Digital Tools in Special Education, and Special Education Activities in which SENCOs and SETs Engage with Digital Technologies

The survey examined two aspects of digital tools in special education practice: how often they are used and the motives for using or not using them. Starting with how often, Figure 2 shows that the most common answer regarding use of the digital tools in the categories “Production” and “Learning Management” was “never.” Compensatory tools were a bit more frequently used, with eight respondents each reporting frequency of use as “never,” “once a semester,” or “once a month” whereas tools for skill training was the most used category of tools, with “once a week” being the most common response. In total, the survey results show that non-use of digital tools was the most common answer and weekly use of digital tools the second most common.

Figure 2.

Frequency of use of digital tools in special education practice. Note. n = 36.

Regarding the motives for using the digital tools, the survey results show highly positive beliefs for all categories of tools (see Figure 3). Most SENCOs/SETs answered that the tool in question was a good or necessary tool for their practice, even if they did not use it themselves. The tools for skill training were the most positively perceived. The most common reason for not using a tool was lack of knowledge. In addition, seven SENCOs/SETs reported not knowing what the tool in question was, which could also be interpreted as a lack of knowledge.

Figure 3.

Motives for using digital tools in special education practice. Note. n = 36.

To summarize, the survey shows that (a) the SENCOs/SETs believed that the majority of the digital tools included in the survey were good/necessary for special education activities, (b) there were large differences in how often digital tools were used in special education activities, and (c) the most common motive for not using a digital tool was lack of knowledge. These results was strengthened by the interviews as the informants mostly expressed positive experiences of using digital tools in their work practice, believing that use of digital tools often enhances special education. However, some work assignments connected to digital tools, further elaborated below, were experienced more negatively. The interviews also showed differences between the informants self-assessed knowledge about digital tools, which affected how often and with what confidence they worked with digital tools.

Special Educational Activities Engaging with Digital Technology

In the analysis of the interviews, several special educational activities engaging with digital tools were identified, further elaborated below.

Applying and using digital tools in teaching students in need of special support

All informants mentioned applying and using digital tools in teaching students in need of special support either individually or in groups, as a common situation. However, the interviews revealed a wide variation in the experiences of using digital tools in teaching students in need of special support. Beth said that when working with students, she uses digital tools to a large degree whereas Ann said that because of limited access, she barely uses digital tools at the student level. Beth stated that “It is really a lot of digital tools that I use with students, so if we’re going to talk about that, we will have to talk for a very long time.” Similarly, Ann said, “With the students, we don’t really have that many digital tools, so there are not a lot of tools to use.” Note that both informants are working in the same municipality; therefore, they have access to the same number of centrally provided digital tools represented in the survey.

Although all the participants stated this activity was a part of their work practice, they described differently their experiences using digital tools when working with special needs teaching. Beth talked about this practice in very positive words, stating that using digital tools helps the students express their knowledge, and she focused on the possibilities that digital tools provide, such as symbol support, easier text adjustments, and text-to-speech, all of which make school more inclusive. Carol mentioned shortcomings and possibilities with digital tools that she had experienced in working with students in need of special support. Examples of shortcomings were experiences of text-to-speech applications not being good enough and the belief that some students in need of special support were “not coping with the digital environments in general.” Ann mostly talked about her lack of experience in using digital tools in teaching, stating that even though the number of digital tools has increased, it does not help if they are not being used.

Teaching and advising teachers in how to apply and use digital tools in teaching

In alignment with the guidelines of the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools (2020), the informants mentioned teaching and advising teachers how to use digital tools as a work assignment that they all practice continuously, either in group counselling or individual guidance. But although they feel reasonably confident in educating teachers about subjects such as inclusive pedagogy and improving learning environments, some informants said that educating and counselling teachers about digital tools is far more difficult. Carol explained that she is “not a professional when it comes to either computers or iPads, I’m an amateur”; therefore, she experienced this assignment as problematic. Lack of knowledge in this area of expertise is said to affect the ability to advise teachers on applying and using digital tools in teaching: “Since I do not have that much knowledge nor received any professional development about it [digital tools], it is difficult to teach others. I have so few tools in my toolbox” (Ann).

During the interviews, a frustration about this part of their job was obvious among two of the informants. When asked to elaborate on this issue, they described an organisational restructuring in the municipality a couple of years ago where this work assignment “suddenly landed on their desks” (Carol). Beforehand, specific IT-educators available in every school district mainly advised teachers about digital technology. With the restructuring, the number of IT-educators decreased, and they were relocated to the municipality’s head office. Now schools must apply for them to come and teach staff about technology, which seems to have led to a shift where SENCOs and SETs are expected to fill in for the absent IT-educators. Beth provided one example of this shift, stating, “Discovering applications and functions and making sure that all teachers and students feel comfortable using them” is a regular special education activity for her.

Being involved and influential in the School’s organisational decisions about digital technology

Being involved and influential in the school’s organisational decisions about digital technology was something that the informants expressed, which aligns with the National Agency for Special Needs Education and Schools’ guidelines for SENCOs/SETs role in schools’ digitalization (2020). The interviewees described this task as a part of a supportive role to the school leaders in a variety of educational matters, including decisions about digital technology. Ann described meetings with the school leader in which they discussed topics such as what hardware/software to invest in and how to organize and allocate the digital resources within the school. As she was expected to have an eagle-eye perspective on the school’s overall educational quality, she expressed having an important role in these discussions. In that sense, digital tools were considered a part of the school’s learning environments, which is an area of special education expertise. Beth provided another example of being influential in the organisations’ digital strategies, stating that she helps formulate and evaluate local plans and strategies, such as the school’s ICT strategy and the various school development plans.

However, on the wider organisational and municipality levels, the interviewees experienced having very limited influence on decisions about digital tools, such as decisions about which tools are being bought centrally and available to use for everyone within the municipality’s school system. This lack of influence sometimes results in implementation of digital tools that cause obstacles for students in need of special support:

Many of the students with special needs, in particular those with difficulties concentrating, experience great problems orienting themselves in the digital environment because it is often designed with icons that they may not always be able to interpret and there are submenus with an endless number of layers. They can’t bear it! Therefore, I wish that they took assistance from special education competence when deciding which tools to buy. (Carol)

Beth also addressed the same problem and wished for involvement in the municipality’s decisions about which digital tools to invest in, arguing that a special education perspective would be beneficial in these decisions. She suggested involving SENCOs and SETs to try out, assess, and discuss tools with colleagues before they are bought for the whole municipality.

Providing software support for teachers and students

With an increased amount and implementation of digital technology in education comes an increased number of problems and holdbacks related to digital technology, sometimes caused by the technology itself and other times caused by its users (cf. Anderson, Griffith, & Crawford, 2017). Nevertheless, when problems with digital technology occur in teaching and learning, a quick solution is desired. According to the interviews, this quick solution sometimes was expected from the SENCO or the SET.

As aforementioned, the IT-educators in this municipality had been relocated, distanced from the everyday school practice. This problem came up as the reason the SENCOs/SETs sometimes were expected to solve software issues that needed quick solutions. Carol believed that the time it took for a teacher or a student to call and get help from an IT-educator was an issue that could be solved more quickly by asking the present and nearby SENCO or SET. Beth explained that because problems with digital technology are constant, she had been involved in creating some IT support folders for the most commonly used digital tools at the school, which both teachers and students could search for tips and tricks as well as solutions to common issues. They did not mention this part of their job as something troublesome or difficult but rather as an example of ordinary work assignments connected to digital tools that could arise during the day.

Providing special needs support online

The COVID-19 pandemic led to many changes for educational systems throughout the world, mainly due to lockdowns of the physical school buildings (Reimers et al., 2020). Suddenly, the students and SENCOs/SETs were working from home but with the same expectations of ongoing teaching, learning, and support. Not surprisingly, the results from the interviews show that the pandemic solutions seem to have entailed an increase in the use of digital technology in special education practice. Notably, the aforementioned survey was administered during this period of increased digitalization.

At the time of the interviews, the informants had experienced positive and negative aspects of schooling online. Carol said that she was reaching students who were previously hard to reach, and she believed that the lessons learned from online teaching and support will help make post pandemic special education better than before:

With the stay-at-home students, either because of long-term illness or school anxiety of some kind, I believe it has gotten a lot easier for us to communicate and give special needs support via video conversations using computers. I believe this wouldn’t have been possible if not for the pandemic.

Beth created her own Google Classroom for giving lessons and online support to students in need. During these online sessions, she broadcasted from her home office using whiteboards, textbooks, and other analogue materials as well as several digital tools while communicating with the students. Given the circumstances, this was a functional way of providing special needs support from the SENCO’s point of view although she stated that the regular special education practice was preferred. But if a student for some reason is home schooling and needs online support, the pandemic has equipped her with tools to better handle that situation in the future. Ann appreciated the increased opportunity for repetition when teachers video-recorded instructions and posted them online.

Regarding negative experiences of practising special education at a distance, the informants only gave examples from the individual level of special education, as in working with students. One aspect that they all mentioned was the teacher–student relationship. Ann said that for some students in need of special support, their relationship with a teacher, SENCO, or SET is one of the strongest out-of-family-relationships. With schooling provided at a distance, the informants perceived these relationships as weakened. Carol stated that the students she worked with very closely pre pandemic seemed much lonelier and sadder during distance education. Beth believed that “learning happens when humans meet and interact, and the quality of human interactions decreases in digital environments,” thereby hindering learning.

Beth also claimed that distance teaching and support places greater demands on teachers for structured and understandable lesson plans than does ordinary practice. When students to a large degree are supposed to take responsibility for their own learning, which was argued to be the case in distance education, teachers, SENCOs, and SETs need to be more specific about what and how the students are supposed to learn. On the subject of self-responsibility, Ann said that students with difficulties related to endurance and concentration fell behind when sitting alone at home: “It is difficult to support from a distance when it comes to ‘restarting’ them between each sentence they read or write.”

Discussion

The aim of this study was to provide initial understandings about SENCOs’ and SETs’ work practices in digitalized schools. A research question about professionals’ experiences of using digital tools in special education and what specific activities in which SENCOs and SETs engage with digital technologies was posed for the study.

The findings extend previous special education research adding new understandings about special education in a digitalized school, especially regarding the roles of SENCOs and SETs and how they are expected to develop the practice of not only special education but also teachers at large in digitalized schools.

In the following section, this will be discussed with regard to the context and background of the study and in relation to previous research and knowledge in the field.

SENCOs’ and SETs’ Experience of Using Digital Tools in Special Education Activities

The results of the survey and interviews showed that SENCOs and SETs had positive beliefs regarding and experiences with using digital tools in special education. Still, in the context of this study, digital tools were infrequently used. Given that research has proven that beliefs about digital technology is important for teachers’ use of technology in teaching (e.g., Mertala, 2019; Tondeur, Hermans, van Braak, & Valcke, 2008), this contradiction raises the question of why digital tools are used infrequently in special education even though the beliefs and experiences are so positive.

According to this study, individual SENCOs’/SETs’ level of knowledge about digital tools is decisive for the degree of use. The responses to the surveys and interviews show this is the largest reason digital tools are seldom used in special education. Very few informants reported not using a digital tool because it was not purposeful. Therefore, the decision to use or not use digital tools seems more dependent on the level of technological knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) than on pedagogical knowledge in relation to special education needs and support. In other words, the results uncover a digital divide (Van Dijk, 2020) in the context of this study.

Regarding schools’ efforts towards equal education for all (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015; UNESCO, 1994), the results of this study contradict current school policies, as they indicate a disparity in how special education activities are carried out in practice. Given that digital tools can be beneficial for students in need of special support, the results show that in the settings of this study, there is a risk that this group of students are receiving unequal opportunities for learning and inclusion depending on the individual SENCO’s/SET’s knowledge about digital technology for special education purposes.

Special Education Activities Engaging Digital Technologies

One purpose of this study was to provide an entrance into the specific activities that SENCOs and SETs participate in that involve digital technology. With very little previous research examining this aspect of the codes of practice for SENCOs and SETs, the results highlight the need to rethink how special education practice is enacted in digitalized schools. With the aim to present new indications and proposals (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006), the presented activities provide initial understandings of a digitalized special education practice.

The identified activities engaging with digital technology that are expressed in this article stem from the school practice’s demands and expectations of SENCOs and SETs rather than from their competencies. In the context of this study, the division of labour seems unclear in relation to digital technology. The SENCOs and SETs end up with a number of expectations and responsibilities based on considerations other than their special education expertise. In that sense, the described activities are more practice-determined than competency-determined.

Necessary Competencies for Special Education Activities Engaging Digital Technologies?

Based on the results of this study, it can be argued that digital competency specifically related to special education can be seen as a complex mix of competencies generally considered teacher-, IT educator-, and school-leader-related competencies but with special education expertise as a foundation. This consolidates the SENCO’s and SET’s role as a complex, erratic, and metamorphosed one (Cowne et al., 2018; Kearns, 2005; Lin et al., 2021; Middleton & Kay, 2021) when it comes to supporting students, teachers, and school leaders as well as developing teaching practices in the digitalized school. For applying and using digital tools in teaching and supporting students in need of special support, the informants said having a “digital toolbox” with a diversity of tools was important as well as the competence to critically analyse the tools’ possible contribution to teaching and learning from a special education perspective. They also considered this knowledge important in teaching and advising teachers on how to apply and use digital tools, with the addition of abilities to demonstrate the tools’ functions and verbally instruct teachers on how to use digital tools.

Competencies considered necessary for being involved in organisational decisions about digital technology were expressed as closely connected to the role of the school leader but with more extensive knowledge about the school’s teaching practice and learning environments. Accordingly, the results indicate that the competence to link practice and management is considered important in analysing what and where digital tools are needed or wanted. In that sense, the informants described a supportive role of organisational leadership in digitalization (cf. Håkansson Lindqvist & Pettersson, 2019).

Another aspect of the supportive function is described in relation to teachers’ and students’ use of digital tools. The competence to solve and help with basic software issues is necessary in the everyday practice. This role was mentioned as a quick fix when minor problems occur, which are likely to be solved without calling for external technological competence from IT educators or such. Therefore, the level of technological supportive competence that the interviewees considered necessary for SENCOs/SETs seems to be at a basic level.

A summative expression of the digital competence needed in special education, drawn on the results of this article, is proposed thusly: “With a special education perspective as a foundation, being able to demonstrate, instruct, support and analyse an up-to-date variety of digital tools for teaching and learning, on both organisational-, group- and individual level”.

In relation to this discussion, it is interesting that a reoccurring subject during various parts of the interviews was experiences of lacking competence in using digital tools. Even though they all at some point expressed positive experiences using digital tools, they also talked about lacking formal education, causing a feeling of low professional confidence in this area. Thus, a contradiction between perceived expectations and actual competencies was apparent. Therefore, a question for future researchers to investigate is how this contradiction can be understood and addressed.

These results have implications for special education teacher preparation, pointing out a need for analysis of how the programs educate preservice SENCOs and SETs in how, when, and why digital technology can contribute to special education activities, a need that Börnert-Ringleb et al. (2021) also identified. If the aim of special education teacher preparation is to train SENCOs and SETs capable of handling the practice they meet once they graduate, updated knowledge of that practice is needed. Future research must expand, problematize, and add more details to the knowledge gained from this study. Also, and in agreement with Demirok and Baglama’s (2018) conclusions, this article highlights the importance of employers and municipalities addressing in-service SENCOs’ and SETs’ need for systematic professional development focusing on competencies related to digital technology.

The experiences of providing special education online and at a distance stand out from the others, as they stem from the COVID-19 pandemic and can be considered a time-limited solution. However, the informants expressed several lessons they learned during the pandemic that can enhance their post pandemic special education practice, such as better methods for distanced communication with students and the advantages of greater access to video-recorded teacher instructions. In rural schools located in sparsely populated areas, SENCOs and SETs are not always physically located at schools (Pettersson & Ström, 2019). Therefore, knowledge gained during the pandemic about special education practice can be of interest for how special education can support students in online and distance education.

Limitations

The present study provides exploratory insights into the special education practice in a digitalized school. However, the nature of the chosen design limits the results’ generalizability. The data was collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which means that results could look different before and after this period. The interviewees all worked in school years 7–12, so there still is a lack of in-depth knowledge about the practice in school years K–6.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the School of Education at Umeå University,and by the Swedish Research Council [No. 2019-03607].

ORCID iD

Martin Holmgren

Author Biography

Martin Holmgren is a doctoral student in education at the Department of Education,Umeå University,Sweden. He has a long experience of working in Swedish general and special education. His research interests are positioned within the intersection of special education and the school’s digitalization.

References

Anderson

S. E.

Griffith

Crawford

(2017). TPACK in Special education: Preservice Teacher Decision Making While Qntegrating iPads Into Instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 97–127. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173323/

Anderson

S. E.

Putman

R. S.

(2019). Special education teachers’ experience, confidence, beliefs, and knowledge about integrating technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836409

Bates

A. W.

(2019). Teaching in a digital age (2nd ed.). Vancouver, BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/

Berg

Blijleven

Jansen

(2001, June 28). Digital learning materials: Classification and implications for the curriculum. In Curriculum landscapes and trends. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_14

Börnert-Ringleb

Casale

Hillenbrand

(2021). What predicts teachers’ use of digital learning in Germany? Examining the obstacles and conditions of digital learning in special education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1872847

Braun

Clarke

(2006, January 01). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238

Braun

Clarke

Hayfield

Terry

(2019). Thematic Analysis. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103

Brodin

Lindstrand

(2003a). Informations- och kommunikationsteknik (IKT) som ett specialpedagogiskt verktyg [Information and Communication Technology as a Special Education Tool]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Spesialpedagogikk, 81(3), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN0048-0509-2003-03-02

10.

Brodin

Lindstrand

(2003b, March 01). What about ICT in special education? Special educators evaluate information and communication technology as a learning tool. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000042320

11.

Ciampa

(2017). Building bridges between technology and content literacy in special education: Lessons learned from special educators’ use of integrated technology and perceived benefits for students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2017.1280863

12.

Courduff

Szapkiw

Wendt

J. L.

(2016). Grounded in what works: Exemplary practice in special education teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643416633333

13.

Cowne

Frankl

Gerschel

(2018). The SENCo Handbook: Leading and managing a whole school approach. London: Routledge.

14.

Cozad

L. E.

Riccomini

P. J.

(2016). Effects of digital-based math fluency interventions on learners with math difficulties: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 5(2), 1–19.

15.

Crouch

McKenzie

(2006). The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 45(4), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584

16.

Curran

Boddison

(2021). ‘It’s the best job in the world, but one of the hardest, loneliest, most misunderstood roles in a school.’ Understanding the complexity of the SENCO role post-SEND reform. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 21(1), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12497

17.

Della Volpe

(2016). Study of compensatory tools and dispensatory devices in Italian inclusive education. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 6(5), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-0605010713

18.

Demirok

Baglama

(2018, August 01). Examining technological and pedagogical content knowledge of special education teachers based on various variables. TEM Journal, 7(3), 507–512. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM73-06

19.

Deschaine

(2018). Supporting students with disabilities in K-12 online and blended learning. Lansing, MI: Michigan Virtual University. https://mvlri.org/research/publications/supporting-students-with-disabilities-in-k-12-online-and-blended-learning/

20.

Ekins

(2015). Changing face of special educational needs: Impact and implications for SENCOs, teachers and their schools (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

21.

Every Student Succeeds Act . (2015). ESSA. S. 1177—2.

22.

Fischer

Lundin

Lindberg

J. O.

(2020). Rethinking and reinventing learning, education and collaboration in the digital age—from creating technologies to transforming cultures. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 37(5), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-04-2020-0051

23.

Fitzgerald

Radford

(2020). Leadership for inclusive special education: A qualitative exploration of SENCOs’ and principals’ Experiences in secondary schools in Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(10), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1760365

24.

Florian

(2004). Uses of technology that support pupils with special educational needs. In Florian

Hegarty

(Eds.), ICT and special educational needs: A tool for inclusion (pp. 7–20). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

25.

Fransson

Lindberg

J. O.

Olofsson

A. D.

(2018). Adequate digital competence – a close reading of the new national strategy for digitalization of the schools in Sweden. Seminar.net, 14(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.2982

26.

Göransson

Lindqvist

Klang

Magnusson

Nilholm

(2015). Speciella yrken? Specialpedagogers och speciallärares arbete och utbildning - En enkätstudie [Special Professions? SENCOs’ and Special Education Teachers’ Work and Education - a survey study]. Karlstad University Studies. 2015:13. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-35060

27.

Göransson

Lindqvist

Möllås

Almqvist

Nilholm

(2016). Ideas about occupational roles and inclusive practices among special needs educators and support teachers in Sweden. Educational Review, 69(4), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1237477

28.

(2022). Educational policy and school governance in the era of digital education: the case of Sweden. In Montgomery

Brown

(Eds.), School governance in global contexts (1st ed., pp. 37–50). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003221456-5

29.

Lindberg

(2021). Understanding Swedish educational policy developments in the field of digital education. In What works in Nordic school policies? Educational governance research (pp. 213–233). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66629-3_11

30.

Håkansson Lindqvist

Pettersson

(2019). Digitalization and school leadership: on the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 36(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-11-2018-0126

31.

Hallett

(2010). Transforming the role of the senco: Achieving the national award for sen coordination. London: McGraw-Hill Education. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umeaub-ebooks/detail.action?docID=650300

32.

Hornby

(2015). Inclusive special education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12101

33.

International Institute for Management Development . (2021). IMD world digital competitiveness ranking 2021. Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.imd.org/link/5963ef400b8d4cfe8d8f79c1f4f72bf4.aspx

34.

Karlsohn

(2009). Teknik - retorik - kritik : Om IT-bubblan och datoriseringen av den svenska skolan [Technology - rhetoric - criticism: About the IT-bubble and computerization of the Swedish school]. Stockholm: Carlsson Publishing.

35.

Kearns

(2005). Exploring the Experiential Learning of Special Educational Needs Coordinators. Journal of In-Service Education, 31(1), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580500200364

36.

Klaassen

Löwstedt

(2020). Digitalization in schools: Four examples of Embeddedness. In Research in organizational change and development (pp. 103–126). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0897-301620200000028004

37.

Klang

Möllås

Gustafson

Göransson

(2017). Specialpedagogers/Speciallärares arbete i den dagliga skolpraktiken. (2017:27). urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-48556.

38.

Lebens

Graff

Mayer

(2009). Access, attitudes and the digital divide: Children’s attitudes towards computers in a technology-rich environment. Educational Media International, 46(3), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980903135467

39.

Lin

Grudnoff

Hill

(2021). Navigating personal and contextual factors of SENCo teacher identity. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1878300

40.

Lund

Aagaard

(2020). Digitalization of teacher education. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3–4), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3751

41.

Mertala

(2019). Teachers’ beliefs about technology integration in early childhood education: A meta-ethnographical synthesis of qualitative research. Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.003

42.

Middleton

Kay

(2021). Uncharted territory and extraordinary times: The SENCo’s experiences of leading special education during a pandemic in England. British Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 212–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12359

43.

Mishra

Koehler

M. J.

(2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record (1970), 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

44.

MORI

(2019). 2nd survey of schools : ICT in education : technical report. Publications Office of the European Union. Belgium. Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/279330/2nd-survey-of-schools/1122674/

45.

NASNES (2020). Digitalt lärande - för att nå målen [Digital learning for reaching the goals]. https://webbutiken.spsm.se/digitalt-larande-for-att-na-malen/

46.

OECD (2019). OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. Paris: O. Publishing.

47.

M. W.

Rao

(2019). Digital tools for the inclusive classroom: Google Chrome as assistive and instructional technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419841546

48.

Olakanmi

O. A.

Akcayir

Ishola

O. M.

Demmans Epp

(2020). Using technology in special education: current practices and trends. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1711–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09795-0

49.

Olofsson

A. D.

Fransson

Lindberg

J. O.

(2019). A study of the use of digital technology and its conditions with a view to understanding what ‘adequate digital competence’ may mean in a national policy initiative. Educational Studies, 46(6), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1651694

50.

Pettersson

Ström

(2019). Professional collaboration between class teachers and special educators in Swedish rural schools. British Journal of Special Education, 46(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12266

51.

Pokhrel

Chhetri

(2021). A Literature Review on Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120983481

52.

Reimers

Schleicher

Saavedra

Tuominen

(2020). Supporting the continuation of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic . OECD, 1(1), 1-38.

53.

Research for Action (2020). Teacher use of digital tools: Results of a survey of district teachers in Philadelphia. Pittsburgh: Scranton and Neshaminy.

54.

Richards

(2019). Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator Perceptions of Practice and Potential: Investigating Education and Health Care Plan Implementation in Early Years and Primary Education. Doctoral dissertation. University of Worcester, UK. Retrieved from https://eprints.worc.ac.uk/id/eprint/9919

55.

Roberts-Yates

Silvera-Tawil

(2019). Better Education Opportunities for Students with Autism and Intellectual Disabilities through Digital Technology. International Journal of Special Education, 34(1), 197–210.

56.

Rodgers

W. J.

Weiss

M. P.

Ismail

H. A.

(2021). Defining specially designed instruction: A systematic literature review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 36(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12247

57.

Ross

S. M

(2020). Technology infusion in K-12 classrooms: A retrospective look at three decades of challenges and advancements in research and practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2003–2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09756-7

58.

Rubene

ZL. D.

Rūdolfa

Sarva

Ļubkina

(2021). Lessons learned from pandemics in the context of digital transformation of education. Human. Technologies and Quality of education, 2021, 521-529. https://doi.org/10.22364/htqe.2021.40.

59.

Sharma

(2018, 2018-01-22). Teacher in a Digital Era. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 17(3), 11–14. https://computerresearch.org/index.php/computer/article/view/1633

60.

Siljebo

(2020). Digitalization and digital transformation in schools: A challenge to educational theory? Education in the North, 27(2), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.26203/b0m3-dk35

61.

Sorensen

Andersen

(2017, 06/27). Strengthening inclusion of learners with attention difficulties through interventions with digital technology in processes of production. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/eurodl-2017-0003

62.

Stultz

S. L.

(2017). Computer-assisted mathematics instruction for students with specific learning disability:A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(4), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417725881

63.

Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions . (2019). SkolDigiplan - Nationell handlingsplan för digitalisering av skolväsendet [National Action Strategy for Digitalization of the School System].

64.

Swedish Ministry of Education (2017). Nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet [National Strategy for Digitalizing the School System]. https://www.regeringen.se/informationsmaterial/2017/10/regeringen-beslutar-om-nationell-digitaliseringsstrategi-for-skolvasendet/

65.

Tondeur

Hermans

van Braak

Valcke

(2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541–2553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.020

66.

UNESCO . (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. ED-94/WS/18

67.

Van Dijk

(2020). The digital divide. UK: Polity Press.

68.

von Ahlefeld Nisser

(2014). Specialpedagogers och Speciallärares olika roller och uppdrag – skilda föreställningar möts och möter en pedagogisk praktik. [The Different Roles and Assignments of SENCOs and Special Education Teachers - Different Ideas Meet a Pedagogical Practice]. Nordic Studies in Education, 34(4), 246–264. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-14197

69.

Voogt

Knezek

Christensen

Lai

K.-W.

(2018). Second handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. NY: Springer International.

70.

Wastiau

Blamire

Kearney

Quittre

Gaer

Monseur

(2013). 03/01The Use of ICT in Education: A survey of schools in Europe. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/23357043

71.

Wedell

(2013). Points from the SENCo-Forum. British Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 146–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12035

72.

Wedell

(2018). Points from the SENCo-Forum: The ‘Points from the SENCo-Forum’ column: Its 20th anniversary year. British Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12209

73.

T.-F.

Chen

M.-C.

Yeh

Y.-M.

Wang

H.-P.

Chang

S. C.-H.

(2014). Is digital divide an issue for students with learning disabilities? Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.024