Lecturers’ Experiences of Teaching STEM to Students with Disabilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v3i1.125Keywords:
disability, post-schooling, vocational education, STEM, technology integration, access, innovationAbstract
Innovative teaching is a concept based on student-centred teaching strategies. Access to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects has not been equitable due to use of traditional teaching strategies. These strategies tend to exclude students with disabilities who can effectively learn in environments that appropriately and innovatively integrate technology. Better use of technology in teaching also requires teachers to have the relevant skills to take advantage of the devices in their disposal. This article provides an overview of the literature and experiences of lecturers on the use of technology to facilitate access to STEM subjects at Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions. Using two TVET colleges as case studies, it seeks to clarify how technology is currently used in vocational training. Data gathering was done through in-depth e-interviews and observation of classes. Purposive convenience sampling was used to select the most accessible teachers that teach students with disabilities for this study. Understanding of prior practices and current teacher technological competency are the initial points in the development of TVET technology integration model. In this article, the experiences of teachers were used to guide the development of an inclusive and equitable technology integration model.
Author Biographies
Sindile Ngubane-Mokiwa, University of South Africa
, Senior Researcher
Simon Bheki Khoza, University of KwaZulu-Natal
References
Amory, A. (2010). Education technology and hidden ideological contradictions. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (1) 69-79.
Berkvens, J.; van den Akker, J. & Brugman, M. (2014). Addressing the quality challenge: Reflections on the post-2015 UNISCO Education Agenda. Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO.
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157-173.
Bonvin, J. & Galster, D. (2010). Making them employable or capable? In: Otto, H., Holger, H. (Eds.). Education, Welfare and the Capabilities Approach. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen & Farmington Hills.
Department of Education and Training. (2004). Theory and Practice: TAFE NSW VET Teaching and Learning Project. TAFE and Community Education Policy and Support Unit, Darlinghurst.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156.
Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education II. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26-39.
Fichten, C.S., Asuncion, J. & Scapin, R. (2014). Digital Technology, learning, and postsecondary students with disabilities: where we’ve been and where we’re going. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 27(4), 369-379.
Finch, C. R., & Crunkilton, J. R. (1999). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education. planning, content, and implementation. Allyn and Bacon, 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA 02494.
Geertz, C (1973). Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books: New York
Goldney, D., Murphy, T., Fien, J., & Kent, J. (2007). Finding the Common Ground: Is There a Place for Sustainability Education in VET? A National Vocational Education and Training Research and Evaluation Program Report. Adelaide: NCVER.
Hoadley, U & Jansen, J. (2014). Curriculum: Organizing knowledge for the classroom. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa.
Hutchison, A. & Beschorner, B. (2013, April). The iPad as an early literacy learning tool. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B. & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
Hutchison, A. & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction. A national survey in the U.S. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 308-329.
International Council of Associations for Science Education. (2013). The Kuching Declaration. Final Proceeding of the World Conference on Science and Technology Education (WorldSTE2013). Kuching, Malaysia. Available online at: http://www.icaseonline.net/ICASE%20Kuching%20Declaration_Final.pdf
Jensen, J.M., McCrary, N., Krampe, K., Cooper, J. (2004). Trying to do the right thing: Faculty attitudes toward accommodating students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(2), 81-90.
Lumadi, M.W. & Maguvhe, M.O. 2012. Teaching Life Sciences to Blind and Visually Impaired Learners: Issues to consider for effective learning mediation practice. Anthropologist, 14(5), 375-381.
Kennedy, D. Hyland, A & Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide. Bologna: European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
Kennedy, T.J. & Odell, M.R.L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
Khoza, S.B. (2013). Can they change from being digital immigrants to digital natives? Progressio, 35(1), 54-71.
Khoza, S.B. (2014). A lecturer’s reflective experiences on becoming a published scholar: Curriculum in context. ‘Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Conference’ held at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Pinetown on the 25-27 September, 2014. Published by UKZN Teaching and Learning Office, 1(2014), 93-103.
Khoza, S.B. (2015). Using curricular spider web to explore a research facilitator’s and students’ experiences. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(2), 122-143.
King, K. (2011). Editorial: now that TVET has the floor-what is the storyline? Norrag News NN46 (September).
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGrath, S. (2011). Where to now for vocational education and training in Africa? International Journal of Training Research, 9(2011), 35-38.
McGrath, S. (2012). Vocational education and training for development: a policy in need of a theory? International Journal of Educational Development, 32 (5), 623-631.
McGrath, S. & Akojee, S. (2010). Regulating private Vocational Education and Training (VET) in South Africa: The national development imperative. Africa Education Review, 7(1), 16-33.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054.
Moon, N. W., Todd, R. L., Morton, D. L., & Ivey, E. (2012). Accommodating students with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Atlanta, GA: Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Polzer, T. (2007). Adapting to changing legal frameworks: Mozambican refugees in South Africa. Internal Journal of Refugee Law. 19(2007), 22-50.
Powell, L. (2012). Reimagining the purpose of VET-Expanding the capability to aspire in South African Further Education and Training students. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(2012), 643-653.
Rand Afrikaans University (RAU) (2002) “Guideline on academics ethics” Johannesburg: RAU.
Republic of South Africa. (2013). Department of Higher Education and Training. White Paper for Post-School Education and Training — building an expanded, effective and integrated post-school system. Pretoria. Available at: http://www.che.ac.za/sites/default/files/publications/White%20Paper%20-%20final%20for%20web.pdf
Rule, A. C., Stefanich, G. P., Haselhuhn, C. W., & Peiffer, B. (2009). A Working Conference on Students with Disabilities in STEM Coursework and Careers. Online Submission.
Schaffhauser, D. (2013). 12 Technologies to dominate STEM Education. Available online at http://www.nmc.org.news/get-technology outlook-education-2013-2018.
Schiro, M.S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sreedevi, P.S., & Sudhir, M.A. (2011). Innovative strategies for science teaching. International Journal of Educational Science and Research, 1(1), 1-10.
Street, C. D., Koff, R., Fields, H., Kuehne, L., Handlin, L., Getty, M., & Parker, D. R. (2012). Expanding Access to STEM for At-Risk Learners: A New Application of Universal Design for Instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 25(4), 363-375.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Accepted 2016-02-11
Published 2016-03-16
Contents of the 
