View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Promoting a Culture of Inclusion: Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Assistive Technology Practices to Support Early Literacy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Promoting a Culture of Inclusion: Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Assistive Technology Practices to Support Early Literacy
Language: English
Authors: Schladant, Michelle (ORCID 0000-0001-8402-1455), Ocasio-Stoutenburg, Lydia (ORCID 0000-0003-3760-4476), Nunez, Christina, Dowling, Monica, Shearer, Rebecca (ORCID 0000-0002-7974-0487), Bailey, Jhonelle (ORCID 0000-0001-8926-1845), Garilli, Austin, Natale, Ruby
Source: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. 2023 44(2):147-166.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: Department of Education (ED)
Contract Number: H327S160017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Inclusion, Faculty Development, Educational Environment, Assistive Technology, Students with Disabilities, Emergent Literacy, Online Courses, Coaching (Performance), Preschool Teachers, Teacher Attitudes, Preservice Teachers, Knowledge Level, Program Evaluation, Teaching Methods
Geographic Terms: Florida
DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2022.2099325
ISSN: 1090-1027
1745-5642
Abstract: Despite the efficacy of assistive technology (AT), many children with disabilities do not have access to AT and are not fully benefiting from inclusive preschool education. The current mixed-methods study examined a multi-faceted professional development (PD) intervention aligned with the CEC's Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (EI/ECSE) Standards to increase general early childhood education (ECE) teachers' use of AT to promote early literacy in young children with disabilities. The 24-week PD intervention included: (a) online modules, (b) coaching; and (c) a classroom kit of AT devices. Participants were six lead teachers, 10 teacher aides, and 34 children from six inclusive classrooms in two preschools. Quantitative methods included pre-and post- surveys, early literacy assessments, and classroom observations. Qualitative analysis explored data from focus groups and input from teacher adherence forms. Results revealed that (a) teachers' AT knowledge, positive beliefs, and use; and (b) children's use of AT and early literacy skills significantly increased pre- to post- intervention. Qualitative findings revealed themes relating to how teachers benefitted from the PD and the impact of AT on teacher instruction and child learning. Findings support innovative PD practices to build capacity of practitioners implementing AT as a responsive instructional strategy in inclusive classrooms.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1389472
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFuwpvAjkKsiHNQ9wewQy-9AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCGcm2UmJyPj9sEpswIBEICBm4BAyhz1TUp_-KZebXSbeIwkOuW6cJt5fxTQc5ee_mZOQY3MxS_QhRm3yNZK1J_D0q0CQeMQBZAde8ZsAcWPG0kElNGzXQLyAQ_ActZwbLmexQrUYGchBpfYtn3EqmuEzOsK24B0jcYfvFjoLgh-d1ZjUW8Ie-4FyYgmEH5HfBtL_ebBIWZtW3k_RaD77jyE-4_3pzwXqDD4lBF-
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0164010687;[15u7]01apr.23;2023Jun02.06:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0164010687-1">Promoting a culture of inclusion: impact of professional development on teachers' assistive technology practices to support early literacy </title> <sbt id="AN0164010687-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Despite the efficacy of assistive technology (AT), many children with disabilities do not have access to AT and are not fully benefiting from inclusive preschool education. The current mixed-methods study examined a multi-faceted professional development (PD) intervention aligned with the CEC's Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (EI/ECSE) Standards to increase general early childhood education (ECE) teachers' use of AT to promote early literacy in young children with disabilities. The 24-week PD intervention included: (a) online modules, (b) coaching; and (c) a classroom kit of AT devices. Participants were six lead teachers, 10 teacher aides, and 34 children from six inclusive classrooms in two preschools. Quantitative methods included pre-and post- surveys, early literacy assessments, and classroom observations. Qualitative analysis explored data from focus groups and input from teacher adherence forms. Results revealed that (a) teachers' AT knowledge, positive beliefs, and use; and (b) children's use of AT and early literacy skills significantly increased pre- to post- intervention. Qualitative findings revealed themes relating to how teachers benefitted from the PD and the impact of AT on teacher instruction and child learning. Findings support innovative PD practices to build capacity of practitioners implementing AT as a responsive instructional strategy in inclusive classrooms.</p> <p>Over half of all preschoolers with disabilities are currently receiving instruction in the inclusive preschool classroom (Lohmann, Hovey, Gauvreau, & Higgins, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). General education teachers and support staff have a responsibility to ensure that children with and without disabilities are able to fully access instruction, participate in everyday activities, and engage with peers and materials (Tamakloe & Agbenyega, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]). According to the (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>]) teachers must consider and implement assistive technology (AT) supports to enable young children with disabilities to access curricula alongside peers without disabilities. In addition, the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) Early Interventionist/Early Childhood Special Educator (EI/ECSE) Standards strongly support the use of AT as a responsive instructional practice to support the development and learning of young children with disabilities in inclusive settings (Council for Exceptional Children, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>]). Lastly, research supports that AT can help promote young children's engagement in learning, communication skills, and emergent literacy development (Burne, Knafelc, Melonis, & Heyn, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; Dunst, Trivette, & Hamby, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite policy, practice, and research to support the use of AT in early childhood classrooms, many children with disabilities do not have access to AT and as such, are not fully benefiting from inclusive preschool education (Dunst et al, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Quinn et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref8">19</reflink>]). To fill this gap, the current mixed-methods study examined a multi-faceted professional development (PD) program that is aligned with the CEC's EI/ECSE Standard 6 – Using Responsive and Reciprocal Interactions, Interventions, and Instruction – to increase general early childhood education (ECE) teachers' understanding and use of AT to facilitate access, participation, and learning for young children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-3">AT policy, practice, and research</hd> <p>According to IDEA ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]), AT encompasses any tool or service to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities, which the school team must consider and document when appropriate on the child's individual education program (IEP). AT can vary from simple tools to more dynamic devices such as visual supports, pencil grips, adapted books, communication devices, and tablets with early learning applications (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]). AT is meant to be individualized, specific to the child's needs and can also include strategies such as physically adjusting the environment, so a child can access materials and instruction (Division for Early Childhood, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>IDEA ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]) further mandates that children be educated with peers without disabilities and receive services such as AT in the least restrictive environment. School teams, including general education teachers must consider and document a child's need for AT devices and services on the child's IEP. Therefore, general ECE teachers must understand how the child's unique needs can be met by AT (McLeskey, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>AT is widely recognized as a recommended practice by several professional organizations. The CEC recognizes the use of AT as a high-leverage practice (HLP) that has been shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities (McLeskey et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). Furthermore, the Division of Early Childhood (DEC) endorses AT as a Recommended Practice (RP) to ensure that teachers working in inclusive settings know how to create accessible learning environments and identify and implement AT to promote a child's participation in learning experiences (Lauberscher et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most recently, the CEC in partnership with DEC developed Initial Practice-Based Professional Preparation Standards for Early Interventionist/Early Childhood Special Educators (EI/ECSE) with an explicit focus on specialized knowledge and practices to support young children who are currently or may be later identified as having developmental delays and disabilities. Technology, including AT as appropriate, is integrated in all the EI/ECSE Standards and can serve as an important tool for supporting young children's learning, increasing access, and enhancing communication (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]). Specifically, Standard 6 – Using Responsive and Reciprocal Interactions, Interventions, and Instruction – states that teachers must understand how to use technology, including but not limited to AT, to increase access to learning and improve learning outcomes. Furthermore, this standard calls for teachers to know how to plan for and embed instructional supports and appropriate materials to support the development and learning needs of every child (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is clear evidence that AT improves early literacy learning and communication outcomes for young children across a range of disabilities (Light & McNaughton, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]; Thomas-Stonell, Robertson, Oddson, & Rosenbaum, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]). A meta-analysis of 36 studies by Dunst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]) concluded that the use of a variety of AT tools with young children with developmental disabilities were associated with improvements in literacy, communication, and overall development. In a similar systematic review, Burne et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]) found that AT increased young children's engagement, participation, and social interactions in early literacy learning (Burne et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>]). However, most of the existing AT research focuses on young children with more severe disabilities in specialized classrooms. While research clearly demonstrates the benefits of AT and its use aligns with CEC's EI/ECSE Standards, more research is needed to investigate AT's effectiveness in the context of the general education setting (Burne et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>]; Lohmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-4">Empowering general early childhood educators with AT</hd> <p>Though the field of early childhood emphasizes the value of AT as an inclusive practice, little attention has been given to general ECE teachers' implementation of AT in inclusive preschool classrooms (Burne et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]). Studies have suggested that ECE teachers in inclusive settings may not have the proficiency in AT to facilitate inclusion (Jones, Peterson-Ahmad, Fields, & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]). Furthermore, there is a need for more research on more effective means of PD delivery to increase general ECE teachers' knowledge and use of AT. This is underscored by research conducted by Van Laarhoven, Munk, Chandler, Zurita, and Lynch ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref27">25</reflink>]) who noted that although AT has become more affordable and available, there remains a critical need for the development of more effective PD models to enhance educator expertise in AT. As such, the aim of the current study was to examine the effectiveness of a PD intervention to improve ECE teachers' ability to implement AT.</p> <p>Specifically, this study examined the following research questions:</p> <p>RQ1: What changes in AT knowledge, beliefs, and use were associated with the PD intervention?</p> <p>RQ2: What changes in children's AT use and early literacy outcomes were associated with the PD intervention?</p> <p>RQ3: What changes in inclusive classroom practices were associated with the PD intervention?</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-5">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164010687-6">Design</hd> <p>This mixed-methods study was conducted using multiple data collection techniques sequentially, to better understand the impact of the program on the teachers, children, and inclusive practices. Patton ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]) described the advantages of mixed-method design, noting, "because each method reveals different aspects of empirical reality and social perceptions, multiple methods of data collection and analysis provide more grist for the analytical mill" (p. 661). Quantitative methods of data collection included pre-and post-teacher surveys, child early literacy assessments, and classroom and child observations. Qualitative measures included data from three focus groups with teachers and aides as well as open-ended questions from the teacher surveys. The qualitative data provided detailed, contextualized information on teacher perceptions of AT, their practices, as well as rich descriptions of children's AT use and progress. The data also provided high-quality insights for program-level evaluation and iterative development.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-7">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were six lead teachers, 10 teacher aides, and 34 children in six inclusive classrooms from two preschools across a multicultural country in South Florida. Preschools were selected from the community for participation in the program through a partnership with the school district early childhood special education department. One preschool was an inclusive Head Start program while the other was a community-based voluntary prekindergarten (VPK) setting.</p> <p>Teachers and aides were recruited from these schools, and the inclusion criteria consisted of having at least one child in the classroom with an IEP and being a speaker of either English or Spanish language. Inclusion criteria for children consisted of having an IEP, ranging in age between 36 and 60 months, having a parent who was a speaker of English or Spanish language, and having a parent consent for participation. There were no restrictions based on disability categories for children to participate in the program, as it was intentionally designed to support the broad range of abilities found in inclusive classrooms. See Tables 1 and 2 for participant demographic information.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic description of teacher and teacher aides.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Role</td><td>Participants (N = 16)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Head Teacher</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher Aide</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Childcare Centers</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Classrooms</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>14 (87.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Hispanic</td><td>2 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher and Aide Level of Education</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Some High School</td><td>2 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>High School Diploma/GED</td><td>2 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Some College</td><td>3 (18.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational or Trade Degree</td><td>2 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Associate's Degree</td><td>3 (18.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor's Degree</td><td>3 (18.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Graduate Degree</td><td>1 (6.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Preferred Language</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>English</td><td>6 (37.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish</td><td>10 (62.5)</td></tr><tr><td>English Proficiency</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Very Well</td><td>8 (50)</td></tr><tr><td>Well</td><td>2 (12.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Not Well</td><td>6 (37.5)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Demographic description of children.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Children</td><td>Participants (N = 40)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Childcare Centers</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Classrooms</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Child Disability-Caregiver Reported</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Autism Spectrum Disorder</td><td>11 (27.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Developmental Delay</td><td>7 (17.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Speech and Language Delay</td><td>9 (22.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>8 (20)</td></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td>N (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>28 (70)</td></tr><tr><td>Non-Hispanic</td><td>12 (30)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0164010687-8">Procedure</hd> <p>At the beginning of the school year, teachers and teacher aides who met criteria were introduced to the research team and AT coach. Teachers completed the informed consent along with baseline surveys, after which they identified children who met the study criteria. Upon recruitment, the parents of children completed the consenting and baseline surveys. Observations were conducted by the research team at the completion of the consenting and onboarding processes as well as baseline data collection of early literacy skills among the participating children. Teachers and aides underwent training and coaching for 24 weeks then post data was collected.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-9">Professional development intervention</hd> <p>The multi-faceted PD intervention extended beyond traditional PD programs by integrating (a) self-guided online learning modules, (b) access to a classroom kit of AT devices, and (c) coaching via in-person and remote delivery. See Natale et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]) for a full description of the PD intervention. Teachers and aides completed six online modules and participated in six coaching cycles that included hands-on practice with the classroom AT kit. The AT included a range of no-tech, low-tech, and digital technology tools to support a broad range of needs for children with disabilities.</p> <p>As shown in Table 3, the conceptual framework for the module topics was based on the Division for Early Childhood Recommended Practices (DEC RP) in the areas of environmental adaptations and instructional supports (DEC RP; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]) and are also aligned with the EI/ECSE Standard 6 – Using Responsive and Reciprocal Interactions, Interventions, and Instruction. More specifically, module topics included (a) how to collaborate with families and other professionals to identify each child's need for AT (EI/ECSE Component 6.7); (b) how to embed instructional supports and environmental arrangements such visual supports and other AT to support children's engagement in early literacy activities (EI/ECSE Component 6.3); (c) how to use augmentative and alternative communication and other AT tools to enhance children's language and communication skills (EI/ECSE Component 6.4); and (d) how to use AT to support shared reading, writing, hearing, and vision (EI/ECSE Component 6.6).</p> <p>Table 3. Teacher online learning modules.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Module</td><td>DEC RP</td><td>E/ECSE Standards</td><td>Components of Training Modules</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>E4</td><td>6.7</td><td>Overview of early literacy and how to consider and implement AT at school</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>E3</td><td>6.3</td><td>Effective classroom arrangement (engineering the classroom and environmental and visual supports)</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>INS4</td><td>6.4</td><td>AT supports to promote talking and listening</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>INS4</td><td>6.6</td><td>Adapted books and other AT to promote shared reading</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>INS4</td><td>6.6</td><td>AT supports and strategies to support vision and hearing issues</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>E4</td><td>6.6</td><td>AT supports for writing and drawing</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Teachers and teacher aides were coached as a classroom unit both in-person and remotely using evidence-based coaching supports such as hands-on demonstrations, practice, and reflection (Dunst, Bruder, & Hamby, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]). Two coaches who had a background in special education tailored each session to address teachers' needs and goals in the classroom as well as specific goals dictated on children's IEPs. Prior to the coaching session, teacher and teacher aides received a workbook with coaching lesson plans and demonstration guides on how to use the AT. The workbook with lesson plans ensured that the PD intervention was implemented with fidelity. Each coaching cycle started with teacher and aides watching one of the six online modules which were 20–30 minutes in length. Coaching sessions included a 20–30-minute classroom observation, followed by a 15–20-minute debriefing session. A description of each week in the coaching cycle is included in Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4. Overview of the 4-week coaching cycle.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Week</td><td>Overview</td><td>Teacher Role</td><td>Coach Role</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Introduction and overview</td><td>Learning about specific AT tools and strategies</td><td>Introducing AT use for the child; making environmental arrangements</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Hands-on demonstration session</td><td>Observing how coach models AT with child</td><td>Modeling AT strategy with participating child for teacher</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Practice session</td><td>Demonstrating AT strategy with child</td><td>Observing and providing corrective feedback</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Practice and Reflection</td><td>Continuing practice of AT strategy with child; debriefing sessions with coach</td><td>Observation of teacher practice; debriefing with teacher</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Cycles were repeated across the six modules for a period of 24 weeks</emph></p> <p>Teachers were required to watch the online modules, complete the activities from the workbook, as well as demonstrate engagement and understanding during the coaching sessions. To ensure fidelity of the PD intervention, coaches completed the Teacher Fidelity Form after every coaching session. This form consisted of a ten-item yes or no checklist to rate teachers' level of participation and track their progress, with scores ranging from one to ten. The criteria for teachers to meet fidelity was 80%; if unmet, coaches provided feedback and provided additional coaching sessions until fidelity was reached. Teachers also completed a teacher adherence form to assess their own participation in the PD activities. As a final fidelity measure, the clinical manager who was trained in the PD intervention by the principal investigator conducted fidelity checks on twenty percent of the coaching sessions to ensure consistency of the PD implementation. To meet fidelity criteria, coaches were required to score at least 80% on the coaching fidelity checklist. If this was not met, coaches were required to repeat the session and/or receive needed professional support from the clinical manager.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-10">Data collection instruments</hd> <p>Data collection included: (a) teacher surveys, (b) classroom observations, (c) child early literacy assessments, and (d) qualitative data. The data collection team consisted of the program manager and a research assistant who were trained by a clinical psychologist to conduct the classroom observations and child early literacy assessments. The program director, a qualitative researcher, developed the semi-structured interview guide and trained the data collection team members to conduct the focus groups.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-11">Teacher surveys</hd> <p>Given that no prior tools existed, the research team developed a set of self-report scales to measure teacher knowledge, beliefs, and use of AT. Teachers and aides (n = 16) each completed the <emph>Knowledge Belief and Use</emph> (KBU), an 11-item self-report survey. The survey included four multiple choice and one fill-in item related to teacher knowledge and use, and six of the scale items related to the teacher's beliefs about AT. This tool consisted of a five-point Likert scale where 1 was "strongly agree" and 5 was "strongly disagree." Scores on the knowledge-related questions could range from 0 to 13 and included items about prior AT training, workshops attended, and self-reported knowledge. Items assessing teacher beliefs sought to capture teachers' overall perceptions about AT and could range from a score of 6 to 30. Items assessing use included both current and past use of AT with an open-ended option to list specific AT tools. This measure yielded two reliable dimensions for this sample of teachers: Knowledge and Beliefs (Cronbach's αs =.70 and.73 respectively). See Appendix A for the survey.</p> <p>Lead classroom teachers (n = 6) completed the <emph>Teacher Adherence Form</emph> adapted from Kasari, Gulsrud, Wong, Kwon, and Locke ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]), which was an in-process method of documenting teachers' responsiveness to the PD and AT implementation. This self-report measure was used to capture teachers' reflections on the PD process and perceived teacher and child benefits. In addition, this form captured intermediate data on teachers' experience after each coaching cycle while also describing their application of AT with the children. Adherence forms also contained descriptive data on how the newly acquired AT knowledge and skills met their goals for the children.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-12">Classroom observations</hd> <p>The Teacher and Child <emph>AT Use Observation Checklist</emph> and the <emph>Inclusive Classroom Profile</emph> (ICP; Soukakou, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]) were used to conduct classroom and child observations. Two members of the research team conducted the same 60–90-minute observations for each classroom. Each observation included at least one transition between activities as well as one literacy- focused activity. An interrater agreement of at least 80% was achieved between the two observers for each classroom observation.</p> <p>Teacher and child AT use was measured by the Teacher and Child <emph>AT Use Observation Checklist</emph>, a measure developed by the research team using the DEC RPs in the areas of environmental and instructional adaptations. The research team rated each teacher and aide's (n = 16) level of AT use from lowest being AT was not available during the activity to the highest being that the teacher supported a child using AT across a total of 13 AT tools. The child version of the checklist rated the child's level of AT use from lowest being AT was not available during the activity to highest being that the child independently used the AT. Scores could range on either checklist from a score of 0 to 39. See Appendix B for the teacher version of the AT Use Checklist.</p> <p>The ICP (Soukakou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]), a well-validated classroom observation tool, was used to assess teachers' use of inclusive practices to support children with disabilities. Each classroom (n = 6) was rated in four out of 12 domains that directly referenced AT use (i.e., adaptations of space and group, transitions, communication supports). Inclusive characteristics, AT supports, and adaptations were scored as observed or not, and scores were then converted to a scale ranging from "1" inadequate to "7" excellent. Cronbach's Alpha analysis was conducted on the scale's items and assessed the measure's internal consistency (α = 0.79; Soukakou et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-13">Qualitative data: focus groups and teacher adherence forms</hd> <p>Focus groups were conducted post-intervention to explore teacher perspectives on their experience of the PD program, the impact on their AT practices, and perceived impact on child outcomes. An interview protocol was developed by the program director, which consisted of six main questions and two to three probing questions. Sixteen school personnel served as key informants across three focus groups. Members of the team were also trained by the program director, a qualitative researcher, to facilitate the focus groups sessions using a semi-structured interview format (Patton, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]).. Participants were invited to answer open-ended questions while also sharing their feedback on how children engaged with AT across classroom activities. Teachers also provided their recommendations to improve program delivery. As a second qualitative data source, the teacher adherence forms, provided descriptive data on practitioner and child outcomes as they moved through the coaching cycles.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-14">Child early literacy assessment</hd> <p> <emph>The Preschool Early Literacy Indicators</emph> (Kaminski, Abbott, Bravo-Aguayo, & Good, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]; PELI) is an assessment for 3- to 5-year-olds that measures alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, oral language, phonological awareness, and listening skills. The assessment is designed to identify children who are experiencing difficulties acquiring these skills with the intent to provide instructional support needed to improve future reading outcomes, thus aligning with the goals of AT. Practical advantages to this instrument have been described in the literature, as it can be both engaging to students and administered relatively easily. Interrater reliability of the PELI ranges from.90 to.98 (Kaminski et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-15">Data analysis</hd> <p>Data analysis included rigorous quantitative and qualitative analyses as well as triangulation among the multiple methods of data collection. Comparisons between pre- and posttest scores were conducted using SPSS® software version 28. Statistical tests included t-tests of paired samples. Assumptions of normality were met by visually inspecting Q-Q plots as well as conducting the Shapiro-Wilk's test of normality. Focus group data was collected and transcribed verbatim using an online transcription service and quality checked by a member of the research team. Data was analyzed by a qualitative researcher using grounded theory methodology, which included a systematic inductive coding process from which five themes emerged (Glaser & Strauss, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]). Theoretical comparisons were also used to verify themes, which were compared with synthesized data from the teacher adherence forms. A final level of triangulation explored points of convergence or divergence between the quantitative and qualitative findings. Peer debriefing and collaborative analysis took place among team members with extensive experience in their methodologies. Themes are described in Table 5.</p> <p>Table 5. Summary of themes from the qualitative analysis.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Description</td><td>Representative Quotes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Equipping teachers with knowledge and tools</italic></td><td>Teachers were prepared with new knowledge, strategies and tools for AT implementation. Specific mentions were made about addressing the goal-specific needs of children with and without disabilities.</td><td>"I really liked all of the techniques used, as they said it helped in the interaction of the group and it stimulated their learning. We obtained many ideas to create materials in order to encourage their development and literacy."</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Responding to teacher needs and concerns</italic></td><td>The program (which included the delivery of online modules, timing, content and approaches) responded to the needs and concerns of teachers.</td><td>"The tools were the most relevant, they are now things we use every day. But it was very valuable that you could view the modules online ... from the comfort of our own homes we could revisit and refresh our memory."</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Valuing coaching relationship and teacher empowerment</italic></td><td>The ability of the coaches to provide ongoing, hands-on support which included modeling an activity, implementation, on-site practice, and continuous feedback. Teachers felt supported in learning partnerships with teacher aides.</td><td>"The coach was there all the time and what we liked most about her is that she was always available ... always letting us know that she was willing to help and teaches how to do it she was always available to come down here and explain things if we need her."</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Visualizing the improvement in child development: literacy and beyond</italic></td><td>Child emergent literacy outcomes were enhanced. Teachers also reported how children had better adjustments and transitions to activities, communications, and making more choices.</td><td>"It was good very well composed, easy, and for us it turned out to be really good because we work with special kids ... we knew how to get the most out of all the techniques we learned, we want to learn more."</td></tr><tr><td><italic>Facilitating a Culture of Inclusion</italic></td><td>The experience promoted a culture of inclusion, inside and outside of the classroom. Children were engaged in group activities, stimulated by the classroom tools. Teachers recommended same model of one-on-one learning, incentivization, and transparency for parents and prospective teachers.</td><td>"Many of the kids would use iPad® just to play games. Now they are learning that there is more to it not just games. In addition, the parents some of them even the parents that were not in the group, they like it and they want to get it. Not only the kids on the program other kids are using it as well ... we use it for all kids."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 This data provided detailed, contextualized information on teacher perceptions of AT, their practices, as well as rich descriptions of children's AT use and progress. The adherence forms also provided high-quality insights for program-level evaluation and iterative development.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0164010687-17">RQ1: what changes in teachers' AT knowledge, beliefs, and use of AT were associated with the...</hd> <p>Teacher knowledge increased pre (<emph>M</emph> = 3.94, <emph>SD </emph>= 2.38) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 9.63, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.15) with means increasing <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>) = 8.273, <emph>p</emph> <.001. As shown in Figure 1, there were no significant differences in AT knowledge between teacher and aides. Outlined in Table 6 are the integrated findings with aligned themes that address this research question. The first theme, <emph>Equipping Teachers with Knowledge and Tools</emph> described how teachers were prepared with new information, strategies, and tools for AT implementation. Teachers described the utility of AT for instruction to address goal-specific and individualized needs of children. Participants also noted how they gained insights on how to serve children across disabilities, enriching their understanding of IEPs. Furthermore, they expressed how learning how to use AT enhanced their educator skills to support children both with and without disabilities, fostering inclusive practices.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Changes in teacher and teacher aides' AT knowledge.</p> <p>Table 6. Integrated results matrix for teacher perceptions and empowerment to implement AT.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Quantitative</td><td>Qualitative Themes Description</td><td>Representative Quotes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teachers' knowledge of AT increased significantly from pre- to post- intervention.</td><td><italic>Equipping Teachers with Knowledge and Tools</italic>. Teachers and teacher aides reported an increase in their AT knowledge, through both learning and practice.</td><td>"From every module we obtained many ideas, and that helped us grow with the children and that they learn more ... the tools were very good, because they utilized them all really well and they learned a lot, thanks to that."</td></tr><tr><td>Scores on teacher AT beliefs were significantly different from pre- to post- intervention, with beliefs about AT becoming more positive.</td><td><italic>Responding to Teacher Needs and Concerns</italic>. Gained understanding and use of the IEP, cross-disability supports. Participants learned strategies to support inclusive professional practices.</td><td>"What I liked the most about this program is that it was for not only the kids that had some type of disability, but you can also implement it any type of child. When one pulled out a type of material it wasn't just for the three kids that were in the program, but it was for all the kids that were in classroom and overall the inclusion."</td></tr><tr><td>There was a significant difference in teachers' AT use from pre- to post- intervention with means increasing.</td><td><italic>Valuing the Coaching Relationship and Teacher Empowerment</italic>. Flexible coaching and accessibility of the program helped to empower teachers in their AT use. Learning partnerships with teacher aides and coaching support enhanced practice.</td><td>"What I found positive as well is the variety of tools that they have provided us it has been useful. In addition, the coaching as well the moment that presented us with the activities and the tools we would be using. In addition, when it was our turn to do it by ourselves and [the coach] thought that we could improve she would intervene in the activity in a positive way to help us do it better."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Scores on teacher AT beliefs were significantly different from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 20.47, <emph>SD </emph>= 3.14) to post (<emph>M</emph><emph>= </emph>24.65, <emph>SD </emph>=.97) intervention, with beliefs about AT becoming more positive <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>) = 4.084, p <.001. As shown in Figure 2, teacher aides increased their AT beliefs slightly more than teachers. In additional to conceptual knowledge, the practical means by which AT was introduced through the program may have also influenced their beliefs. <emph>Responding to Teacher Needs and Concerns</emph> was the second theme which outlined how the program's features (online modules, coaching strategies, and classroom toolkits) responded to teachers' own practical and instructional needs for best practices. Teachers valued the tangible resources provided to them directly through coaches or via the program's AT lending library. In addition to cutting down the cost and time of preparation, they were also supplied with materials that were not available in the classroom. Practical experience may have also had an impact on teacher beliefs. For example, while some teachers initially thought that the use of AT would "slow" down children's progress, their perceptions changed after observing the children's positive outcomes and engagement due to AT support.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Changes in teacher and teacher aides' AT beliefs.</p> <p>There was a significant difference in teachers' AT use from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 3.53, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.59) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 15.88, <emph>SD </emph>= 3.66) intervention with means increasing <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>) = 15.106, <emph>p</emph> <.001. As shown in Figure 3, there were no significant differences in AT use between teachers and aides. Teachers described how their relationship with coaches had a profound influence on their development as AT practitioners. The third theme, <emph>Valuing the Coaching Relationship and Teacher Empowerment</emph> described how participants valued the in-person and virtual accessibility, support, and continuous feedback of the coaching. Teachers also expressed how they were "not alone in the process," supported through learning partnerships created among the coaches, teachers, and aides. As a final highlight, teachers reflected upon the professional respect that was reciprocated, feeling their voices were heard.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3. Changes in teacher and teacher aides' AT use.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-18">RQ2: what changes in children's use of AT and early literacy outcomes were associated with th...</hd> <p>Child use of AT significantly increased from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 2.24, <emph>SD </emph>=.99) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 13.29, <emph>SD </emph>= 2.30) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>) = 24.868, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Increases in early literacy skills were also evidenced, as assessed by the PELI overall score from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 63.39, <emph>SD </emph>= 51.66) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 137.67, <emph>SD </emph>= 68.69) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>) = 9.911, <emph>p</emph> <.001. At the indicator level, (a) children's alphabet knowledge significantly increased pre (<emph>M</emph> = 8.74, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.67) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 16.03, <emph>SD </emph>= 10.91) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>) = 5.299, <emph>p</emph> <.001; (b) children's vocabulary and oral language skills significantly increased from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 5.74, <emph>SD </emph>= 5.02) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 12.65, <emph>SD </emph>= 7.17) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>) = 8.405, <emph>p</emph> <.001; (c) children's comprehension significantly increased from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 4.56, <emph>SD </emph>= 4.43) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 9.74, <emph>SD </emph>= 5.53) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>) = 5.849, <emph>p</emph> <.001; and (d) children's phonological awareness significantly increased pre (<emph>M</emph> = 0.56, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.74) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 4.79, <emph>SD </emph>= 6.04) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>) = 4.412, <emph>p</emph> <.001. Table 7 details the combined quantitative and qualitative findings on the specific early literacy domains.</p> <p>Table 7. Integrated results matrix for impact of the PD intervention on children's use of AT and learning and developmental outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Quantitative</td><td>Qualitative Theme Description</td><td>Representative Quotes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Children's overall use of AT increased significantly from pre- to post- intervention.</td><td><italic>Visualizing the improvement in child development: Literacy and beyond</italic>. Children with and without disabilities were highly stimulated by the AT resources and strategies across activities.</td><td>"All the materials were excellent like the pencil grips ... those types of materials that helped us with those kids that had difficulty with fine motor skills. I had many struggles with those kids with those difficulties. I used them, and I saw the results."</td></tr><tr><td>Children had a significant increase in their early literacy skills as measured by the PELI pre- to post- intervention.</td><td>Technology served to reinforce children's literacy and emergent literacy skills.</td><td>"I have been building early literacy with the children, and I'm creating interest in books with the children."</td></tr><tr><td>Children's alphabet knowledge increased significantly from pre- to post- intervention.</td><td>AT tools promoted children's engagement in activities that promoted letter recognition, which included writing activities.</td><td>"The stencil (hot glue and sand) was a good motivation and practice to write the letter." "The student used the iPad® and was very interested in recognizing letters."</td></tr><tr><td>Children's vocabulary and oral language skills increased from pre- to post- intervention.</td><td>Children's efforts increased in saying words and making sounds. Children without expressive language skills used AT to select appropriate vocabulary words.</td><td>"[We observed] more concentration in reading, expanded vocabulary." "A success achieved in language, as they have achieved sound successes the children to develop their language a little more."</td></tr><tr><td>Children's comprehension skills increased significantly from pre-to post- intervention.</td><td>AT tools supported comprehension through interactive, engaging adaptations while promoting real-world connections.</td><td>"[We used] pictures and toys around the class can become tools to help them to tell or be part of a story."</td></tr><tr><td>Children's phonological awareness increased significantly pre- to post- intervention.</td><td>Children were able to produce letter sounds, either verbally or using AT tools, such as AAC devices.</td><td>"The child learned to identify words that started with the letter B and the sound of it. He answered by pushing yes/no picture on the AT."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Aligned with the quantitative findings, the fourth theme, <emph>Visualizing Improvement in Child Development: Literacy and Beyond</emph>, teachers described how children's learning was "reinforced through technology." Teachers reported emergent literacy skills were enhanced in areas such as letter recognition, phonemic awareness, and participation in reading activities. Teachers were explicit about the clear connection between their own AT implementation and children's developing literacy, sharing, "I have been building early literacy with the children, and I'm creating interest in books with the children." Teachers also reported on children's improvement with writing, communication, and expressive skills as well as improvements in behavior.</p> <p>As a final contribution to child outcomes, teachers expressed how the program had positive outcomes on motivation, interest, and engagement among all children in the classroom, as children with and without disabilities were highly engaged in activities enhanced by the AT tools and strategies. Materials ranged from low-tech visual supports and adapted storybooks to the engaging, high-tech appeal of iPads®. Though teachers shared that the children's piqued interest was at times difficult to manage, practitioners used these moments as opportunities to promote turn-taking, another critical aspect of learning, as one teacher noted, "they also learned with the iPad® to wait their turn ....in addition, they go passing [it] around."</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-19">RQ3: what changes in inclusive classroom practices were associated with the PD intervention?</hd> <p>Overall, there were significant increases in teachers' use of inclusive classroom practices from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 3.00, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.55) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 6.50, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.22) with means increasing <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>) = 7.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001. There were significant changes in three of the four subdomains of the ICP: (a) teacher's adaptations of space and equipment for children with disability significantly improved from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 3.00, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.55) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 6.50, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.22) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>) = 7.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001; (b) adaptations of group activities for children with disabilities significantly improved from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 1.00, <emph>SD </emph>=.00) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 5.83, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.83) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref51">5</reflink>) = 6.452, <emph>p</emph> =.001; and (c) their supports for transitions between activities significantly improved pre (<emph>M</emph> = 1.00, <emph>SD </emph>=.00) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 4.50, <emph>SD </emph>= 1.22) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>) = 7.00, <emph>p</emph> <.001. There was not a significant difference in communication supports; however, there was a positive trend from pre (<emph>M</emph> = 2.16, <emph>SD </emph>=.98) to post (<emph>M</emph> = 3.83, <emph>SD </emph>= 2.48) intervention <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>) = 1.456, <emph>p</emph> =.205. Table 8 depicts the combined quantitative and qualitative findings on inclusive classroom practices.</p> <p>Table 8. Integrated results matrix for promoting a culture and practice of inclusivity.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Quantitative Findings</td><td>Qualitative Theme Description</td><td>Representative Quotes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>There was a significant increase in teachers' overall inclusive classroom practices, pre- to post-intervention in 3 of the 4 domains.</td><td><italic>Facilitating a Culture of Inclusion</italic> Program experience promoted a culture of inclusion within the classroom, among the children with and without disabilities, in accessing the learning environment.</td><td>"I was in a VPK class and we had many kids who had just come from other countries. The applications helped them identify the letter, phonological awareness, the apps helped them a lot."</td></tr><tr><td>Pre- and posttest scores showed an increase in adapting space and equipment for children with disabilities.</td><td>Teachers adopted the strategies modeled by the coaches in order to create adapted materials for the children to participate.</td><td>"This particular child was interested in one book and that he had difficulty passing the pages. We adapted our own book putting wood sticks on the edges and looking for real pictures that were in the book ... he had more interest in that particular book. It was easier for him to pass the pages."</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers had an increase in pre- to post- intervention inclusive practices in the domain of making adaptations for group activities.</td><td>Teachers used the AT tools and strategies they learned in order to facilitate children's engagement and access in group activities, such as story time.</td><td>"I have this kid that it helped him a lot because you couldn't have him standing still for anything, for any activity. Like for circle time ... he would grab other things that were part of the lesson at that time ... now [he] can sit and follow instructions."</td></tr><tr><td>Teachers had an increase in pre- and post-intervention practices in supporting transitions between activities.</td><td>Teachers and teacher aides were able to support the children in making transitions, through use of AT.</td><td>"[It was] very useful especially for teachers to make transitions and for child's short-term goals. It makes it more efficient and fun."</td></tr><tr><td>Although children's communication as part of inclusion was not significant from pre- to post intervention, it was a positive trend.</td><td>Activities which incorporated AT encouraged children to communicate or to find ways to express themselves. AT tools were also stimulating and helped children to understand the support needs of their peers, promoting a spirit of inclusivity.</td><td>"I had to explain to one child that wanted to touch the BIG Mack ®, all of them wanted to touch them. However, I explained it to him that he did not have a problem of speech but that the child that was using it did. In addition, he stood quietly and understood."</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The fifth and final theme <emph>Facilitating a Culture of Inclusion</emph> was well aligned across the domains from the quantitative assessments. Stimulated by AT, children with and without disabilities were engaged simultaneously in small and large group activities. Teachers, in turn, were able to provide adaptations for all students in the classroom, noting how this provided a "level playing field" among the young learners.</p> <p>Participants also shared how the children had better adjustments and transitions to activities such as lunchtime, lining up, and anticipation of routines. In describing the benefits of visual schedules, one teacher shared, "the children learned what was coming next, how to wait, and they knew they would get a reward at the end of story time."</p> <p>Participants also described how the program promoted a spirit of inclusivity among children in the classroom for children to learn about the varying support needs of one another. As a final note, teachers and aides emphasized just how transformative the experience was, highly recommending the program for future families and practitioners.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-20">Discussion</hd> <p>This mixed-methods study investigated the impact of a PD intervention on general ECE teachers and aides' use of AT to promote early literacy and learning in young children with disabilities in two schools in the southeastern United States. Sixteen ECE teachers and aides and 34 children with a range of disabilities in six inclusive classrooms participated in the study. Very few studies have specifically included general ECE teachers and aides, and even fewer studies have examined a PD intervention that links teacher and child outcomes in the inclusive setting. The findings illustrate how general ECE teachers and teacher aides, working together in inclusive classrooms, can learn how to use AT as a responsive instructional intervention to promote early learning in young children with disabilities through an innovative PD program that is aligned with the CEC EI/ECSE Standards. This study offers three main insights that contribute to the field of early childhood inclusive education: (a) the need for more effective PD models to increase general ECE teachers and aides' AT understanding and use; (b) the importance of conducting AT research that directly links to child outcomes; and (c) the potential of AT as a responsive instructional strategy that promotes inclusivity.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-21">Need for more effective PD models to increase teacher and teacher aides' AT understanding and...</hd> <p>The results of this study revealed that the PD intervention for general ECE teachers and teacher aides increased their knowledge, perceptions, and use of AT while also enhancing their motivation. General ECE teachers and teacher aides in inclusive classrooms are increasingly serving more children with diverse abilities and have an increasing responsibility to integrate AT to support individual child needs as supported by the EI/ECSE Standards. Therefore, early childhood teacher education programs must ensure that these teachers receive training and support to gain foundational AT knowledge, understanding, and confidence. In accordance with the EI/ECSE Standards, it is imperative that teachers know how to apply evidenced-based instructional strategies and environmental adaptations that include the use of AT (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Results from this study yielded promising findings in that the PD methods (i.e., online modules, access to AT devices, coaching) were viable and effective for changing teachers' AT practices. This finding aligns with research that shows that certain training methods do make a difference in changing teachers' AT use. Dunst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref55">4</reflink>]) found illustrations and demonstrations of AT, authentic learning opportunities, teacher reflection on skill acquisition, coaching, and ongoing support to be the most effective strategies in changing teacher AT practices. Furthermore, teachers in this study found the instructional PD methods responsive to their needs and concerns. Teachers valued the hand-on demonstrations, lending library of AT, coaching, and online modules. Teacher reports on the features of the program that met their practical needs were also similar to the findings of prior studies that found AT demonstrations and lending libraries of AT devices offered teachers and support staff opportunities to gain hands-on experiences with AT devices (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref56">8</reflink>]). Although self- directed learning such as the use of online modules may not be a good fit for everyone, the ability to view the online modules and resources "anytime, anywhere" provided teachers with the opportunity to access learning at a time convenient to them. This finding links to other studies that have found that online modules and video tutorials were viable methods for enhancing teachers' knowledge and comfort of AT (Van Laarhoven, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref57">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-22">Need to link AT PD to child outcomes</hd> <p>Secondly, findings from this study revealed that the PD intervention program increased children's use of AT as well as their early literacy skills. While this study did not include a comparison group, teachers were explicit about the impact of their own AT practice on children's developing literacy skills. Teachers also observed improvements in children's communication and positive behavior skills as well as their increased participation and engagement in learning activities. Teachers felt that the use of AT empowered and better equipped them to support children's individual learning needs. According to Jones and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]), teachers need to understand how to appropriately choose, implement, and utilize AT that directly links to child outcomes. Future PD trainings on AT need to move away from training on specific devices to become more purposive and individualized in order to meet child IEP goals. This is foundational to AT planning, as outlined by the Student Environment Task Tool (SETT) framework, which first considers the child (Zabala, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]) and EI/ECSE Standard 6.7 which emphasizes that teachers collaborate with families and other professionals to identify each child's need for AT, acquire or create that AT (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, at a time when diversity in the classroom, expectations for student learning, and possibilities for technology are improving, research about AT is on the decline (Okolo & Diedrich, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]). There is a need for more studies where there is an explicit focus on the impact of PD interventions on changes in general ECE teachers' practices and its impact on child outcomes. These types of studies are the next-generation research, shedding light on the relationships between changes in teacher knowledge, practices, and beliefs to changes or improvements in child behavior and learning outcomes (Dunst et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]). A central focus of the EI/ECSE Standards is to prepare teachers working in inclusive settings to increase children's access to learning and improve learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-23">More focus on AT as a responsive instructional strategy that promotes inclusivity</hd> <p>Implementing inclusive preschool education requires significant shifts in the way that general ECE teachers respond to the needs of children with diverse abilities (Tamakloe & Agbenyega, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>]). Results of this study revealed that teachers' AT use significantly impacted inclusive practices in the areas of adaptations to group activities and the environment and supports for transition. These findings are consistent with a similar study by Tamakloe & Agbenyega ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>]) that revealed AT was consistently identified as helping the teachers and the support staff to enact an inclusive philosophy. Although support for communication was not observed to change from pre/post program implementation (as measured by the ICP), there was a positive trend and this was supported in the focus group data.</p> <p>While the PD intervention was developed in alignment with the DEC RP in the area of environmental adaptation and instruction, it also aligns with the EI/ECSE Standard 6 which focuses on using responsive instructional strategies (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]). Results revealed that the use of AT as an inclusive practice supported children's increased access to learning. Findings also revealed that AT not only provided individualized supports for children with disabilities, but that teachers reported AT helped as a universal practice promoting all children's participation and learning. However, additional policy-to-practice work is needed to more fully prepare teachers in using AT as a responsive instructional strategy that promotes inclusivity. Children with and without disabilities may not be fully benefiting from inclusive education if they are not able to access instruction and materials and engage in activities in meaningful ways. It is important to note that embracing an inclusive philosophy alone is not enough; general ECE teachers need training to acquire the necessary skills to use AT as an inclusive practice (Tamakloe & Agbenyega, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]). Unlike AT specialists and some special education teachers who provide AT services, there is an urgent need to build the capacity of other school professionals such as general ECE teachers and teacher aides to more fully prepare them to provide AT provisions as emphasized in the EI/ECSE Standards (CEC, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>]) and mandated by IDEA (RESNA, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref68">20</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-24">Limitations and future directions</hd> <p>While mixed method approach used in this study led to a more comprehensive understanding, informed by the triangulation of both qualitative and quantitative findings, results must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size and lack of control group. The teacher and child outcomes and perspectives offered by the teacher and teacher aides cannot be generalized to all general ECE teachers and children with disabilities, yet they have transferability to similar contexts and populations. More research is needed to further validate and explore these results.</p> <p>Another limitation was that child disability status was caregiver reported, so the specific support needs for children in the study were unclear. In addition, the lack of available measures to assess young children with diverse abilities was another limitation. While this study noted improvements in early literacy skills as measured by the PELI, other areas of child development and learning were not assessed. A more comprehensive tool may be needed to capture child outcomes over all aspects of early childhood development, particularly for children with diverse abilities.</p> <p>Although this study showed promising teacher and child outcomes to support children with diverse abilities, barriers (e.g., time constraints and schedule conflicts) to in-person coaching were identified as a critical issue with the participants. Furthermore, it is unclear which components of the PD intervention (e.g., self-paced modules, in-person and remote coaching, access to AT devices) led to changes in teacher AT knowledge, belief, and use. However, teachers valued the ability to access the modules and videoconference with the AT coaches at times that were convenient for them. Technology-based PD tools may offer more flexibility and opportunities to increase teachers' access to support and increase the efficiency of teachers and school staff in their day-to day work. (Sugden, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the teachers in this study were provided access to a classroom kit of AT, ensuring that other teachers outside of this study can access AT may be another challenge for teachers wanting to learn how to use AT. This study leveraged support though a partnership with our state AT Act program funded through the AT Act of 2004. State chapters of the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (<ulink href="http://www.ataporg.org">www.ataporg.org</ulink>) can be a beneficial first step for teachers to gain access to AT and training. These programs offer lending libraries where teachers, parents, and other professionals can borrow AT devices to "try before you buy" (Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref70">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>Promoting inclusion and enhancing utilization of AT to support early learning for young children with disabilities are federal mandates and recommended practice in inclusive preschool classrooms. Ensuring access to high-quality learning experiences in inclusive classrooms requires that general ECE teachers and their support staff know how to provide individualized AT supports to young children with disabilities. Our research emphasized a multi-faceted approach to deliver PD through just-in-time online learning modules, access to AT devices for hands-on practice, and coaching supports to translate knowledge into practice. Overall, the findings from this study contribute to the early childhood special education field by documenting the use of AT as a responsive instructional strategy that aligns with EI/ECSE Standards to promote inclusion and improve learning outcomes for young children with disabilities. These findings offer more promising instructional methods to enhance PD programsthat can build the capacity of general ECE teachers and their support staff to increase their understanding and use of AT in the inclusive classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-26">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0164010687-27">Supplementary material</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2022.2099325</p> <ref id="AN0164010687-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Burne, B., Knafelc, M., Melonis, P., & Heyn. (2011). The use and application of assistive technology to promote literacy in early childhood: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 6 (3), 207 – 213. doi: 10.3109/17483107.2010.522684.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children. (2020). Initial practice-based standards for early interventionists/early childhood special educators. Retrieved from : https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/initial-practice-based-standards-early-interventionists-early-childhood-special-educators</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Retrieved from : <ulink href="http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices">http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2012). Assistive technology and the communication and literacy development of young children with disabilities. Center for Early Literacy Learning, 5 (7), 1 – 13. Retrieved from : <ulink href="http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews%5fv5%5fn7.pdf">http://www.earlyliteracylearning.org/cellreviews/cellreviews%5fv5%5fn7.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., & Hamby, D. W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and student outcomes. Educational Research and Reviews, 10 (12), 1731 – 1744. doi: 10.5897/ERR2015.2306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref26" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Jones, B. A., Peterson-Ahmad, M., Fields, M., & Williams, N. (2020). Training preservice teachers to match assistive technology to student needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16264342091833. doi: 10.1177/0162643420918337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref37" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kaminski, R. A., Abbott, M., Bravo-Aguayo, K., & Good, R. H. (2018). Preschool early literacy indicators. Eugene, OR : Dynamic Measurement Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kasari, C., Gulsrud, A. C., Wong, C., Kwon, S., & Locke, J. (2010). Randomized controlled caregiver mediated joint engagement intervention for toddlers with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40 (9), 1045 – 1056. doi: 10.1007/s10803-010-0955-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laubscher, E., Raulston, T. J., & Ousley, C. (2020). Supporting peer interactions in the inclusive preschool classroom using visual scene displays. Journal of Special Education Technology. doi: 10.1177/0162643420981561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research priorities. Assistive Technology, 24 (1), 34 – 44. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2011.648717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohmann, M. J., Hovey, K. A., Gauvreau, A. N., & Higgins, J. P. (2019). Using assistive technology tools to support learning in the inclusive preschool classroom. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 8 (2), 1 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, K., Schladant, M., Sudduth, C., Shearer, R., Dowling, M., and Natale, R.. (2021). Improving engagement: A framework for integrating assistive technology in early literacy instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children 54 (2): 146 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211010189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeskey, J., Barringer, M. D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., ... Ziegler, D. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Arlington, VA : Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Natale, R., Sudduth, C., Dowling, M., Messiah, S., Nunez, C., and Schladant, M.. (2020). The development of an assistive technology toolkit for early literacy instruction. Assistive Technology Outcomes & Benefits, 14, 36 – 51 : 1938-7261.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okolo, C. M., & Diedrich, J. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29 (1), 1 – 20. doi: 10.1177/016264341402900101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oakes : Sage publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Chung, Y. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of Special Education Technology, 24 (1), 1 – 13. doi: 10.1177/016264340902400101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RESNA. (2021) RESNA position paper draft on the capacity-building role of an assistive technology specialist in prek-12 educational settings rehabilitation engineering and assistive Technology Society of North America. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.resna.org">www.resna.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soukakou, E. P., Winton, P. J., West, T. A., Sideris, J. H., & Rucker, L. M. (2014). Measuring the quality of inclusive practices: Findings from the inclusive classroom profile pilot. Journal of Early Intervention, 36 (3), 223 – 240. doi: 10.1177/1053815115569732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugden, E. (2019). Technology applications in school psychology consultation, supervision and training. Popular Music and Society, 6 (10). doi: 10.1080/03007766.2019.1627725</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tamakloe, D., & Agbenyega, J. S. (2017). Exploring preschool teachers' and support staff's use and experiences of assistive technology with children with disabilities. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42 (2), 29 – 36. doi: 10.23965/AJEC.42.2.04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thomas-Stonell, N., Robertson, B., Oddson, B., & Rosenbaum, P. (2015). Communicative participation changes in pre-school children receiving augmentative and alternative communication intervention. International Journal of speech-language Pathology, 18 (1), 32 – 40. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2015.1060530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Chandler, L. K., Zurita, L., & Lynch, K. (2012). Integrating assistive technology into teacher education programs: Trials, tribulations, and lessons learned. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8 (1), 32 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zabala, J. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. (Orlando : Florida Assistive Technology Impact Conference and Technology and Media Division of Council for Exceptional Children). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED381962.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michelle Schladant; Lydia Ocasio-Stoutenburg; Christina Nunez; Monica Dowling; Rebecca Shearer; Jhonelle Bailey; Austin Garilli and Ruby Natale</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref69"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1389472
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Promoting a Culture of Inclusion: Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Assistive Technology Practices to Support Early Literacy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schladant%2C+Michelle%22">Schladant, Michelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8402-1455">0000-0001-8402-1455</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ocasio-Stoutenburg%2C+Lydia%22">Ocasio-Stoutenburg, Lydia</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3760-4476">0000-0003-3760-4476</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nunez%2C+Christina%22">Nunez, Christina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dowling%2C+Monica%22">Dowling, Monica</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shearer%2C+Rebecca%22">Shearer, Rebecca</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7974-0487">0000-0002-7974-0487</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bailey%2C+Jhonelle%22">Bailey, Jhonelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8926-1845">0000-0001-8926-1845</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Garilli%2C+Austin%22">Garilli, Austin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Natale%2C+Ruby%22">Natale, Ruby</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Early+Childhood+Teacher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 44(2):147-166.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Department of Education (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: H327S160017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Faculty+Development%22">Faculty Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Assistive+Technology%22">Assistive Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Courses%22">Online Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Florida%22">Florida</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10901027.2022.2099325
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1090-1027<br />1745-5642
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Despite the efficacy of assistive technology (AT), many children with disabilities do not have access to AT and are not fully benefiting from inclusive preschool education. The current mixed-methods study examined a multi-faceted professional development (PD) intervention aligned with the CEC's Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education (EI/ECSE) Standards to increase general early childhood education (ECE) teachers' use of AT to promote early literacy in young children with disabilities. The 24-week PD intervention included: (a) online modules, (b) coaching; and (c) a classroom kit of AT devices. Participants were six lead teachers, 10 teacher aides, and 34 children from six inclusive classrooms in two preschools. Quantitative methods included pre-and post- surveys, early literacy assessments, and classroom observations. Qualitative analysis explored data from focus groups and input from teacher adherence forms. Results revealed that (a) teachers' AT knowledge, positive beliefs, and use; and (b) children's use of AT and early literacy skills significantly increased pre- to post- intervention. Qualitative findings revealed themes relating to how teachers benefitted from the PD and the impact of AT on teacher instruction and child learning. Findings support innovative PD practices to build capacity of practitioners implementing AT as a responsive instructional strategy in inclusive classrooms.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1389472
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1389472
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10901027.2022.2099325
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 147
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Faculty Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Assistive Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Florida
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Promoting a Culture of Inclusion: Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Assistive Technology Practices to Support Early Literacy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schladant, Michelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ocasio-Stoutenburg, Lydia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nunez, Christina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dowling, Monica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shearer, Rebecca
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bailey, Jhonelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Garilli, Austin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Natale, Ruby
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1090-1027
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1745-5642
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1