IT Transition for at Risk Students: Exploring IT Rich Service Provision for Students With

IT transition for at risk students: exploring IT rich service provision for students with Special Needs through the high school to post-secondary transition

Frederic Fovet, McGill University

Abstract

While IT is now smoothly incorporated, in most educational systems worldwide, in pedagogical approaches to students with Special Needs and blended into support strategies, access to the services themselves (application for services, contact, feedback, quality assurance and outreach) remain ironically paper based or carried out solely through face to face meetings. This is equally true of service provision in Higher Education. Research findings have now amply evidenced the expectations that exist from the perspective of the millennium learners with respect to hybrid access to learning and innovative practices are already flourishing in the filed both in secondary and post-secondary education; yet hybrid access to support services oddly remains unchartered territory.

This paper will explore the hypothesis that hybrid access to support services for students with Special Needs is an urgent priority, that it represents a missing link in current inclusive education policies and that integration of IT in the provision of support services will, importantly, allow service providers to bridge gaps that often exist in transitions between secondary and post-secondary settings. The development of virtual and hybrid access to services will enable, it will be argued, institutions to create a continuum of best practices and models of intervention and eliminate some of the inconsistencies that currently plague students’ transitions.

The paper will concisely review existing literature on IT use in the accommodation of Special Needs both at secondary and post-secondary level. This section will also make references to current research finding on hybrid teaching and make a case for the use of hybrid service provisions to students with Special needs and the creation of a continuum through transitions. It will be argued that the smoothest and most effective means of transition for these students will necessarily involve technology rich mediums and strategies.

The paper relies on qualitative data collected from students with Special Needs in the process of transition or having completed a process of transition to post-secondary and reviews themes and concerns. The analysis emphasizes (i) the reticence from support staff to adopt digital based and virtual interface for service provision, and (ii) the current fragmentation of models and support services and the way IT rich methods of access to services would lead the way to standardization of approaches and the creation of a better continuum from the perspective of students’ experience.

Introduction

The importance of technology in the successful engagement of student with Learning Disabilities or behavioural issues such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is amply established in literature (DuPaul & Stoner, 2003). For now over a decade, best practices in teaching, in both secondary and post-secondary education, has focused on technology rich mode of instruction with students with Disabilities or students traditionally categorized as ‘at risk’. From this perspective, many of the objectives of the ACEC 2012 conference have been implemented more rapidly with this specific sub- group of students than with students at large, as it became apparent that technology needed to form an integral part of learning for these specific students in order to yield tangible successful outcomes (Glaser, Rieth & Kinzer, 2000; Cochran, 2000). The scientific arguments to support the use of technology rich teaching are numerous and diverse, and range from cognitive arguments (Edyburn, 2000) to notions of social inclusion and social capital (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006; Haase & Wellman, 2004), as well as emotional wellbeing (O’Reilly & Newton, 2002; Mehra, Merkel & Bishop, 2004). One would assume therefore, after over a decade of technological implementation in the teaching of students with Special Needs, that interaction – user interface – was also technology rich in high school and post-secondary education. This is far, in fact, from being the case (Margalit, 1990). While all stakeholders agree that technology rich teaching is an essential tool, many still assume that the students needing this support will identify themselves, interact with staff and request these support services in vivo, without any reliance on technology whatsoever (Arafah, Levin, Rainie & Lenhart, 2002; Cuthwell, 2002). We immediately see the contradiction that has been allowed to develop with regards to these students and their use of technology. Educators readily admit that the technology dimension is essential to their learning but similarly insist of removing technology from the student interface (Selwyn, 2006). In high schools this phenomenon and contradiction manifest themselves through the refusal to use social media, to ban cell phones from school premises, to interact virtually with students (Fulmer, 2010). In post-secondary education, a similar resistance and reticence is demonstrated by service provider who advocate for a Universally Design framework but insist on meeting students in person, refuse to interact with users through virtual platforms and ignore the benefits of hybrid service provision (Higbee, 2003). This paper analyses, through a review of qualitative data, the process a Higher Education institutions has undergone to review its student interface procedures. It suggests that this is a healthy review which increases the likelihood of student in need actually accessing services and, importantly, points to the possibility of creating a smoother transition from secondary to post- secondary if this anomaly is addressed proactively.

Context and hypothesis

The context is a significant contradiction which is mirrored, it is argued, in secondary education and post-secondary education. Technological tools are widely used in teaching students with special needs but characteristically absent from the interface between educators and these same students (Becker, 1999). In secondary education the passion, that is a feature of this contradiction, is never more evident than in the insistence cell phones be banned from schools, that social media be frowned upon by teachers and that virtual contact be refused (De Vise, 2009). Educators impliedly hence portray technology to students as key to success and cause of all failures. Researchers examine with bewilderment at times the inconsistent use of technology by at risk students and their too frequent abandonment of technological solutions (Johnson & Evans, 2005), but can one really be surprised? In post-secondary the situation is much the same and while service providers argue to faculty the value of Universal Design as a model to address Disability issues (Scott, McGuire & Shaw, 2003), few are the institutions which do as they preach and interact with the service user through technology (Hafner, 2008). Students still fill forms, meet face to face with advisers, and physically attend meetings. In the age of seamless virtual interactions and communications, we still too often insist that a student with LD or ADHD book appointments, attend meetings, fill forms and rely almost entirely on a paper supported structures and procedures to access support. The hypothesis of this paper is that schools and post- secondary education institutions need to carry out an examination of their relationship with technology and investigate the reticence that is still so often present. This re-evaluation and critical scrutiny is, it is argued, the only way educational institutions will truly be able to integrate technology not just as a pedagogical tool and teaching support, but as an integral part of their relationship and interface with the students. It will be argued that the lingering reticence for full technological interface has no scientific or cognitive basis but rather is rooted in a phenomenon of counter-transference through which teachers, educators and service providers project their own fears and hesitations onto student expectations (Britzman & Pitt, 1996).

The study will also argue that full and seamless integration of technological tools in the interface educators entertain with at risk students allows for the creation of a continuum that bridges the secondary to post-secondary transition. An integrated, IT rich, student interface with students at risk would indeed channel and address student expectations through this difficult transition. As it stands, access to services, for students with Special Needs, in itself is incompatible and inconsistent, if we compare both sectors: directive and teacher led in high school, it becomes holistic and needs based in college to finally be neo-liberal in format in Universities and based on the interaction of supply and demand (funding wise, but also with regards to self-disclosure and requests for service where free market principles are widely applied). In high schools, we argue that virtual interface is pointless because support is teacher-centered; in college we argue it is useless because the social inclusive interaction is key; finally on university campuses we shy away from virtual contact as we argue the demand must manifest itself before the supply is adequately gauged in response. An IT rich, virtually provided, support framework would on the other hand provide a consistent and universal model of interaction for students and allow them to find their bearings, develop clear expectations and navigate all three sectors and transitions in between, with ease.

Existing Literature

Defining students at risk – SEBD as a working term

This paper will adopt a working definition of students ‘at risk’ as being student with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD). SEBD is the most accurate working definition that can be adopted to draw the parameters of the high school student population that is of interest here. As far as a clinical or legal definition of SEBD is concerned, this study will accept as a conceptual tool the definition which the British Government gives the terms, as cited in Travell (1999), meaning that children with SEBD are children “who, as a result of hitherto undefined factors, require additional resources (as defined in the 1996 Education Act) to meet their social, emotional and behavioural needs”. It covers a spectrum ranging from unacceptable behaviour to mental illness, serious mental illness being excluded from the definition (Department for Education and Skill, 2005). The revised SEN Code of Practice (DfES 2001) Section 7:60 provides a protracted definition including the terms ‘withdrawn, isolated, disruptive, disturbing, hyperactive, lacking concentration and presenting challenging behaviour arising from other complex special needs’. It also creates new terminology by naming Behavioural, Emotional and Social Development as one of the four areas of Special Educational Needs. It is therefore fairly difficult to delineate with precision the full ambit of the concept (Cooper, 2007). For the terminology EBD to be used in its generally accepted form, quite severe recurring emotional or Behavioural problems must occur in home, social or school situations. Perhaps the best definition that is applicable to most children with EBD would be that owing to an emotional difficulty or disturbance they refuse or cannot make full use of the educational opportunities offered to them and are consequently difficult or challenging to manage. The usefulness of this concept is that it removes the emphasis from diagnosis and focuses instead on behaviours and class dynamics as common denominators in inadequacy.

SEBD is not a concept which is limited to the UK educational legislative framework. A similar definition is used in US educational legislation though there is some debate as to its specific boundaries (Kauffman, 2010). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) while insisting educators steer clear of ideology, fads, or untested procedures when defining teaching, has failed to define Emotional Behavioral Difficulties with precision (EBD) (Sasso, 2004; Bradley, Henderson & Monfore, 2004). In Canada, there is in fact a recent trend toward non-categorization of services of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities (EBD) for purposes of inclusion (Wishart and Jahnukainen, 2010). In Australia, the concept is used as well, but often within a much looser terminology which includes references to ‘at risk population’, ‘conduct disorders’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ (Hourihan and Hoban, 2004; Spittle, Treyvaud, Doyle, Roberts, Lee, Inder, Cheong, Hunt, Newham & Anderson, 2009).

There is obviously an element of subjectivity to such a definition (Mortimer, 2002). SEBD students often have a perception that their behaviour is in fact normal, and a reasonable (Jackson, Whitehead, & Wigford, 2010) and often an appropriate response to bad teaching and uncongenial school conditions (Sacks & Kern, 2008; Montague & Rinaldi, 2001). Teachers themselves in fact often disagree as to what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour (Poulou, 2005). There is also rarely agreement between characteristics reported by teachers and children (Soles, Bloom, Heath & Karagiannakis, 2008). The display of anti-social behaviour is not rare in itself and will not be sufficient to define a child as being affected by SEBD. A large number of children and teenagers, 60 to 85%, will take part in difficult behaviour before the age of 20, while 40% of youth will display long lasting anti-social behaviour (Moffitt, 2006). It is therefore not the behaviour itself that identifies SEBD students, but the severity of the behaviour and the length of time during which it manifests itself:

“It has often been said that students with emotional and behavioural problems differ from other students only in the frequency, intensity, and duration of their behaviours” (Jones, Dohrn & Dunn, 2004. p71)

The margin for error is further increased if one considers that teachers tend to retain the first impression they have of a child and his/her behaviour (Lightfoot, 1978 as cited by Dudley-Marling, 2000): “with the passage of time, teachers’ perceptions become increasingly stereotyped and children become hardened caricatures of an initial discriminatory vision” (p86)

Secondary schools – fears about virtual student interface and legal restrictions

The literature focusing on possible negative outcomes of virtual interaction with students is very slim and most of the attention given to the topic is media centred rather than evidence based (Snyder, Jevons, Henderson, Gabbott, Beale, 2011). Much of the theory behind the current prohibitive stance, adopted in most secondary educational contexts in developed countries, is grounded in jurisprudence rather than in education research (de Zwart, Lindsay, Henderson, Phillips, 2011). While we assume that the jurisprudence and legal framework themselves must have been influenced by educational outcomes, it is interesting to look more closely as to whether this is indeed the case.

By and large, the driving force in legislation and case law relating to virtual platforms and social network in the classroom setting has been the desire of educational institutions to escape tortious liability. After a century of relatively rigid case law on best practices within their physical domains, schools have had to think fast and hard as to how to adapt these regulations to the new and virtually intangible third space. In this respect much of the litigation on virtual platforms and students use has been conspicuously yearning to adhere to past principles in a revolutionary arena. The intention of the courts has been mostly to regulate institutional liability. Inconspicuously, principles of tort law have been used to restrict the right of expression on social networks, even when this involves students expressing their balanced and reasoned opinion vis-à-vis their institution. In Gwendolyn & Co v. Blacconiere (Salon Professional Academy v. Blacconiere, 2009) for example - an American case-, a beauty school sought to sue students for expressing their comments on the school on Facebook. Layshock and Doninger are two further cases where a school was sued by students for suspending them for off campus speech.

On closer analysis, it may well transpire that much of this case law refers to issues of institutional control and to the restriction of free expression of opinions rather than to more fundamental rights or concepts related to virtual space and student use per se. Recently in the US the 2nd circuit refused, in the Doninger case, to allow a junior from running for school election four years after she was suspended and forbidden from student body involvement having lashed out against school officials on her blog. The controversy here seems to be cultural much more than legal (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson & Weigel, 2006) and simply mirrors current literature findings on issues of control in the classroom space (Manke, 1997; Good & Brophy, 2002). Institutional positioning is almost always a rigid prohibition which carries severe penalties. In a case such as Bayer v. Evans, US Magistrates had no qualms about declaring that much of the internet case law involving students and school administrators to date amounted to a limitation of students’ rights to free speech under the First Amendment, stating that:

‘an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus, did not cause any disruption on-campus and was not lewd, vulgar, threatening or advocating illegal or dangerous behaviour’ had no reason to be regulated by courts or legislators. Yet courts seek to criminalise student activity, in order to control it, through various means – usually by charging students with statutes relating to ‘disorderly conduct’. In North Carolina, for example, N.C.Gen.Stat. 14-288, 4(a)(6) allows school administrators to have students charged with ‘disorderly conduct’ whenever their behaviour interferes with the running of the school and it can be conceived that many online exchanges could be construed as such.

Potential benefits of technological interface with secondary students with Special Needs

There is, on the other hand, a large body of literature focusing on the positive outcomes relating to online student interation. Much of this research focuses on creation and development of an online persona in chat rooms but this has mostly focused to date on the gender (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005) or ethnic differences (Korgan, Odell & Schumacher, 2001). The more recent phenomena of Facebook (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) has also been investigated with respect to persona development within the context of in-faculty use (Hewit & Forte, 2006) but not with respect to social contact between peers – even though it advertises itself primarily as a social networking tool. The idea of analysing online exchanges between students is particularly appealing due to the casual nature of the exchanges that occur in such a forum (Calvert, 2002;. Huffaker & Calvert, 2005). Research has shown furthermore that Facebook use is closely clustered around school affiliation for teenagers (Jones, 2002; Golder, Wilkinson & Huberman, 2007) which in itself increases curiosity as to its potential impact on the schooling of users; impact of social networks used at home on the professional environment has for example been documented in the past in this way (DiMicco, Millen, Geyer & Dugan, 2008). It is clear from literature that students increase and deepen their networks and relationships while using online tools. Boneva, et al. (2006) have for example examined instant messaging routines amongst teenagers and conclude that most adolescents have two motivations when using messenger type tools: they maintain personal relationships and friendships and create and develop group identity (Fovet, 2009). This is what leads most researchers to conclude that online IT tools allow students to reaffirm their sense of belonging to a school cluster (Lenhart & Madden, 2007). Lee & Finger (2010) suggest that online exchanges are popular with adolescents as they allow interaction while freeing the user from rules and regulations usually associated with social exchange.

The creation and development of this type of an online persona has also been the focus of a body of literature. This has mostly involved the online learner and usually, more specifically, the graduate student (Fovet, 2008). The lesson drawn from this research has been mostly that some face to face engagement remains indispensable within a hybrid format for this online persona to appear (Boyle, 2008). Short of this, online chat rooms and bulletin boards offering virtual meetings or interactive discussions seem to be the next best thing when it comes to encouraging online presence (Gunawardena, Plass & Salisbury, 2001). This format has proved tangibly successful in the field of acquisition of languages (Negretti, 1999).

There has also been in depth research focusing on the relationship between the social and emotional wellbeing of teenagers and their use of online networking tools (Cummings, Lee & Kraut, 2006; Haase & Wellman, 2004). The Australian Government in particular has repeatedly suggested the link between student IT use, academic success and emotional wellbeing (Australian Government, 2007). IT use seems inextricably linked to social adaptation, sense of purpose and belonging (Donchi & Moore, 2004). Some studies have looked more specifically at self-representation within social networking sites. There seems to be evidence to support the idea that the personality created online on these platform differs from their social image in the daily context (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Stutzman, 2006). Research also seems to imply that the availability of this different platform for self-representation may be therapeutic for some (Boyd, 2008; Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007). Willard (2007) in particular suggests that adolescent users construct meaning through their exploration on the web and that they may be experimenting with different personalities as they do so. Mazer, Murphy and Simonds (2007) have explored further the potential benefits for at risk students and studied the impact of teacher self-disclosure on Facebook on student motivation, learning, and classroom climate. They believe that the use of Facebook in the educational context can have a positive effect on the student-teacher relationship, which can in turn lead to positive student outcomes. Teachers using Facebook are indeed perceived by students as attempting to develop positive relationships. Use of Facebook as part of the student-teacher relationship was seen as creating a higher level of motivation and a more comfortable classroom climate. Some reasons for this may be that because virtual exchanges are seen as ‘unreal’ they may be addressed with less reserve. This is what Mason (2008) calls the ‘disinhibition effect’. This idea echoes theory and research on the ‘third space’ (Oldenburg, 1999) and the varying nature of the relationships established within such third spaces (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).

Post-secondary: applying what one preaches?

Resistance from Higher Education Disabilities service provider with regards to the implementation of Universal design and an innovative hybrid interface with students has already been documented (Embry, Parker, McGuire & Scott, 2003) but not particularly analyzed (Fovet, 2012a). This study seeks to throw some light on the causal factors that lead to this assessment. Evidence would suggest that some of the factors causing resistance in service providers are similar to those reported by faculty (Cook, Ley, Crawford & Warner, 2009). There is also a fair amount of confusion too as to the impact of IT rich service provision on outcomes for students with Special Needs. A certain misperception has developed, since the appearance of IT in Higher Education, as to its incompatibility with students having specific emotional or psychiatric difficulties (Fovet, 2012b). It is assumed and institutionally taken for granted that these students are best served through face to face advising. It will be argued in this paper that this resistance is rooted, less in inherent limitation of Universal Design or hybrid service provision, than in general misunderstandings as to the grounding principles of these two conceptual notions. There is nothing incompatible in fact in literature about UD, hybrid service provision and Mental Health concerns or behavior difficulties (Fovet, 2012b). There is in conclusion little literature as to possible outcomes of hybrid service provision or UD based student interface as there have simply been very attempts at implementation in Higher Education (Tricker, 2005), even if the potential and tangible benefits of hybrid teaching have been amply explored and assessed (Shin & Lee, 2009; McWilliam & Haukka, 2008; Gunawardena, Plass & Salisbury, 2001). Hybrid service provision has also been successfully explored and gauged in the field of social work and harm reduction theory (Flicker, Goldberg, Read, Veinot, McClelland & Saunier, 2004) and intervention and empowerment (Mehra, Merkel & Bishop, 2004) but Higher Education services remain oddly reticent to venture in this area. Online interaction certainly seems to support the creation of social capital in Higher Education just as it does in high schools (Poole, 2000).

Methodology

The study analyses qualitative data collected through a one year process of scrutiny and review within a service provision unit in Higher Education. The objectives of the process were to achieve and implement: Hybrid service provision; progressive erosion of documentation requirements and gatekeeping roles; active audit of procedures and requirements; streamlining of procedures; consistent holistic message to the user; openness to change and integration of change management; seamless integration of technology (not solely adaptive technology but mainstream tools); and investigative approach to user needs.

The methodology adopted here is the qualitative analysis of data collected over a one year systematic review of processes within a post-secondary unit of service provision. Review and critical scrutiny of processes led to the introduction of virtual advising, hybrid provision of services, outreach through social media, and elimination of paper tools. More importantly, choices of adaptive technology we initially make can be radically metamorphosed when the student’s voice is registered, preferences noted, user feedback acknowledged. In essence, once initiated a student centered process such as this, with regards to technology as support, becomes not just a transformative process but a radical shift in methodological approach to student needs and student expectations. Rather than impose, we listen and learn from the patterns of usage of the students we support.

The qualitative data which forms the basis of this paper consists of semi-directive interviews carried out with post-secondary Disability service providers as they underwent this rigorous review of the student interface. The data itself did not take the form of a student survey but many staff interviewed relay their experiences with student reactions to the transformation process and comment on outcomes.

Some semi-directive interviews of Secondary education Special Needs support staff are also incorporated in the data dissemination as the outsider input appeared important throughout the transformation process. This was thought important and relevant as it provides indication of potential use and outcomes with regards to establishing a continuum of services and philosophy through the secondary to post-secondary transition. It highlights possible best practices that bridge both sectors of education and involve technological use in student interface.

Findings

The man observation of the study echoes the general findings of Embry, Parker, McGuire & Scott (2003) but this study suggests that it has been able to show further light on the specific causal factors which lead to this resistance and this friction from service providers when a technology rich student interface is sought. The specific factors which transpire through the analysis of the data are: (i) ambivalence with regards to change process; (ii) desire to remain focused on frontline service; (iii) lack of familiarity with the social model of Disability; (iv) issues of IT competence; and (v) appeal of ‘specialist’ status. (i) Ambivalence with regard to change process

The resistance to change observed in much of the data is a recurrent theme of Human Resources research (Weinbach, 1984); as such it is not specific to the Disabilities field and echoes general social behaviour trends with regards to change (). The general employee trends were perhaps more accentuated than in other fields, even within the Higher Education context, in the sense that many participants reported having entered the field without formal training or qualification. A reticence to experiment or consider fundamental structural changes in service provision from a conceptual angle therefore ensued, illustrating a certain suspicion towards one`s own skills set. Turnover was reported as being low with many participants describing period of employment in the same unit ranging between 3 and 22 years; this trend obviously explained the resistance to fundamental alterations in the format of service provision.

(ii) Desire to remain focused on frontline service

A phenomenon of counter-transference was observed with many of the participants, access advisers often claiming that face to face interaction was essential to the provision of services – even when no outcome assessment could support such conclusions. It became quickly quite clear that most participants in fact had a strong emotional attachment to face to face advising and that this format of service provisions fulfilled deep rooted, personal expectations but did not reflect evidence based realities of student engagement.

(iii) Lack of familiarity with the social model of Disability

Many participants were reported to operate within a medical model approach to Disabilities and had little, if no, clear understanding of the social model of disability. The impact of this observation was two-fold: it lead to a conviction that one single format of interface with Special Needs users was diagnostically imposed; it also led participants to feel disempowered when it came to addressing student needs in any fashion not specifically suggested or directed by literature. It echoes much of the research on the `referral culture’ currently prevalent in education, with regards to Special Needs, which leads educators and service providers to systematically look to other professions for solutions applicable to the educational environment.

(iv) Issues of IT competency

The findings in this section echoed many of the findings on instructor IT competency (Hootstein, 2002; Gray, Ryan & Coulon, 2004). IT competency in instructors is a multi-staged, complex and progressive notion and the participants here reported similar feelings. Most participants left that they lacked the IT skills to experiment or create new technology rich modes of student interface and engagement. Even when the tools were readily available, the participants lacked the skills or confidence to use them, or to integrate them into their professional practices. Furthermore, they reported an incapacity to become creative with tools they felt they barely able to master. The fear of being perceived as lacking competence by the service users themselves was widely recorded. (v) Appeal of ‘specialist’ status

Requiring a student to attend meetings within the unit`s physical environment undoubtedly carried a dimension of status. It was perceived by participants that this professional image would be compromised if assistance and advice was readily offered through virtual contact. The feelings described by participants in this section of the survey echo much of the research on privilege and power in service provision. Disability service providers clearly gain a feeling of competence in the format of the service provision itself. Even when services claim to be student centered, physically asking a student to make him or herself available in the professional space added a clinical perspective which seemed cherished by the professionals interviewed.

The study also distinguished five distinct stages in the implementation of Universal Design and the establishment of IT rich methods of service provision: These five stages are: (a) seeding of information; (b) structured increase of awareness (workshops and awareness initiatives); (c) on-the-ground procedural changes; (d) resistance; and (e) UD audits and sustainable implementation of IT rich student interface.

(a) Seeding of information

This phase is slow and resource heavy. It is difficult to gauge results and outcomes during this stage of the implementation process which makes it all the more difficult for units to navigate successfully. The information disseminated is not crucial in itself and it seems rather that the promotion of a common vocabulary is the central focus. The setting of a framework slowly occurs and units usually find that the setting is set for change once they observe the `vocabulary’ being used by other stakeholders.

(b) Structured increase of awareness (workshops and awareness initiatives)

This process is a proactive and dynamic stage which is resource heavy. This implies a redeployment of resources by the unit, away from front line, towards the management of change and the implementation of new tools and an alternate interface. This stage of the process is undoubtedly the conjuncture where the highest level of ‘transitional friction’ is recorded.

(c) On-the-ground procedural changes

This is a dynamic phase when exploration of IT tools and resources is carried out. It stimulates some and threatens others. It is a phase of deep excitement for service users and may lead to the recording of early user outcomes. This is the stage where fears concerning IT competency are at their highest amongst staff.

(d) Resistance

A long phase of intense resistance follows the wave of procedural change. This is when resistance to change is most observable. Many of the changes made to the student or user interface are fundamental and lead to a complete rethink of the service provision. On the ground this stage of implementation may lead to wide and large scale (e) UD audits and sustainable implementation

Once implementation has reached this stage, change becomes more dynamic and is fueled by tangible outcome and, most importantly, user feedback. This makes this stage the most dynamic and the most satisfying of the process. The UD audit process normally comes to light as professionals reflect on the path they have followed and determine the need to widen the impact of changes they have triggered. A desire to share outcomes with other stakeholders and other professional environments normally accompanies this stage of the process. Interestingly this is the stage when the Disabilities discourse runs the opportunity to bland into wider campus agendas such as the diversity drive or the lobbying for sustainability. The opportunities for interdepartmental collaboration increase considerably during this final stage of reflection.

It is interesting to note that the five stages of resistance were noted both internally and externally. They were therefore also observed when confronting other units, stakeholders and senior administration and the patterns and characteristics were very similar to the ones observed internally during the implementation of the new procedures to interact with students.

Outcomes

The outcomes of this study and its potential applications are as numerous as far-reaching. First there are direct impacts with regards to training. What is uncovered here is fundamentally a lack of feeling of competency on the part of service providers which radically limits their willingness to use technology as a primary mode of communication with the students they support. The complexity of IT competency acquisition is well documented. It is argues in this paper that far too many service providers still only attain a level of IT competency that allow them but a partial feeling of adequacy when using IT for communication and creativity. There is also a second element that must be addressed in training reforms. Power dynamics are also a fundamental reason while support staff remain reluctant to integrate IT rich tools in their student interface. They still need to control that interface and the environment they create for the student; embracing technology within that relationship runs the risk of making them feel as though they are losing ‘control’; but should power dynamics still in early 21 st century, constitute an element of the way we interact with students with Special Needs?

The second outcome relates to the Human Relations angle and triggers reflection as how best to establish a proactive and efficient management of change in educational institutions. Much of the reticence observed in this study is accountable for by the fact that few institutions have the know-how to actively develop change in processes, best practices and attitudes. Few of the HR best practices which have regulated and driven the private sector for now several decades have, to date, seeped through to education: Just-in-time management, QA based client focus, etc.

The third important outcome relates to the methodological basis used in the process described here. Listening to the student voice and recording student expectations as a basis for change in best practices is something innovative and still controversial. This leads the researcher to interesting path involving the application of the rigor of Grounded Theory to educational research (Charmaz, 2000), a choice particularly suitable considering the marginalized status of the students that are our focus, but a choice still rarely illustrated or explored in literature. In the end, it is student’s experience with IT that should forge our path forward, in service provision, rather than the imposition of our assumptions with regards to technology.

In fact it is argued that our very notion of ‘technology’ is generation-centric and echoes baby boomer concepts not just of technological tools, capacity and potential but even of theoretical boundaries that are specific to us as educators and professionals and not shared by the students we support. Technological interface for the z generation refers less to specific tools and products, which vary and change at increasing speed; it relates for the youth we support to a mode of interaction that is quite distinct from specific tools and has characteristics that are constant, irrespective of the tool and fashion of the moment: flexibility, complementarity, central focus on expectations and user impact, integration of lateral thinking and engagement.

Though, as is often the case, the needs of at risk students serve to best emphasize the need for reform and identify the legal requirements that are required for the educational system to remain universally accessible and equitable; it is not merely students with SEBD who would benefit from forward thinking and all encompassing legislative frameworks on IT use in schools and access to the virtual learning experience (Baase, 2007). Students with SEBD are particularly vulnerable and sensitive to issues of inclusion (Benz, Lindstrom & Yovanoff, 2000). As such they would benefit from increased involvement with their school cluster through a use of virtual platforms that goes well beyond the physical parameters of the school day (O’Reilly & Newton, 2002; Krause, 2007). What is crucial for students at risk would be beneficial for the learner in general (Ingvarson & Gaffney, 2008) and the application of ethnomethodology (Jordan, Stocek, Mark & Matches, 2009) to the discourse of adolescents at large quickly ascertains the importance of IT in their development, be it social (Williams & Daniels, 2002), academic (Johnson & Bratt, 2009) or emotional (Levin & Wadmany, 2006). Universal design theory (Scott, McGuire & Shaw, 2003) would lead us to seek a global legal approach to IT use that would be adequate for students with SEBD but also accommodate mainstream users. And beyond even the immediate benefits of social capita and wellbeing, should legal frameworks not seek to encourage the development of a workforce that is adapted and skilled to take on the challenges of the digital age twenty-first century (McWilliam & Haukka, 2008)? In order to do this, schools will need to effectively train teachers to use IT fully and competently in the classroom environment, with regards to format and content (Selwyn, 2006), while legislators and judges will need to venture away from mere dry principles of tort to place more fruitful legal burdens on schools and educators. As Lee and Finger (2010) suggest:

‘Given our position regarding the reality of increasingly networked world in which young people are currently immersed, and that schools need to embrace and take advantage of this reality for educating their students, we have a responsibility as educators to teach them how to safely navigate such a world.’ (p. 278) REFERENCES

Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006) Imaged communities: Awareness, information sharing and privacy on Facebook. In: A. Acquisti & R. Gross (Eds.) Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 36-58.

Arafah, S., Levin, D., Rainie, L., & Lenhart, A. (2002) The Digital Disconnect: The Widenning Gap Between Internet Savvy Students and their Schools. WWW. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2002/The- Digital-Disconnect-The-Widening-gap-between-Internetsavvy-students-and-their-schools.aspx (June 10th, 2011)

Australian Government (2007) National Safe Schools Framework, Department of Education, Science and Training. (WWW) http://www.dest.gouv.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/national_safe_sch ools (June 10th, 2011)

Baase, S. (2007) A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal and Ethical Issues for Computing and the Internet. (3rd ed.) Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Becker, H. J. (1999). Internet Use by Teachers. (WWW) University of California-Irvine: Center for Research on Information Technology in Organizations. http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/html/findings.html (accessed August 3rd, 2012)

Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, Vol. 66, pp. 509 – 529.

Boneva, B.S., Quinn, A., Kraut, R.E., Keilser, S., & Shklovski, I. (2006) Teenage communication in the instant messaging era. In: R. Kraut, M. Brynin & S. Keisler (Eds.) Computers, Phones and the Internet. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 201-218.

Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, Identity and Digital Media. (pp.119-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Boyd, D..M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), art.11.

Bradley, R., Henderson, K., Monfore, D. (2004) A National Perspective on Children with Emotional Disorders, Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 29(3), pp. 211-223

Britzman, D. P., & Pitt, A. J. (1996). Pedagogy and transference: Casting the past of learning into the presence of teaching. Theory into Practice, Vol. 35, pp. 117-123.

Calvert, S., L. (2002). Identity construction on the Internet. In: S.L. Calvert, A.B. Jordan, & R.R. Cocking (Eds.), Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on Development, pp. 57-70. Westport, CT: Praeger Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cochran, P.S. (2000) Technology for individuals with speech and language disorders. In: J.D. Lindsay (Ed.) Technology and Exceptional Individuals. 3rd ed. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, pp. 303–25.

Cook, R., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), p. 149-163.

Cummings, J., Lee, J., & Kraut, R. (2006). Communicattion technology and friendship during the transition from high school to college. In R.E. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kieser (Eds.) Computers, Phones and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology, pp. 265-278. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cuthwell, J.P. (2002) Virtual Learning: The Impact of ICT on the Way Young People Work and Learn. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Department for Education and Skills (2005) Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Study Materials. (WWW) 2005. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/supplyteachers (accessed on December 28th 2005)

Department for Education and Skills (2001) Special Education Needs – Code of Practice. (WWW) http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/3724/SENCodeofPractice.pdf (16 August 2010).

De Vise, D. (2009) Students crave a break on cellphone ban. Washington Post, June 1st, 2009. de Zwart, M., Lindsay, D., Henderson, M., Phillips, M. (2011) Randoms vs weirdos: teen use of social networking sites and perceptions of legal risk, Alternative Law Journal, Vol 36 (3), Legal Service Bulletin Co-Operative Ltd., Clayton Vic Australia, pp. 153-157.

DiMicco, J.M., Millen, D.R., Geyer, W., & Dugan, C. (2008) Research on the use of social software in the workplace, Conference Proceedings, CSCW 08 Social Networking in Organizations, Nov 8-12.

Donchi, L., & Moore, S. (2004) It’s a boy thing: The role of the internet in young people’s psychological wellbeing. Behaviour Change, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 76-89.

DuPaul, G. J., & Stoner, G. (2003). ADHD in the Schools (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Edyburn, D.L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, Vol. 32(9), pp. 1–24.

Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe. C. (2007) The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Exploring the relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capita. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), art 1.

Embry, P., Parker, D., McGuire, J., & Scott, S. (2005). Postsecondary disability service providers’ perceptions about implementing Universal Design for Instruction. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 18(1), pp. 34-48 Flicker, Goldberg, Read, Veinot, McClelland & Saunier (2004) HIV-Positive Youth's Perspectives on the Internet and eHealth, Journal of Med Internet Research, Vol. 6(3): e32.

Fovet, F. (2008) Self-perception and self-representation in participants of an online Masters program targeting education practitioners, Conference Proceedings, FIE 2008.

Fovet, F. (2009) Impact of the use of Facebook amongst students of high school age with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) Conference Proceedings, 39th Frontiers in Education Conference – San Antonio Texas, October 2009

Fovet, F. (2012a) Being UD Before you Preach UD. AHEAD & Pepnet Annual 2012 Conference, New Orleans.

Fovet, F. (2012b) UD, Technology Rich Access and Mental Health Issues: Friend or Foe? CACUSS 2012 Conference, Brock University.

Fulmer, E.H. (2010) Privacy expectations and protections for teachers in the internet age. Duke Law & Technology Review, Vol. 14, pp. 1-19

Glaser, W., Rieth, C.,& Kinzer, H. (2000) A description of the impact of multimedia anchored instruction on classroom interactions. Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 14, pp. 27–43.

Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007) Rythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies,(WWW) http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/facebook/facebook.pdf (accessed December 21st, 2008)

Good & Brophy (2002) Looking in classrooms (9th ed). New York: HarperCollins.

Gray, D. E., Ryan, M., & Coulon, A. (2004). The training of teachers and trainers: Innovative practices, skills and competencies in the use of elearning. (WWW) European Journal of Open and Distance Learning. (Accessed on January 12th, 2005), http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2004/Gray_Ryan_Coulon.htm.

Gunawardena, C., Plass, J., & Salisbury, M. (2001) Do we really need an online discussion group. In: D. Murphy, R. Walker, & G. Webb (Eds.) Online Learning and Teaching with Technology, London, UK: Kogan Page Ltd

Haase, Q., A., & Wellman, B. (2004) How does the Internet affect social capital? In. M. Huysman & V. Wulf (Eds.), Social Capital and Information Technology, pp.113-135. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hafner, D. (2008). Inclusion in Post-Secondary Education: Phenomenological Study on Identifying and addressing Barriers to Inclusion of Individuals with Significant Disabilities at a Four Year Liberal Arts College. (Ph. D, Edgewood College) (WWW) www.stepsforward.org/research (Accessed August 3rd, 2011) Hewitt, A., & Forte, A. (2006) Crossing boundaries: identity management and student/faculty relationships on the Facebook, Conference Proceedings. Banff, AB: CSCW 06, Nov 4-8.

Higbee, J. (2003) (Ed.) Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota

Hootstein, E. (2002). Wearing four pairs of shoes: The roles of e-learning facilitators. Learning Circuits— E-learning 1.0, (WWW) The Basics of E-learning. (accessed June 9th, 2003) http://www.learningcircuits.org/2002/oct2002/elearn.html.

Hourihan, F., and Hoban, D. (2004) Learning, Enjoying, Growing, Support model: An innovative collaborative approach to the prevention of conduct disorder in preschoolers in hard to reach rural families. Australian Journal of Rural Health. Vol. 12, pp. 269-276.

Huffaker, D., & Calvert, S.L. (2005) Gender, identity and language use in teenage blogs, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), p.1

Ingvarson, D., & Gaffney, M. (2008) Developing and sustaining the digital education ecosystem: The value and possibilities of online environments for student learning. In: M. Lee & M. Gaffney (Eds.) Leading a Digital School: Principles and Practice. ACER Press: Melbourne, pp. 146-167.

Jackson, E., Whitehead, J., & Wigford, A. (2010) In an EBD Population Do Looked after Children Have Specific Needs Relating to Resilience, Self-Perception and Attainment? Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol 26 (1), p69-77

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A., & Weigel, M. (2006) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. (WWW) http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A4E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E %7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF (June 10th, 2011)

Johnson, G.M., & Bratt S.E. (2009) Technology education students: e-tutors for school children. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 40 (1), pp. 32-41

Johnson, S. & Evans, J. (2005). Considering response efficiency as a strategy to prevent assistive technology abandonment. Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 20(3), pp. 45-50.

Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college : How Students Are Living in the Future with Today's Technology, (WWW) Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=71. (Accessed March 8th, 2011)

Jones, V., Dohrn, E., & Dunn, C. (2004) Creating Effective Programs for students with Emotional and Behavior Disorders. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Jordan, S., Stocek, C., Mark, R. & Matches, S. (2009) Doing Participatory Evaluation: from ‘Jagged World Views’ to Indigenous Methodology, in The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, Vol 38, Supplement, 2009 pp 74 – 82

Kauffman, J (2010) Commentary: Current Status of the Field and Future Directions, Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 35(2) p180-184

Korgan, K., Odell, P. & Schumacher, P. (2001) Internet use among college students: Are there differences by race/ ethnicity? Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(3).

Lee, M., & Finger, G. (2010) Developping a Networked School Community. ACER Press: Victoria.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens, privacy & online social networks. Pew Internet and American Life Project Report.

Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006) Listening to Students’ Voices on Learning with Information Technologies in a Rich Technology-Based Classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Vol. 34 (3), pp. 281- 317.

Manke, M. P.(1997) Classroom Power Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Margalit, M. (1990) Effective Technology Integration for Disabled Children: The family perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mason, K.L. (2008) Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel. Psychology In the Schools, Vol. 45 (4), pp. 323-348.

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R.E., & Simonds, C.J. (2007) I’ll see you on Facebook: The effects of computer- mediated teacher disclosure on student motivation, affective learning and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56(1), 1-17.

McWilliam, E. & Haukka, S. (2008). Educating the creative workforce: new directions for twenty-first century schooling. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 34 (5), pp 651-666. London. Routlege.

Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, Vol. 6 (6), pp. 781-802

Moffitt, T. (2006) Life-course persistent versus adolescence limited anti-social behaviour. In: P. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology, pp. 571-594, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Montague, M., & Rinaldi, C. (2001) Classroom dynamics and children at risk: a follow-up, Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 25-30

Mortimer, H. (2002), Behavioural and Emotional Difficulties, Alden Group Ltd, Oxford

Negretti, R. (1999) Web-based activities and SLA: a conversation analysis research approach, Language Learning and Technology, vol.3, No1, pp75-87. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L No 107-110 (115) Stat. 1425 (2002)

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through The Day. New York: Marlowe & Company.

O’Reilly, M., & Newton, D. (2002) Interaction online: above and beyond requirements of assessment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), p.57-70.

Poole, D. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, Vol. 33 (2), pp. 162-77.

Poulou, M. (2005) Perceptions of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties - A study of prospective teachers in Greece, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 10 (2), pages 137 - 160

Sacks, G., & Kern, L. (2008) A comparison of quality of life variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders and students without disabilities, Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 17(1), p111- 127

Sasso, J. (2004) Measurement Issues in EBD Research: What We Know and How We Know It, Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 30(1), pp. 60-71

Scott, S., McGuire, J., & Shaw, S. (2003) Universal Design for Instruction, Remedial and Special Education; Vol. 24 (6) pp. 369- 381

Selwyn, N. (2006) Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 31 (1), pp. 5-17.

Shin, M. & Lee, Y. (2009). Changing the landscape of teacher education via online teaching and learning. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, Vol. 83 (9), p. 32-33.

Snyder, I., Jevons, C., Henderson, M., Gabbott, T., Beale, D. (2011) More than chatting online: Children, marketing and the use of digital media, English in Australia , Vol 46 (3) Australian Association for the Teaching of English Inc., Australia, pp. 32-40.

Soles, T., Bloom, E., Heath, N., & Karagiannakis, A. (2008) An exploration of teachers' current perceptions of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 13 (4) , pp. 275 - 290

Spittle, A., Treyvaud, K., Doyle, L., Roberts, G., Lee, K., Inder, T., Cheong, J., Hunt, R., Newham, C., & Anderson, P. (2009) Early emergence of behavior and social-emotional problems in very preterm infants, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 48(9), pp. 909-918

Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as "third places." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 11(4), article 1. Stutzman, F. (2006) An evaluation of identity sharing behaviour in social network communities. Journal of International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3 (1), 10-18.

Travell, C. (1999) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: Perspectives on Perspectives. In: J. Visser & S Rayener (Eds) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: A Reader. Lichfield: QEd Publications.

Tricker, T. (2005) Student Expectations – How Do We Measure Up? In: F. McMahon & T. Claes (Eds) Probing the Boundaries in Higher Education.

Weinbach, R. W. (1984). Implementing change: Insights and strategies for the supervisor. Social Work, Vol. 29 (May/June), pp. 282-286.

Williams, H & Daniels, A. (2002) A systemic approach to emotional factors in dealing with behavioural difficulties. The Birmingham Framework for Intervention. In P. Gray (Ed). Working with Emotions. Responding to the Challenge of Difficult Pupil Behaviour in Schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Williard, N. (2007) Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenges of Online Social Aggression Threats and Distress. Research Press: Champlain, Illinois.

Wishart, D., & Jahnukainen, M. (2010) Difficulties associated with the coding and categorization of students with emotional and behavioural disabilities in Alberta, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol 15 (3), pp. 181 - 187