from 01.01.2023 until now
Russian State Social University (Dean of the Faculty of Management, Head of the Center for Mediation and Social Communication at the Russian State Social University (RSSU))
from 01.01.2000 to 01.01.2023
Moscow, Russian Federation
Saratov, Russian Federation
Saratov, Russian Federation
The review features the latest global trends in new technological solutions in the field of education for students with disabilities. It describes the best global practices that can be implemented by Russian schools and universities. The review covers international peer-reviewed scientific articles published in 2017–2023. The list of assistive tools includes tablets for the visually impaired; e-learning interfaces with interaction functions for students with visual and hearing impairments; interactive learning environments and online courses adapted for various assistive technologies, e.g., voice assistants and screen readers; augmentative and alternative communications, e.g., speech-generating devices; tablets with text-to-speech and speech-to-text applications and speech recognition technologies; virtual and augmented reality technologies; intelligent systems based on the metaverse and virtual or augmented reality options; eye-gaze technology. The following areas were found especially relevant in global practice: improving existing text-to-speech technologies and creating more intuitive user interfaces; developing algorithms that can analyze the context and offer more accurate and understandable voice commands; integrating augmentative and alternative communication technologies into everyday education practice; adapting the augmented reality technologies to various sensory and cognitive features of information perception; integrating metaverse intelligent systems into learning management systems to analyze data on each student and adapt the education process to their unique needs; integrating eye-gaze technology into other assistive technologies.
rehabilitation, assistive technologies, education, augmentative and alternative communications systems, virtual and augmented reality technologies, eye-gaze technology
1. Kotovskaya S. V., Voronkov D. I. The relationship of resilience and personality characteristics of students of an inclusive university. Actual problems of legal, economic, and socio-psychological knowledge: Theory and practice: Proc. IV Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Donetsk, 14 May 2020. Donetsk: Cifrovaya tipografija, 2020, 343–348. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/axskfy
2. Tserfus D. N., Korzunin V. A., Ivanova T. V., Shilova I. M. Modern constructs of university students' psychological well-being and vitality. Psychopedagogics in law enforcement, 2023, 28(4): 372–377. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/1999-6241-2023-495-372-377
3. Cook A. M., Polgar J. M. Assistive technologies-e-book: Principles and practice. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2014, 496.
4. McNicholl A., Desmond D., Gallagher P. Assistive technologies, educational engagement and psychosocial outcomes among students with disabilities in higher education. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2023, 18(1): 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1854874
5. Kisanga S. E., Kisanga D. H. The role of assistive technology devices in fostering the participation and learning of students with visual impairment in higher education institutions in Tanzania. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2022, 17(7): 791–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1817989
6. Senjam S. S., Foster A., Bascaran C. Barriers to using assistive technology among students with visual disability in schools for the blind in Delhi, India. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2021, 16(7): 802–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1738566
7. Farhan W., Razmak J. A comparative study of an assistive e-learning interface among students with and without visual and hearing impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2022, 17(4): 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2020.1786733
8. Holyfield C., Brooks S., Schluterman A. Comparative effects of high-tech visual scene displays and low-tech isolated picture symbols on engagement from students with multiple disabilities. Languages, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 2019, 50(4): 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_lshss-19-0007
9. Tegler H., Demmelmaier I., Johansson M. B., Norén N. Creating a response space in multiparty classroom settings for students using eye-gaze accessed speech-generating devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2020, 36(4): 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1811758
10. Svensson I., Nordström T., Lindeblad E., Gustafson S., Björn M., Sand C., Almgren/Bäck G., Nilsson S. Effects of assistive technology for students with reading and writing disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2021, 16(2): 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1646821
11. Berner K., Alves A. N. A scoping review of literature using speech recognition technologies by individuals with disabilities in multiple contexts. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 2023, 18(7): 1139–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.1986583
12. Cadet L. B., Reynaud E., Chainay H. Memory for a virtual reality experience in children and adults according to image quality, emotion, and sense of presence. Virtual Reality, 2022, 26(1): 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00537-y
13. Almutairi A., Al-Megren S. Preliminary investigations on augmented reality for the literacy development of deaf children. Advances in visual informatics: Proc. 5 Intern. Visual Informatics Conf., Bangi, Malaysia, 28–30 Nov 2017. Springer International Publishing, 2017, 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70010-6_38
14. Quintero J., Baldiris S., Rubira R., Cerón J., Velez G. Augmented reality in educational inclusion. A systematic review on the last decade. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01835
15. Chen P.-H., Ho H.-W., Chen H.-C., Tam K.-W., Liu J.-C., Lin L.-F. Virtual reality experiential learning improved undergraduate students' knowledge and evaluation skills relating to assistive technology for older adults and individuals with disabilities. BMC Medical Education, 2024, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05085-y
16. Ventura S., Brivio E., Riva G., Banos R. M. Immersive versus non-immersive experience: Exploring the feasibility of memory assessment through 360 degrees technology. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509
17. Wohlgenannt I., Simons A., Stieglitz S. Virtual reality. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 2020, 62(5): 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00658-9
18. Sghaier S., Elfakki A. O., Alotaibi A. A. Development of an intelligent system based on metaverse learning for students with disabilities. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 2022, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.1006921
19. Reeves S. M., Crippen K. J., McCray E. D. The varied experience of undergraduate students learning chemistry in virtual reality laboratories. Computers & Education, 2021, 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104320
20. Sun R., Wu Y. J., Cai Q. The effect of a virtual reality learning environment on learners’ spatial ability. Virtual Reality, 2019, 23(4): 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0355-2
21. Hsieh Y. H., Granlund M., Hwang A. W., Hemmingsson H. Feasibility of an eye-gaze technology intervention for students with severe motor and communication difficulties in Taiwan. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2023, 40(3): 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2288837
22. Borgestig M., Al Khatib I., Masayko S., Hemmingsson H. The impact of eye-gaze controlled computer on communication and functional independence in children and young people with complex needs – A multicenter intervention study. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 2021, 24(8): 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2021.1903603
23. Karlsson P., Griffiths T., Clarke M. T., Monbaliu E., Himmelmann K., Bekteshi S., Allsop A., Pereksles R., Galea C., Wallen M. Stakeholder consensus for decision making in eye-gaze control technology for children, adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy service provision: Findings from a Delphi study. BMC Neurology, 2021, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02077-z
24. Dhondt A., Van Keer I., Van der Putten A., Maes B. Communicative abilities in young children with a significant cognitive and motor developmental delay. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities: Jarid, 2020, 33(3): 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12695
25. Tsai M.-J. Augmentative and alternative communication service by speech-language pathologists in Taiwan. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 2019, 40(3): 176–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740118759912
26. Kiyota K., Ishibashi T., Shimakawa M., Ito K. Effects of social implementation education for assistive device engineers at NIT (KOSEN) through the development of a digital reading device for the visually Impaired. Sensors (Basel), 2022, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031047
