© 2018 Narr Francke Attempto Verlag 47 (2018) • Heft 2 C AROLYN B LUME , N ICOLA W ÜRFFEL * Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings Abstract. Foreign language pedagogy is faced with the challenge of developing inclusive teaching and learning approaches that facilitate access to foreign language learning for all. Instruction for people with special educational needs (SEN) can be supported through a wide variety of digital media that do not simply make learning possible, but also enhance it. This article therefore considers digital technologies that can support learners with SEN in their foreign language acquisition; it furthermore considers which alternative learning possibilities are offered by these technologies to all learners in inclusive settings. To present these digital technologies, we have chosen two different approaches: First, we summarize four characteristics of digital learning tools that seem to be particularly relevant for learners with SEN. Secondly, particular challenges faced by learners with specific SEN are introduced, and technologies that can facilitate and support the language learning of these individuals are discussed. Subsequently, we discuss some of the challenges of implementing these technologies, for teachers, learners, and educational institutions. 1. Introduction Even though enabling individuals with SEN to fully participate in social, political, and economic processes was previously an educational goal in Germany prior to the commitment created by the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, the mandate has served as a substantial impetus for intensive discussions regarding inclusion. The Convention, among other things, recognizes in Article 24 the right of “full inclusion” to students with handicaps (B MAS 2011). Although the priority of learning foreign languages must be, depending on the individuals and interests involved, weighed in relation to the acquisition of other relevant and necessary competencies, such knowledge is a means of engendering broad participation (E UROPEAN C OMMISSION 2005). Foreign language pedagogy is thus (for this, as well as other reasons) faced with the challenge of developing inclu- * Addresses for correspondence: Carolyn B LUME , M.Ed., ZZL Network Lehrerbildung, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 L ÜNEBURG . E-Mail: cblume@leuphana.de Research areas: Digital game-based language learning, Lehrerbildung, Inklusion im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Prof. Dr. Nicola W ÜRFFEL , Universität Leipzig, Herder Institut, 04081 L EIPZIG . E-Mail: nicola.wuerffel@uni.leipzig.de Research areas: Computergestütztes Fremdsprachenlernen, Kooperatives Lernen, Lehrerprofessionalisierung. Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 9 47 (2018) • Heft 2 sive teaching and learning approaches that facilitate access to foreign language learning for all (cf. B URWITZ -M ELZER et al. 2017). Digital media have been used in foreign language education since the 1960s, initially in the form of primarily behavioristic instructional materials, available solely on mainframe computers for special populations. Whereas developments in the following 40 years focused on creating appropriately modified stand-alone teaching and learning materials, and on the interaction between learners and computers, early large-scale projects supported by European Union initiatives that have emerged since the year 2000 have included intercultural and collaborative projects (cf. W ILSON 2013). More recently, technological and pedagogical applications have begun to flourish, and the possibilities of using digital media to support the (foreign language) learning of learners with SEN have multiplied. At the most fundamental level, these technologies can enable individuals with SEN to participate in the learning of foreign languages. In this sense, the term assistive technologies (AT) is used. AT is generally defined as “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (US PL 100-407 1988; W HO 2001). ATs for language learning might thus refer to speech recognition or text-to-speech applications for individuals with vision impairments. A more thorough analysis, however, makes it clear that such a perspective regarding AT is too limiting and that an appropriate analysis requires a more complex approach. Instruction for people with SEN can be supported through a wide variety of other media that go far beyond this narrow definition of AT, i.e. through digital media that do not simply make learning possible, but also enhance it (cf. A BBOTT 2007). This article therefore considers AT in this narrow sense, but, additionally, extends a wider net and considers other digital technologies that can support learners with SEN in their foreign language acquisition. Ultimately, in keeping with the notion that the hallmark of a truly inclusive instructional environment is one which all students are individually supported and challenged, the question of whether, and how, these technologies can offer learners alternative learning possibilities will be explored. Given the fact that modern digital media can be applied differentially to meet the needs of a wide range of learners, its usage can contribute to dismantling the barriers between the “abled” and “disabled.” Hearing a word pronounced in text-to-speech software or listening to how a dictionary pronounces a word is likely infinitely more helpful for all learners than reading the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), regardless of visual acuity. Using technology to differentiate not only makes individualization for a wide range of heterogeneous learners possible; it furthers each individual’s ability to, in the future, identify, select, and appropriate technological tools that reflect their competencies and needs. Such autonomy, moreover, reflects the digitally-informed contemporary expectation of learners to be active participants in constructing their own learning environment (cf. J ONES / S TUHLMANN / Z EYER 2016). 10 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Given the complexity of the topic, this contribution can only scratch the surface, addressing both academics and practitioners who are interested in this topic, either from the perspective of inclusive education or differentiation, or from the perspective of digitalization and its possibilities. Recognizing the heterogeneity of this audience, we have selected two approaches, both of which attempt a systematic approach to the topic from alternative starting points. Our initial approach broaches the topic by considering common characteristics of educational digital media that simultaneously make them especially appropriate for the foreign language learning (FLL) of learners with SEN. Subsequently, utilizing a more specialist approach, we adopt the official categories that are used to define learners with SEN (the most common categorizations distinguish learners who have speech, visual or hearing impairments, intellectual or physical disabilities, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, or chronic illness or medical needs) to describe the particular challenges facing these learners, and the ways in which digital tools might facilitate their learning. In the first part of this article, we give a brief overview of the available research on this topic. In the second part, we summarize four characteristics of digital learning tools that seem to be particularly relevant for learners with SEN. In the third part, particular challenges faced by learners with specific SEN are introduced, and technologies that can facilitate the language learning of these individuals are discussed. In the last section, we address some of the challenges for teachers and learners that arise in relation to these tools, recognizing that the potential advantages of digital technologies in inclusive settings can only emerge if the potential challenges of using them are likewise addressed. 2. Brief Research Overview There is substantial research into both the benefits of foreign language learning for all learners (cf. R ÖSLER 2010) and the advantages of computer-enhanced and -mediated communication for individuals with SEN (cf. B AILEY et al. 2006; L IGHT / M C N AUGHTON 2012). However, research on the topic of using digital tools to support the foreign language learning of learners with SEN is sparse. There are virtually no empirical studies on the topic, and only a handful of descriptive studies that illustrate ways technology might be utilized in FLL settings for students with SEN (cf. B ELTRÁN / A BBOTT / J ONES 2015; D OMAGAŁA -Z YŚK 2013; H OCKLY 2016; M EIRING / N ORMAN 2005; W ILSON 2013; W ÜRFFEL 2017). The latter studies, however, do not offer a systematic approach to the topic. Data regarding the use of digital technologies for FLL for learners with SEN need to be extrapolated from more generic evaluations of technologies for these populations. This includes research from other areas, such as that of L1 language acquisition. There exists a large body of evidence-based literature examining the use of digital technologies for language acquisition and communication among learners Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 11 47 (2018) • Heft 2 with SEN (cf. M AOR / C URRIE / D REWRY 2011), and on the accessibility of existing technologies that might be utilized by learners with SEN (cf. B OCCONI / O TT 2013). 3. Employing Digital Applications to Support the FLL of Learners with Different SEN Many of the advantages that digital media offer for (foreign language) learning are especially beneficial for learners with SEN, and therefore offer opportunities for differentiation in foreign language classrooms. One of the most significant benefits of digital media that was recognized early on, and that we focus on within the context of this article, is the use of these tools for individualized learning. These benefits derive from specific characteristics of educational digital technologies, which take place in two dimensions. On the one hand, these media offer various presentation and interaction alternatives, including e.g., options for multi-coding, audio, visual, or combined presentation forms. On the other hand, they offer opportunities for interaction at the level of pedagogy and content. Features from both of these layers, including learner control, direct feedback, adaptivity, multimodality, and the ability of the tools to filter out social cues, will be briefly discussed below. 3.1 Learner Control Despite the fact that issues of learner control had a prominent place early on in the literature regarding digital materials for self-directed learning, implementation has not necessarily followed suit. Contrary to the common assumption that digital material for independent learning automatically ensures individualized, autonomous learning, more often, the opposite tends to be the case. The materials are already complete when the learner begins the learning process; opportunities for the material to reflect the learner’s individual learning processes are severely limited. Often, there is only one learning path that the student can follow, resulting in external control of the learning process. Incorporating deliberate opportunities for learner control can mitigate the inflexible nature of such materials and facilitate a more individualized and autonomous learning experience. With regard to inclusion, such elements are even more necessary than would otherwise be the case, in order to accommodate the highly individualized approaches necessary to meet the wide range of needs of learners with SEN. However, it is important to carefully consider what possibilities can be implemented, and by whom. Learner control, for example, is promoted, when learners can adapt the media to their needs or interests. L EUTNER , as early as 1997, named various dimensions for such adaptations; there could be choices in terms of the quantity, length, pathways to completion, opportunities for presentation or submission, quantity of answer choices, difficulty of the tasks, scaffolding (provided within a discovery-based learning approach), definitions of new terms, and access to additional 12 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 information in hypertext structures. An additional layer of choice rests in the ability of digital tools to accommodate students’ interests, enhancing motivation. Finally, a third facet of learner control addresses the technical adaptation of teaching and learning materials in relation to specific usability issues, enabling learners to adapt materials in terms of presentation format, size, color, or layout. L EONS (2016) describes in a praxis-oriented article how, in her experience, the most significant element for learners with SEN is student control over the amount of content presented at one time. This enables learners to construct minior micro-units to avoid being overwhelmed by more complex tasks. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that providing opportunities for more learner control does not necessarily lead to a better outcome. Rather, what types of learner control are appropriate for which learners needs to be carefully considered, along with providing meaningful support for learners in managing such options (cf. W ÜRFFEL 2005: 112-113). 3.2 Adaptivity In addition to enabling learners to adapt media to their needs by giving them direct control over the structures and content, there are other ways in which these digital tools can accommodate the needs or preferences of learners. The ability of existing media to automatically respond to the input of the user, on a variety of levels, is called adaptivity. Thus, learner control and computer-directed adaptivity go hand-inhand, allowing for both consciously selected and automated forms of interactivity in terms of usability, pedagogy, and content. Adaptivity can, first of all, differentiate for all learners in a way that would avoid placing undue demands on an individual. When programmed appropriately, interactive applications can assess students’ areas of strength and weakness in light of error types and frequency, and provide subsequent instruction or practice opportunities to remediate or challenge the learner appropriately. Not only are the diagnostic capabilities inherent in such adaptivity theoretically faster and more precise than those of a human interlocutor; extensive resources associated with the program can respond with infinitely more precision, speed, and appropriateness than with what a teacher could have at the ready. Moreover, such adaptivity facilitates individualization in ways that are socially acceptable, which is an important aspect for learners with SEN in particular. With innumerable adaptations possible in interfaces, settings, content, tasks, or feedback design, it is not as easily apparent how material is modified for less able learners (cf. H EACOX 2012). At the same time, however, it is important to recognize the limits of contemporary tools in this regard. While adaptivity is seen as the key to personalized learning, both for language learning and other skills, the reality among many applications continues to be a limited ability to accurately reflect the pedagogical and personal preferences of a wide range of users. Such challenges are most frequently discussed in relation to game-like or game-based applications for language learning where such limitations be observed (cf. A GUDO et al. 2007; B LUME / S CHMIDT 2017), but Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 13 47 (2018) • Heft 2 are likewise critical issues for intelligent tutoring systems (cf. M EURERS et al. in this issue) and adaptive hypermedia (cf. B RUSILOVSKY 2003). 3.3 Direct Feedback Immediate feedback, a hallmark of even early applications for FLL, also plays an important role, as it can offer learners critical information about their learning process. While the option whether or not to obtain immediate feedback might be included as a selection to be made by the learner, adaptive programs generally provide instantaneous feedback. In the latter case, given a learner’s input, the program can respond explicitly, by indicating whether the answer is correct or incorrect. Alternatively, implicit direct feedback can be integrated if, for example, in the case of a learner error, the application reteaches a concept, repeats the same or similar item, or has negative consequence, such as a point reduction or loss of a gamified benefit. Expectations for both types of feedback are higher than most offerings can currently fulfill. In many cases, computer-generated feedback assumes an incorrect misconception, is too elaborate or too superficial, or is unable to parse sophisticated or unusual usages. These limitations result from a variety of factors, including insufficiently complex language modelling and lack of knowledge of learner error types in FLL. Moreover, most digital tools still lack the capacity to meaningfully evaluate open-ended activities and tasks, critical for the development of communicative competence. However, there are promising developments in this area (see the article by M EURERS et al. in this issue). Here, the praxis again offers valuable insights; L EONS (2016) points out that simple, standardized and immediate feedback plays an important role, especially for learners with SEN. One potential advantage, for example, is that the feedback of the computer application is immediate, and can be accessed as often as is desired - this advantage of the “computer as a patient learning partner” was recognized early on in the discussion of computer-assisted foreign language learning (cf. B IECHELE et al. 2003: 18). Another advantage might be its impersonal nature, which is potentially an important feature for learners with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Such learners may be more able to engage with an application’s standardized feedback, rather than that of a person whose responses may be complicated by well-intentioned, but potentially irrelevant, information. This same objectivity, however, could lead highly sensitive learners, who rely on interpersonal relationships for motivation and validation, to withdraw. What becomes apparent is the need for careful consideration of the individual learner’s preferences to contextualize the available tool’s strengths and limitations, and whether it offers options or acts automatically in this regard. 14 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 3.4 Multimodality Digital resources, both online and in the form of applications and software, appeal to language learners because of their ability to integrate various modalities, such as graphics, animations, audio, and text. The way these codes address several senses simultaneously has become so prevalent in digital media that it is no longer seen as something novel, despite the fact that the technological feasibility of doing so has only emerged in the last four decades. Additionally, new forms of sensory stimulation, such as 3D tools or virtual reality applications, are emerging and enhance the attraction of digital media. Especially for learners who have difficulty concentrating, as well as for those with limited physical mobility, the integration of multiple sensory inputs, while not necessarily seen as traditional AT, potentially holds significant affordances in terms of motivation. Despite the appeal of this multimodality, the research literature has long been pointing out the necessity of examining more closely and in greater detail the cognitive impact of the various modalities (cf. D E H AAN / R EED / K UWADA 2010; W EIDENMANN 2002: 94), as well as which modalities can and should be meaningfully combined. This should be done with an eye toward the learning purpose, context, and especially, the learner. Rather than evaluating tools devoid of context, considering the advantages and disadvantages of particular modalities (or media or tools) in relation to efficacy in specific context and, particularly, in relation to specific learners and their needs, has gained traction in light of a greater focus on the needs of learners with learning disabilities. Especially for learners with certain SEN (for example with difficulties in concentration), a careful selection of modalities is important and “more” is not necessarily “better.” At the same time, digital media has the ability, as AT in the narrow sense, to transfer content available for one modality (e.g. in visual form) into another. For example, a visually impaired learner cannot only adjust the size of texts or images, but can use a screen reader to enable content to be read aloud (cf. chapter 4.2). Similarly, a user with a hearing impairment can have audio material enhanced with subtitles or translated to text (cf. chapter 4.1). In these ways, even those web-based resources and communication tools that do not initially accommodate the needs of the differently abled can be made accessible to them and facilitate inclusivity and participation. 3.5 Elimination of Social Cues The channel reduction associated with digital communication is often criticized as deficient. However, as D ÖRING (2003) shows, there is another way of interpreting this feature of computer-mediated communication (CMC). While in CMC many processing channels are available, not necessarily all of those that would be used in face-to-face communication are utilized, meaning that some social cues do not get conveyed. This reduced information does not, however, have to be a disadvantage; Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 15 47 (2018) • Heft 2 rather, it can offer a desirable levelling (cf. ibid.: 155). In relation to learners with SEN, less information can have several benefits. Firstly, a reduction of information may facilitate focus, especially for learners who have difficulty regulating their attention. Secondly, limited information available for all mediates the distance among the differently abled and helps overcome the isolation and stigma often faced by individuals with SEN (cf. P ARETTE / S CHERER 2004). As D OMAGAŁA -Z YŚK (2013: 95) puts it, nobody online knows if you are deaf. K ÖLTZSCH (2002, as described by W ILSON 2013) describes a short-term email project between hearing-impaired German students and typically-abled US students that foregrounded neither the technology nor the disability, but rather, enabled a focus on authentic communication. There are numerous projects that facilitate CMC without focusing on learners with impairments, but that mitigate hurdles these learners might encounter in face-to-face settings (cf. B ARRON / B LACK 2014; B IEBIGHÄUSER 2012; K ALIAMPOS 2016). Although these types of communication might lead to new types of challenges, the fact remains that CMC can help students with specific SEN circumvent typical sources of difficulty. H ERRING ’s (1999) description of how traditional principles of turntaking in interpersonal communication are irrelevant in CMC settings illustrates this issue. While her point is a different one, the benefit for learners who struggle with appropriate interpersonal cues, such as those with ASD, is apparent. At the same time, these tools and processes provide models for interacting in the non-digital world (cf. M AROTZKI / J ÖRISSEN 2010: 36) that can help these same learners appropriate both universal and culturally-mediated communicative strategies. 4. Specific Technologies for Specific SEN-FLL The adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, with its implications for educational institutions worldwide, has highlighted the need to more precisely define the various needs of individuals with handicapping conditions. While the OECD groups SEN in three clusters (W ESTWOOD 2007: 4), the different federal German states recognize between seven and nine categories of SEN. They typically distinguish learners with speech, visual or hearing impairments, intellectual or physical disabilities, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, or chronic illness or medical needs. 1 Some states further identify ASD as a SEN. None of these categories address specific learning impairments (SLI), such as dyslexia, or other areas of difference, such as giftedness or an absence of knowledge of German because of e.g. recent immigration. In this article, we can only concentrate on some SEN. The focus will therefore be on hearing impaired learners (chapter 4.1) and visually impaired learners (chapter 4.2) as examples for sensorial SEN and on learners with Reading-Spelling-Disorders (RSD) (chapter 4.3) as an example of an SLI. Im- 1 https: / / www.european-agency.org/ country-information/ germany/ national-overview/ special-needseducation-within-the-education-system 16 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 plicitly, however, in every chapter, the needs of all learners will be considered, as discussed more fully in terms of a broad concept of inclusion (cf. chapter 1). To describe pedagogic approaches to using digital technologies in FLL settings with learners with specific SEN, we begin by outlining some typical needs of learners with the specific SEN or SLI, and consider them in relation to what technological features of digital media could meaningfully support their FLL. Subsequently, we describe potential technologies, tools, or features of applications that can support these learners in their FLL. At the same time, we illustrate how these various technologies can furthermore be used by learners without SEN to support their FLL. In each case, we can offer only illustrations or examples. An exhaustive examination of all potential tools and their usage is of course, impossible. Moreover, it quickly becomes apparent that many of the tools that are described can be used to meet the needs of more than one kind of SEN (e.g. text-to-speech programs are good for learners with hearing impairment, as well as for students with RSD). These overlaps result both from the multifunctionality of the tools as well as the co-morbidity of many SEN/ SLI, or features thereof. Learners with attention disorders, for example, share many of the executive functioning challenges faced by learners with RSD. 4.1 Technologies for the Hearing Impaired in FLL 4.1.1 Special Considerations When teaching learners with hearing impairment a foreign language, it is important to keep in mind that users of sign language who can read and write, or understand spoken language by lip reading, have already had experience in learning a foreign language, as most signed languages have a significantly different grammar and morphology than their spoken and written counterparts (S ANDLER / L ILLO -M ARTIN 2009). It is likely that the spoken or written language of their environment is, in fact, their L2. While some learners may be able to capitalize on this prior language learning experience, others may have significant difficulty with the grammatical rules evident in both the oral and written forms of communication of the foreign language. It also bears keeping in mind that sign languages across linguistic communities vary as radically as spoken and written languages; thus, a speaker or learner of German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) will need to consider, for example, the role American, Australian, or British Sign Language should play in his/ her foreign language learning. Moreover, it is important to distinguish between various types of hearing impairment, and between hearing impairment and auditory processing difficulty (APD), the latter of which does not have a physical or sensorineural basis (P AUL 2008). While these learners might also benefit from technologies for language learning, their needs will be significantly different. Individuals in the former category may benefit from hardware that moderates the acoustic signal, whereas most learners with APD will not have a need for amplification systems. Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 17 47 (2018) • Heft 2 4.1.2 Specific Technologies For receptive skills, digital recordings with high-quality captions or subtitles provide support, not only for learners with SEN, but for all learners. Captions and subtitles have been found to facilitate the language learning of L2 learners without SEN (cf. L WO / C HIA -T ZU L IN 2012; P EREZ / V AN D EN N OORTGATE / D ESMET 2013). As such, they are illustrative of a technology that adheres to principles of good FLL pedagogy without stigmatizing the user. However, it is important to keep a number of caveats in mind. First of all, subtitles are only useful for those individuals who are already literate. Secondly, educators need to remember that someone who is reading subtitles will be less able to focus simultaneously on either spoken or visual input. While studies have shown little trade-off between image and text processing in connection with subtitles (cf. P EREGO et al. 2010), a hearing impaired student will unlikely be able to simultaneously watch a video, attend to subtitles, and complete a complementary activity, such as a worksheet. Thirdly, the research suggests that individuals with weaker working memory or attentional control (cf. ibid.) might struggle more with the dual presentation mode. Moreover, the interaction between the L1 and L2 needs to be considered, with studies showing that differences among, and in interaction between, languages can shape the cognitive load captions demand of learners (cf. W INKE / G ASS / S YDORENKO 2013). Finally, poor quality subtitles can do more harm than good, leading to frustration. There are also many technologies that enable learners to slow down (or speed up) a recording. Audiostretch and Amazing Slow Downer can change both the speed and the pitch of any audio file. While altering the speed may be most helpful to learners who have APD, modifying the pitch can meet the needs of learners with hearing impairment associated with specific frequencies. The ability to easily stop and replay any sequence and to hear it at their own pace provides an important form of learner control and is consequently a further advantage to learners with limited listening comprehension skills. Especially in the context of language learning, such capacities can be useful to all learners (cf. W ÜRFFEL 2005: 112). For English language learners with hearing impairment who need amplification or repeated input, the pronunciation dictionaries Howjsay.com and Audio Dictionary allow the user to type virtually any word (suggestions will be made for near-misspellings) and hear it on command. Such an approach to hearing how unknown words are pronounced or revisiting words enhances autonomy as well as opportunities for independent practice for all learners. Technology can also be utilized to improve the productive skills of hearing impaired learners as well as all learners. Given that many individuals with hearing impairment struggle with pronunciation, text-to-speech applications can enable these learners to ‘talk’ to others despite these difficulties. An important distinction can be drawn between generic text-to-speech programs and playful applications such as Voki. The former type of program can translate any written text to an alternative modality (cf. B IONE / G RIMSHAW / C ARDOSO 2017), the potential of which has already been well-established for all language learners. An example is Hearitfirst (which 18 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 was developed specifically for foreign language learners), where learners can input a text and listen to it before attempting to articulate it. In the latter applications, like Voki, the speech technology is combined with an avatar who speaks the text input. Furthermore, learners have the option of speaking the text for the avatar and thus have an unlimited selection of languages with which to work. In terms of the development of phonetic competence of all foreign language learners, both options are promising, although prosodic limitations due to the computerized voice output need to be acknowledged. Students with limited hearing or speech, on the other hand, can use these tools to engage in conversational exchanges on an equitable basis with their less-affected peers. Finally, there are synthetic signing avatars and wearable gloves that can translate sign language to audio or text and which have made the most inroads in English (cf. K ENNAWAY / G LAUERT / Z WITSERLOOD 2007). Whether these emergent technologies are suitable for EFL learners, or are too prone to error, requires further investigation. 4.2 Technologies for the Visually Impaired in FLL 4.2.1 Special Considerations Visual impairments can hinder interaction and, concomitantly, learning, in ways that initially seem to have little to do with visual capacities. Sociocultural theories of language learning emphasize the importance of interaction for learning (cf. L ANTOLF / T HORNE / P OEHNER 2015). However, an inability to use or perceive body language makes these interactions more difficult (cf. W ILSON 2013). The inability of the blind or partially sighted to ‘read’ their conversational partner’s expressions might lead to a variety of miscues that can hinder communication regardless of linguistic skill. Likewise, the sighted interactant may find it challenging to understand a visually impaired person who does not utilize typical paralinguistic features, such as eye contact, nodding, or expressions that convey confusion. 4.2.2 Specific Technologies While technologies cannot provide these paralinguistic cues, they may mitigate their absence in a number of ways. CMC in audio form do not typically take advantage of paralinguistic features (cf. chapter 3.4), so that the absence of these features is less distracting than would otherwise be the case in a face-to-face conversation. Likewise, written communication (adapted for those with impaired vision through magnification or text-to-speech technologies) takes advantage of other features of interaction to mitigate the absence of visually-based communicative strategies. In such cases, the visual limitations of the learner become obviated; they are irrelevant to the communication that takes place. Pedagogically speaking, W IAZOWSKI (2002) points out that it is important to address the notion of paralinguistic language elements with all learners simultaneously. If some students only come to understand after other learners that features Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 19 47 (2018) • Heft 2 such as emoticons are meaning-making elements, there is a significant chance of stigmatization. Learner control of computer-based text and images (cf. chapter 3.1) provides further opportunities for facilitating communication for the vision impaired. Being able to enlarge text or change the colors or fonts can help partially sighted learners avail themselves of the vision they have. Both in terms of interaction and autonomy, this is significant. These technological features reduce the likelihood of making learners more disabled than they actually are. Learners can take advantage of the vision they have; they can control their access to visual materials; and they can access a wider range of materials than if said items were static and complicated to enlarge or reformat. Moreover, enabling the visually impaired to use the vision they have minimizes the difference between dis/ abled; (not) being able to see becomes more of a fluid transition on a continuum, rather than a division between two opposites. Likewise, whereas Braille can isolate the visually impaired from those who are not familiar with it (cf. W IAZOWSKI 2002), enlarged text may be able to generate inclusivity. Technological tools are able to convert Braille to text and text to Braille, bridging gaps between the sighted and the visually impaired. Brailletranslator.org can translate text into Braille for five languages. In addition to allowing the output size to be selected by the user, one printing option allows the user to select a mirror image, which can then be used for creating tactile documents. While such applications are not entirely accurate (their operation and skill mirrors the developments of online translators), increasing technological sophistication improves accuracy. Other tools help the visually impaired convert authentic text documents to audio input through optical character recognition. One example is the KNFB Reader, which is available for both iOS and Android devices, and can also be used online. In addition to scanning any text and converting its contents to audio output, the application can produce output in Braille format. All of this is possible in twenty different languages. While being read aloud, the application also highlights what is being read aloud for users with residual vision or for non-disabled users who want to take advantage of this technology to improve their comprehension of a text. Font size and spacing are also adjustable. Although the learner has to be able to manage the device’s camera so that the image can be recorded by the application, sound guidance and vibration assist in lining up text with the screen capture and thereby enhance autonomy. While the initial installation on Android is free, the product is relatively expensive on other platforms, suggesting the need for extensive “in-app” purchases, which may reduce the feasibility of its use for non-impaired or underfunded populations. TapTapTalk allows the user to label images photographed by his or her device. Currently only available as an iPad application, this tool is appropriate to enhance interest in vocabulary acquisition for language learners of all ages, with and without limited vision. While there are many applications that match pre-ordained pictures to a written or spoken label, TapTapTalk’s approach generates authenticity and con- 20 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 tributes to autonomy by allowing users to photograph images from their own environment. 4.3 Technologies for Dyslexia 4.3.1 Special Considerations Reading-spelling-disorder (RSD), also known as dyslexia, is a learning difference associated with weaker working memory and impaired metacognition that affects phonological skills, with resultant deficits in all areas associated with language processing (cf. K ORMOS / S MITH 2012). Most significantly affected are reading, spelling, and writing skills, which, given the centrality of language-based information in contemporary society, are crucial for participation. At the same time, the apparent ‘invisibility’ of RSD can be a double-edged sword for learners for whom appropriate diagnosis and accommodations may be delayed (cf. T ORRISI / P IANGERELLI 2010). Research has shown that dyslexic learners of a foreign language find writing to be the most difficult aspect of learning a FL, which sets them apart from non-afflicted FL learners (cf. ibid.), highlighting the need for appropriate differentiation to meet their FLL needs. For many learners with RSD, learning English for example poses a special challenge, given its deep orthography. Learners with RSD should thus have opportunities to both encourage oral communicative competence and remediate weaknesses in reading and writing. Research-based recommendations for learners with RSD include multisensory learning, overlearning, and phonics-based instruction (C ROMBIE 2013), all of which can be addressed through the use of various digital media. 4.3.2 Specific Technologies Technologies help meet the aforementioned needs of learners with RSD by, for example, combining multimodal sources (cf. chapter 3.3) and facilitating individualized practice. In addition to utilizing applications that mitigate barriers to communication, such as text-to-speech or speech-to-text products, learners with RSD can benefit from applications that combine auditory learning with images and explicit training of phoneme-grapheme correspondence (cf. G ERLACH 2017). The dual goals of enabling learners with RSD to capitalize on oral production and to remediate their phonological weakness can be met with a range of applications. In addition to the aforementioned tools that meet the needs of learners with sensory disabilities, learners with RSD benefit from the repeated practice offered by flashcard-like applications. While visually more attractive products like the Phrasal Verb Machine for English learners offer pre-determined content, programs like Quizlet allow the language and specific vocabulary to be selected according to the user’s needs and interests. Flash Cards Deluxe has the added advantage of incorporating text-to-speech and image capabilities. Both of these programs enable integration with cloud storage for easy access, modification, and transfer. Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 21 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Applications that focus on phonics tend to be geared toward a younger audience, as is the case with English-language ABC Reading Magic Series. Although this collection of apps uniquely concentrates on the important phonological skills of blending and segmenting sounds, its childish appearance may make it unpopular with differently-abled learners who are sensitive to such perceptions. While the game mechanisms and visuals in www.cambridgeenglishonline.com/ Phonetics_Focus, as well as the lack of mobile compatibility, make this app initially less appealing, the more mature graphics may be more attractive to adolescent and adult users. Another alternative for iOS users is Phonics with Phonograms, but the activities here are more limited than in the other offerings. Such tools can serve, not just those with RSD, but all learners who need directed pronunciation training. In addition to apps that facilitate scaffolded practice, tools that support correct reading and writing can strengthen the autonomy of learners with RSD to self-correct. For reading, there is a range of tools that recognize the text of a document or web page and read the text aloud, either as individual words, or as whole. Claro PDF and SnapType Pro are two applications that utilize optical character recognition (OCR), but also preserve the formatting for greater ease of use in conjunction with worksheets. For guided reading among Germans learning other languages, TING pens and, for all languages, Anybookreader can be used. For writing, in English, apps like Co: Writer and Wordspeller make it possible for users to rely on predictive spelling or phonetic spelling, respectively, and still achieve adequate results. These may be of less use for learners who do not efficiently use the phonetic spelling of the foreign language because of an orthographically different L1. Ghotit promises improved capabilities in this area, and, like Co: Writer, further incorporates speech-to-text/ text-to-speech capabilities. HiNative, which relies on a global network of users to enable learners to ask language-related questions in any language for any language, using personal picture uploads and voice, obviates the need for writing altogether. 5. Considerations and Limitations In the last four chapters we have shown that digital technologies offer abundant opportunities to differentiate FLL for students with and without identified SEN. However, a serious article about these affordances must also mention the challenges educational institutions, as well as teachers and learners, face if they want to make use of these tools. The use of such media requires consideration of a number of pragmatic and pedagogical caveats. The critical points, which we address in the following, final chapter, are relevant for many issues related to digital technologies in educational uses in general. The potential of digital media to support the learning of students with SEN highlights the importance of addressing these challenges in order to make inclusive education successful. In conclusion, we will therefore present 22 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 some thoughts about important competences of learners and teachers, as well as briefly address critical issues such as access, management, and maintenance. The first issue pertains to the media literacy competency of learners and teachers. We cannot assume that learners with SEN are necessarily “tech savvy.” Increasingly, research suggests that young users of digital technologies are competent in utilizing technology for a narrow range of applications and that, despite increasing synthesis of personal and academic technology usages, the latter continue to be limited (cf. S CHMID et al. 2016). It would be irresponsible to assume that SEN learners have capabilities in this area that are more or less extensive than those of their peers. Every implementation thus requires therefore an analysis, not only of the learners’’ FLL needs and abilities, but also a similar analysis of their competencies as regards available technologies. For learners with substantial impairments, learning how to manage applications and devices can present an additional area of acquisition; adding digital media for FLL to these expectations may lead to cognitive overload for many students, regardless of their intellectual capacity. The need to learn a foreign language in order to access many media in the first place must be weighed in light of the benefit they potentially afford to students already overwhelmed with both essential tools and an array of options. The same issue regarding competency needs to be considered in relation to educators, with an added layer of complexity. Being able to identify appropriate media for specific learners in a specific setting requires educators, first of all, to be intimately familiar with a number of applications and tools in an ever-changing and increasingly complex digital environment. This problem is unlikely to disappear as new technologies are developed and older ones quickly become outdated. One approach is to emphasize the role of the multi-professional team, including specialists for educational technologies. Educators whose own knowledge of available tools is limited can hopefully avail themselves of specialists who may have more thorough knowledge of dedicated programs, hardware, and software, as well as provide the opportunities to demonstrate their utility to inexperienced educators. This, however, does not obviate the urgent need to provide education in media pedagogy, specifically as it pertains to foreign language learning, to future teachers during their teacher training (cf. W ÜRFFEL 2010). Second of all, media pedagogy skills will not be adequate to support the complex and varied FLL needs of learners with SEN. However, it is unrealistic to expect such knowledge and skills to be integrated in an already extensive course of studies for future language teachers. As is true regarding inclusion in general, multiple approaches are required. Here, as well, an approach that integrates multi-professional teams is promising. Given the more extensive implementation of technologies in schools for the disabled (cf. B REITER / W ELLING / S TOLPMANN 2010), educators with training in SEN may be more competent than their subject-matter peers and thus able to serve as sources of expertise in inclusive settings. This opportunity is enhanced by the fact that, with greater inclusion, larger numbers of special educators are finding themselves in mainstream schools in consultative roles. At the same Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 23 47 (2018) • Heft 2 time, these special educators often do not have the subject-specific knowledge necessary to evaluate which competencies prove an especial challenge to learners with SEN and which media can be meaningfully used to support which skills. The importance of working with other practitioners to meet the needs of students with SEN, as well as providing opportunities for further professional development, are themes that recur throughout the emerging literature on preparing educators to work in inclusive settings in their respective subjects (for the field of FLL cf. B URWITZ - M ELZER et al. 2017). Access, management, and maintenance are further areas that need attention. Limited physical access is a significant concern when implementing technologies. On the one hand, the cost of many tools, while not necessarily high, may inhibit adoption because of inadequate or inaccessible sources of funding. Both digital tools and support for individuals with SEN, whatever the cost, require applications made to the appropriate bureaucracies, with concomitant procedural hurdles and additional, coordinated efforts on the part of educators, school officials, associated personnel, and the individuals (or caregivers) themselves. Such obstacles can hinder timely adoption or dissuade use altogether because of byzantine approval processes. On the other hand, the rapid development of technology leads to rapid obsolescence, meaning that even if financing issues can be addressed, items for which money and training time have been invested may quickly become incompatible with newer hardware or software. This is also a concern regarding the multiplicity of available devices and lack of global standards or applications. Although smartphone ownership is virtually universal among adolescents (cf. F EIERABEND / P LANKENHORN / R ATHGEB 2017), the array of operating systems means that some of the aforementioned applications are available for Android, or Apple products, but not for both. Dedicated devices, e.g. for augmentive communication, may use standards not compatible with either of these systems. Although bring-your-own-device initiatives hold a great deal of promise in addressing some of the issues of digital integration in schools, managing their diversity, as well as that of their learners, is potentially a further challenge for educators (cf. S CHIEFNER -R OHS / H EINEN / K ERRES 2013). All of these issues are compounded by inadequate infrastructure that may thwart access in school environments (cf. H ERZIG / G RAFE 2006; B MBF 2016), and are just some of the issues that hinder digital integration (cf. B REITER / W ELLING / S TOLPMANN 2010). Literature A BBOTT , Chris (2007): “Defining assistive technologies - a discussion”. In: Journal of Assistive Technologies 1.1, 6-9. A GUDO , Enrique / S ÁNCHEZ , Héctor / H OLGUÍN , Manuel / T ELLO , David (2007): “Adaptive computer games for second language learning in early childhood”. In: S INGHAL , Meena / L IONTAS , John (eds.): Proceedings of the Third International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research. USA: The Reading Matrix Inc., 167-180. B AILEY , Rita L. / S TONER , Julie B. / P ARETTE , Howard P. / A NGELL , Maureen E. (2006): “AAC 24 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 Team perceptions: augmentative and alternative communication device use”. In: Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 41.2, 139-154. B ARRON , Anne / B LACK , Emily (2015): “Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voicebased telecollaboration”. In: System 48, 112-128. B ELTRÁN , Elina V. / A BBOTT , Chris / J ONES , Jane (eds.) (2013): Inclusive Language Education and Digital Technology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. B IEBIGHÄUSER , Katrin (2012): “Aufgabenformate für das Fremdsprachenlernen in virtuellen Welten am Beispiel von ‘Second Life’”. In: B IEBIGHÄUSER , Katrin / Z IBELIUS , Marja / S CHMIDT , Torben (eds.): Aufgaben 2.0: Konzepte, Materialien und Methoden für das Fremdsprachenlehren und -lernen mit digitalen Medien. Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik. Tübingen: Narr, 141-165. B IECHELE , Markus / R ÖSLER , Dietmar / U LRICH , Stefan / W ÜRFFEL , Nicola (2003): Internet-Aufgaben Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Stuttgart: E. Klett Sprachen. B IONE , Tiago / G RIMSHAW , Jennica / C ARDOSO , Walcir (2017): “An evaluation of TTS as a pedagogical tool for pronunciation instruction: The ‘foreign’ language”. In: B ORTHWICK , Kate / B RADLEY , Linda / T HOUËSNEY , Sylvie (eds.), CALL in a Climate of Change: Adapting to Turbulent Global Conditions - Short Papers from EUROCALL 2017 56-61. https: / / doi.org/ 10.14705/ rpnet.2017.eurocall2017.9782490057047. Letzter Zugriff: 01.06.2018. B LUME , Carolyn / S CHMIDT , Torben (2017): “One size fits none: Adaptivity in digital games for language learning”. In: A PPEL , Joachim / J EUK , Stefan / M ERTENS , Jürgen (eds.), Sprachen Lehren. Dokumentation zum Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung (DGFF). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider, 53-68. B MAS (2011): Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen (dt.-engl.-franz.). Bonn: Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. B MBF (2016): Bildungsoffensive für die digitale Wissensgesellschaft: Strategie des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. B OCCONI , Stefania / O TT , Michaela (2013): “ICT and universal access to education: towards a culture of accessibility”. In: L YTRAS , Miltiadis D. / R UAN , Da / T ENNYSON , Robert D. / O RDONEZ D E P ABLOS , Patricia / G ARCIA P EÑALVO , Francisco José / R USU , Lazar (eds.): Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research. Berlin: Springer, 330-337. B REITER , Andreas / W ELLING , Stefan / S TOLPMANN , Björn Eric (2010): Medienkompetenzen in der Schule. Integration von Medien in den weiterführenden Schulen in Nordrhein-Westfalen . Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM). B RUSILOVSKY , Peter (2003): “Adaptive navigation support in educational hypermedia: the role of student knowledge level and the case for meta-adaptation”. In: British Journal of Educational Technology 34.4, 487-497. B URWITZ -M ELZER , Eva / K ÖNIGS , Frank G. / R IEMER , Claudia / S CHMELTER , Lars (eds.) (2017): Inklusion, Diversität und das Lehren und Lernen fremder Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr Francke. C ROMBIE , Margaret (2013): “Foreign languages for learners with dyslexia - inclusive practice and technology”. In: B ELTRÁN / A BBOT / J ONES (eds.), 124-142. D E H AAN , Jonathan / R EED , W. Michael / K UWADA , Katsuko (2010): “The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall”. In: Language Learning & Technology 14.2, 74-94. D OMAGAŁA -Z YŚK , Ewa (2013): “Using technology to teach English as a foreign language to the deaf and hard of hearing”. In: B ELTRÁN / A BBOT / J ONES (eds.), 84-102. D ÖRING , Nicola (2003 2 ): Sozialpsychologie des Internet. Die Bedeutung des Internet für Kommunikationsprozesse, Identitäten, soziale Beziehungen und Gruppen. Göttingen u.a.: Hofgrefe. Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 25 47 (2018) • Heft 2 E UROPEAN C OMMISSION (2005): Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & Learning of Languages; Insights and Innovations. Teaching Language to Learners with Special Needs (No. DG EAC 23 03 LOT 3). F EIERABEND , Sabine / P LANKENHORN , Theresa / R ATHGEB , Thomas (eds.) (2017): Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media. Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (mpfs). G ERLACH , David (2017): “Reading and spelling difficulties in the ELT classroom”. In: ELT Journal 71.3, 295-304. H EACOX , Diane (2012): Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing. H ERRING , Susan (1999): “Interactional coherence in CMC”. In: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4.4, n.p. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x Letzter Zugriff: 01.06.2018. H ERZIG , Bardo/ G RAFE , Silke (2006): Digitale Medien in der Schule - Standortbestimmung und Handlungsempfehlungen für die Zukunft - Studie zur Nutzung digitaler Medien in Allgemeinbildenden Schulen in Deutschland. Bonn: Deutsche Telekom AG. H OCKLY , Nicky (2016): “Special educational needs and technology in language learning”. In: ELT Journal 70.3, 332-338. J ONES , Roger Dale / S TUHLMANN , Sebastian / Z EYER , Tamara (2016): „Interaktives Fremdsprachenlernen: Potenziale und Herausforderungen“. In: Z EYER , Tamara / S TUHLMANN , Sebastian / J ONES , Roger Dale (eds.): Interaktivität beim Fremdsprachenlehren und -lernen mit digitalen Medien: Hit oder Hype? Tübingen: Narr Francke, 11-42. K ALIAMPOS , Joannis (2016): “Green your community click by click”. In: Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 144, 32-36. K EMNER , Chantal / V AN DER G EEST , Jos N. / V ERBATEN , M N. / V AN E NGELAND , Herman / (2007): “Effects of object complexity and type on the gaze behavior of children with pervasive developmental disorder”. In: Brain and Cognition 65.1, 107-111. K ENNAWAY , J. Richard / G LAUERT , John R. / Z WITSERLOOD , Inga (2007): “Providing signed content on the internet by synthesized animation”. In: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14.3, 1-29. K ORMOS , Judith / S MITH , Anne Margaret (2012): Teaching Languages to Students with Specific Learning Differences. UK: Multilingual Matters. K ÖLTZSCH , Jeannette (2002). “Förderung der Schrifsprachkompetenz im Englischunterricht mit gehörlosen Schülern durch Schreiben von E-Mails”. In: Hörgeschädigte Kinder 39.4, 14-24. K URCZ , Ida (2004): “Communicative competence and theory of mind”. In: Psychology of Language and Communication 8.2, 5-18. L ANTOLF , James P. / T HORNE , Steven L. / P OEHNER , Matthew E. (2015): “Sociocultural theory and second language development”. In: V AN P ATTEN , Bill / W ILLIAMS , Jessica (eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition; An Introduction. London: Routledge, 207-226. L EONS , Eve (2016): “Teaching languages to students with learning challenges: the role of technology”. In: The FLTMAG. http: / / fltmag.com/ teaching-languages-to-students-with-learning-challenges. Letzter Zugriff: 01.06.2018. L EUTNER , Detlev (1997²). “Adaptivität und Adaptierbarkeit multimedialer Lehr- und Informationssysteme“. In: I SSING / K LIMSA (eds.): Information und Lernen mit Multimedia. Weinheim: Beltz, 138-149. L IGHT , Janice / M C N AUGHTON , David (2012): “Supporting the communication, language, and lit- 26 Carolyn Blume, Nicola Würffel 47 (2018) • Heft 2 eracy development of children with complex communication needs”. In: Assistive Technology 24.1, 34-44. L WO , Laurence / C HIA -T ZU L IN , Michelle (2012): “The effects of captions in teenagers’ multimedia L2 learning”. In: ReCALL 24.2, 188-208. M AROTZKI , Winfried / J ÖRISSEN , Benjamin / (2010): “Dimensionen strukturaler Medienbildung”. In: H ERZIG , Bardo / M EISTER , Dorothee M. / M OSER , Heinz / N IESYTO , Horst (eds.), Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 8. Berlin: Springer, 19-39. M EIRING , Lynne / N ORMAN , Nigel (2005): “How can ICT contribute to the learning of foreign languages by pupils with SEN? ” In: Support for Learning 20.3, 129-134. P ARETTE , Phil / S CHERER , Marcia (2004): “Assistive technology use and stigma”. In: Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 39.3, 217-226. P AUL , Rhea (2008): “Auditory processing disorder”. In: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38.1, 208-209. P EREGO , Elisa / D EL M ISSIER , Fabio / P ORTA , Marco / M OSCONI , Mauro (2010): “The cognitive effectiveness of subtitle processing”. In: Media Psychology 13.3, 243-272. P EREZ , Maribel Montero / VAN DEN N OORTGATE , Wim / D ESMET , Piet (2013): “Captioned video for L2 listening and vocabulary learning”. In: System 41.3, 720-739. S ANDLER , Wendy / L ILLO -M ARTIN , Diane (2009): Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S CHMID , Ulrich / G OERTZ , Lutz / R ADOMSKI , Sabine / T HOM , Sabrina / B EHRENS , Julia (2017): Monitor Digitale Bildung; Die Hochschulen im digitalen Zeitalter. Gütersloh: Bertelsmannstiftung. R ÖSLER , Dietmar ( 3 2010): E-Learning Fremdsprachen - eine kritische Einführung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. S CHIEFNER -R OHS , Mandy / H EINEN , Richard / K ERRES , Michael (2013): “Private Computer in der Schule”. In: MedienPädagogik 37.4, 1-20. “Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act”. Pub. L. No. 100-407, 102 Stat. 1044 (1988). https: / / www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/ pkg/ STATUTE-102/ pdf/ STATUTE-102- Pg1044.pdf. Letzter Zugriff: 01.06. 2018. T ORRISI , Giovanni / P IANGERELLI , Sonia (2010): “How new technolog.ies can help with ‘invisible disabilities’”. In: eLearning Papers 19, 1-7. W EIDENMANN , Bernd (2002 3 ): “Abbilder in Multimediaanwendungen”. In: I SSING , Ludwig J. / K LIMSA , Paul (eds.): Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet. Weinheim: Beltz, 83-98. W ESTWOOD , Peter (2007 5 ): Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs. Hoboken, N.J.: Taylor & Francis. W HO (2001). The UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities: Government Responses to the Implementation of the Rules on Medical Care, Rehabilitation, Support Services and Personnel Training. Geneva: World Health Organization. W IAZOWSKI , Jaroslaw (2002): “Computer assisted language learning as a bridge to social inclusion of blind learners in mainstream schooling”. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference of the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment, n.p. http: / / icevi.org/ publications/ ICEVI-WC2002/ papers/ index.html. Letzter Zugriff: 01.06.2018. W ILSON , David (2013): “Meeting special educational needs in technology-enhanced language teaching”. In: B ELTRÁN / A BBOT / J ONES (eds.), 45-64. Using Technologies for Foreign Language Learning in Inclusive Settings 27 47 (2018) • Heft 2 W IRE , Vivienne (2005): “Autistic spectrum disorders and learning foreign languages”. In: Support for Learning 20.3, 123-128. W INKE , Paula / G ASS , Susan / S YDORENKO , Tetyana (2013): “Factors influencing the use of captions by foreign language learners: An eye ‐ tracking study”. In: The Modern Language Journal 97.1, 254-275. W OODFINE , B. P. / B APTISTA N UNES , Miguel / W RIGHT , David J. (2008): “Text-based synchronous e-learning and dyslexia: not necessarily the perfect match! ” In: Computers & Education 50.3, 703-717. W ÜRFFEL , Nicola (2005). Strategiegebrauch bei Aufgabenbearbeitungen in internetgestütztem Selbstlernmaterial. Tübingen: Narr, 112-113. W ÜRFFEL , Nicola (2010): “Medienerziehung und Mediendidaktik im Fremdsprachenunterricht”. In: H ALLET , Wolfgang / K ÖNIGS , Frank G. (eds.): Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. Seelze-Velber: Klett Kallmayer, 146-150. W ÜRFFEL , Nicola (2017): “Individualisiertes, differenziertes und barrierefreies Fremdsprachenlernen - Digitalisierung als Chance eines inklusiven Fremdsprachenunterrichts? ” In: B URWITZ -M ELZER / K ÖNIGS / R IEMER / S CHMELTER (eds.), 351-361.