Research on the relationship between use of ICTand pupils’ learning show contradictory findings.Despite hug einvestments in technology, we lack clear indications that ICTactually promotes learning in school. When it comes to special education, the situation is more-or-less the same as for pupils in general, despite the existence o fuseful tools and softwarefor pupils with various learning difficulties (Brodin 2010).  However, there is evidence from Norway and elsewhere that pupils who use such tools can improve their learning outcome, for instance when dyslectic pupils overcome some of the barriers they experience (Fasting 2008).  

For persons with an impairment various digital devices can facilitate learning and compensate for their loss to some extent, if they have access and competent support, for instance as put by the World Health Organization(WHO 2014).

However, research on the usability of ICT for pupils with disability is practically non-existing, both in Norway and internationally (Söderström 2010). Based on the little research that exists, we can state that although digital technology has opened new opportunities for participation and inclusion, it seems that schools so far not have been able to exploit digital technology to achieve more inclusive education (Krumsvik 2007, Brodin 2010). But, Norwegian teachers think favourably about ICT, for instance the majority of teachers in the 7^th and 9^th grade agree that the use of ICT promotes reading, writing and collaboration (Egeberg, Björk Gudmundsdottir et al. 2012).

That ICT is a valuable tool for learners with various kinds of disabilities has been

Well documented (Brøyn and Schultz 2005). We also know that ICT can be a valuable tool for students who struggle with reading and writing difficulties. Already in the eighties special education teachers realized that the computer could be used to effectively train students with different kinds of learning difficulties. Special education teachers started to use ICT as an assistive device to compensate for reading and writing difficulties. Unfortunately, this compensative tool is still used only very moderately (Jacobson, Bjørn et al. 2009). It seems that digital technology used to compensate for different difficulties has not reached the classroom to the full extent.

ICT is not only treasured for its compensatory value, but, as indicated by WHO above; through this technology opportunities to participate in society are increased. Barriers to participation are removed or reduced. Already from the 1960s and onward it has been claimed that technology helps to increase participation  and inclusion for learners with disabilities, in and out of school  (Brodin 2010; Brøyn & Schultz, 2005; EADSNE 2013). However, some learners receiving special education may feel stigmatised when using technical aids that are designed for disabled people (Lupton & Seymour, 2000; Pape, Kim, & Weiner, 2002). According to Söderström (2010) these learners therefore prefer using the same technology as the rest of the class.  

The focus in this article is the function of ICT in special education, in particular for students with reading and writing difficulties.

Research questions

• What is the function of ICT for students with reading and writing difficulties?

• What are teacher attitudes to the role of ICT students with reading and writing difficulties

Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2011): Index for Inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools. 3rd ed. Bristol: CSIE Brodin, J. (2010). "Can ICT Give Children with Disabilities Equal Opportunities in School?" Improving Schools(1): 99-112. Brøyn, T. and J.-H. Schultz (2005). IKT og tilpasset opplæring. Oslo, Universitetsforl. EADSNE (2013). Informarion and communication technology for inclusion - Developments and Opportunities for European Countries e-Reports, European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education Egeberg, G., et al. (2012). "Monitor 2011 – The Digital State of Affairs in Norwegian Schools." Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 7(01). Fasting, R. B. (2008): IKT-basert læringsstøtte for elever med lese- og skrivevansker. Spesialpedagogikk. (7), 61-75 Haug. P. (2012). Kvalitet i opplæringa – arbeid i grunnskolen observert og vurdert. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Jacobson, C., et al. (2009). Dyslexi och kompensatoriska/alternativa hjälpmedel. Dyslexi och andra svårigheter med skriftspråket. Stockholm, Författarna och Natur & Kultur. Krumsvik, R. J. (2007). Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjonen. Oslo, Universitetsforl. Lupton, D., & Seymour, W. (2000). Technology, selfhood an physical disability. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1851-1862.; Nes, K., Strømstad, M. og Skogen, K. (2004): Inkluderende skoler? Casestudier fra fem skoler. Rapport 4 fra prosjektet ”En vurdering av om innføringen av Reform 97 har ført til at skoler har utviklet inkluderende praksis, sosialt, faglig og kulturelt.” Høgskolen i Hedmark, rapport 14/2004. Pape, T. L. B., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability & Rehabilitation, 24, 5-20. Powell, J., Martindale, A. og Kulp, S. (1975). An Evaluation of Time-Sample Measures of Behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(4 (Winter)), 463-469. Söderström, S. (2010). Teknologibruk i den digitale enhetsskolen: en pilotstudie av bruk av informasjons- og kommunikasjonsteknologi (IKT) i skolehverdagen for grunnskoleelever med nedsatt funksjonsevne. Trondheim, NTNU samfunnsforskning, Avdeling for mangfold og inkludering. WHO (2014). "Disabilities and rehabilitation ". Retrieved 21.11, 2014, from http://www.who.int/disabilities/technology/en/.