Are Assistive Technologies Used to Support Children with Special Educational Needs in Bulgaria?
PDF файл
PDF файл
Autor(s):
Anna Andreeva, Institute of Robotics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria and Department of Logopedics, South-West University “Neofit Rilski”, Bulgaria, anna_andreeva@swu.bg
Snezhanka Kostova, Institute of Robotics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, kostovasp@yahoo.com
Borislava Kostova, Institute of Robotics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, borislava.kst@gmail.com
Snezhanka Kostova, Institute of Robotics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, kostovasp@yahoo.com
Borislava Kostova, Institute of Robotics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria, borislava.kst@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.55630/STEM.2025.0737
Abstract:
This study investigates the adoption and use of emerging assistive technologies among 59 Bulgarian professionals working with children with special educational needs (SEN), particularly those with Autism Spectrum Disorders and intellectual disabilities. The mean age of the respondents is 44 years (ranged from 21 to 56). An online questionnaire of 12 closed-ended and 2 open-ended questions was used. It focuses on technological tools such as specialized software for therapy and education, augmentative and alternative communication devices, virtual reality, robots, and other digital solutions. The goal is to generate insights that can inform targeted training initiatives and policy development to facilitate the broader integration of assistive technologies in educational and therapeutic settings.
Descriptive statistics show a predominant belief on traditional or low-tech tools. The highest mean score was recorded for educational hardware and software (M = 2.69), followed by the mobile applications developed for children with special educational needs (M = 2.61) and technologies for augmentative and alternative communication (M = 2.54). The use of robots (M = 1.19) was among the least adopted. Analysis of the open-ended responses further illustrates the difference between available and utilized technologies. Approximately 42% of participants reported not using any assistive technologies, citing lack of access or availability. Among those who did, the most commonly used tools included augmentative and alternative communication applications such as Cboard (18%), Communicator 5, PECS cards, Look to Learn, Bobo Home, interactive floors, and multisensory rooms. Low-tech solutions such as gestures and symbolic pictures remain the prevalent alternatives. When asked about their awareness of colleagues using other assistive technologies, nearly 80% of participants reported no knowledge of such practices. Isolated responses referenced tools like Cboard, Communicator, Look to Learn, and devices like the Nao robot and gaze-controlled systems. This suggests limited peer communication and weak knowledge exchange, which may hinder the broader dissemination and implementation of innovative tools. These findings emphasize the need for targeted professional development, enhanced resource availability, and stronger inter-professional communication to support the wider integration of assistive technologies in SEN educational practices.
Descriptive statistics show a predominant belief on traditional or low-tech tools. The highest mean score was recorded for educational hardware and software (M = 2.69), followed by the mobile applications developed for children with special educational needs (M = 2.61) and technologies for augmentative and alternative communication (M = 2.54). The use of robots (M = 1.19) was among the least adopted. Analysis of the open-ended responses further illustrates the difference between available and utilized technologies. Approximately 42% of participants reported not using any assistive technologies, citing lack of access or availability. Among those who did, the most commonly used tools included augmentative and alternative communication applications such as Cboard (18%), Communicator 5, PECS cards, Look to Learn, Bobo Home, interactive floors, and multisensory rooms. Low-tech solutions such as gestures and symbolic pictures remain the prevalent alternatives. When asked about their awareness of colleagues using other assistive technologies, nearly 80% of participants reported no knowledge of such practices. Isolated responses referenced tools like Cboard, Communicator, Look to Learn, and devices like the Nao robot and gaze-controlled systems. This suggests limited peer communication and weak knowledge exchange, which may hinder the broader dissemination and implementation of innovative tools. These findings emphasize the need for targeted professional development, enhanced resource availability, and stronger inter-professional communication to support the wider integration of assistive technologies in SEN educational practices.
Keywords:
Special Educational Needs; Autism Spectrum Disorders; Intellectual Disabilities; Assistive Technology;
Received:
25-09-2025
Accepted:
29-12-2025
Published:
31-12-2025
Cite (APA style):
Andreeva, A., Kostova, S., Kostova, B. (2025). Are Assistive Technologies Used to Support Children with Special Educational Needs in Bulgaria?, Science Series "Innovative STEM Education", volume 07, ISSN: 2683-1333, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 400-406, DOI: https://doi.org/10.55630/STEM.2025.0737
PDF file address:
http://www.math.bas.bg/vt/stemedu/books/07/STEM.2025.0737.pdf