Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1433–1456 | Cite as

Information practices and user interfaces: Student use of an iOS application in special education

  • Carrie Demmans Epp
  • Rhonda McEwen
  • Rachelle Campigotto
  • Karyn Moffatt
Article

Abstract

A framework connecting concepts from user interface design with those from information studies is applied in a study that integrated a location-aware mobile application into two special education classes at different schools; this application had two support modes (one general and one location specific). The five-month study revealed several information practices that emerged from student attempts to overcome barriers within the application and the curriculum. Students engaged in atypical and unintended practices when using the application. These practices appear to be consequences of the user interface and information processing challenges faced by students. Abandoning activities was a strategic choice and was an unanticipated information practice associated with the application’s integration into lessons. From an information processing perspective, it is likely that students reinterpreted information in the location mode as housing application content rather than being location specific and the information practice of taking photos emerged as an expressive use of the device when an instrumental task was absent. Based on these and other emergent practices, we recommend functionality that should be considered when developing or integrating these types of applications into special education settings and we seek to expand the traditional definition of information practice by including human-computer interaction principles.

Keywords

Mobile learning Human information processing Mobile applications User interfaces Special education Cognitive support tools Usability 

References

  1. Ally, M. (2009). Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training. Edmonton: AU Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aphasia Institute (2003). What Is Aphasia? | The Aphasia Institute. Aphasia Institute. http://www.aphasia.ca/aboutaphasia.html.
  3. AppBrain (2013). Number of Available Android Applications - AppBrain. AppBrain. http://www.appbrain.com/stats/number-of-android-apps.
  4. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working Memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Boase, J., & Ling, R. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 508–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caidi, N., & Allard, D. (2005). Social inclusion of newcomers to Canada: an information problem? Library & Information Science Research, 27(3), 302–324. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2005.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campigotto, R., McEwen, R., & Demmans Epp, C. (2013). Especially social: exploring the use of an iOS application in special needs classrooms. Computers & Education, 60(1), 74–86. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, K., Evreinov, G., Hammarstrom, K., & Raskind, M. (2000). Information and Communication Technology in Special Education. Analytical survey. UNESCO. http://www.iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214585.doc, last viewed March 2015.
  9. Demmans Epp, C., Campigotto, R., Alexander L., & Baecker, R. (2011). MarcoPolo: Context-Sensitive Mobile Communication Support. In FICCDAT: RESNA/ICTA, (pp. 4). Toronto, Canada. http://web.resna.org/conference/proceedings/2011/RESNA_ICTA/demmans%20epp-69532.pdf.
  10. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(4), 465–490. doi:10.1023/A:1026149119426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du, J., Sansing, W. & Yu, C. (2004). The Impact of Technology Use on Low- Income and Minority Students’ Academic Achievements: Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Fernández-López, Á., Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martínez-Segura, M. J. (2013). Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers & Education, 61, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goggin, G., & Newell, C. (2003). Digital disability: The social construction of disability in new media. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Hirotomi, T. (2007). Multifaceted user interface to support people with special needs (In the Proceedings of The Second Iasted International Conference On Human Computer Interaction, pp. 87–92). Anaheim: ACTA Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ingraham, N. (2013). Apple Announces 1 Million Apps in the App Store, More than 1 Billion Songs Played on iTunes Radio. The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4866302/apple-announces-1-million-apps-in-the-app-store.
  16. Jacob, R. J. K. (1994). New Human-Computer Interaction Techniques. Human-Machine Communication for Educational Systems Design.Google Scholar
  17. Kim-Rupnow, S. W., & Burgstahler, S. (2004). Perceptions of students with disabilities regarding the value of technology-based support activities on postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2), 43–56. http://www.editlib.org/p/99229/.Google Scholar
  18. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Bull, S. (2009). Theory-based support for mobile language learning: noticing and recording. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 3 (2). doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i2.740.
  19. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ludlow, B. L. (2001). Technology and teacher education in special education: disaster or deliverance? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mateu, J., Lasala, M. J., & Alamán, X. (2014). VirtualTouch: a tool for developing mixed reality educational applications and an example of use for inclusive education. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(10), 815–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McEwen, R. N., & Scheaffer, K. (2013). Virtual mourning and memory construction on facebook: here are the terms of use. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,64–75. doi:10.1177/0270467613516753.
  23. McLeod, S. A. (2008). Working Memory - Simply Psychology. http://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html.
  24. Meyers, E. M., Fisher, K. E., & Marcoux, E. (2009). Making sense of an information world: the everyday-life information behavior of preteens. Library Quarterly, 79(3), 301–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miesenberger, K., Fels, D., Archambault, D., Penaz, P., & Zagler, W. (Eds.). (2014). Computers Helping People with Special Needs: 14th International Conference Proceedings. Paris: ICCHP.Google Scholar
  26. Mose, N. (2013). SMS linguistic creativity in small screen technology. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 3(22), 114–121. http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/9564.Google Scholar
  27. Mullet, K., & Sano, D. (1995). Designing Visual Interfaces: Communication Oriented Techniques. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Nielson, J. (1994). Heuristic Evaluation. In J. Nielson & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods (pp. 25–62). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Savolainen, R. (2009). Information use and information processing: comparison of conceptualizations. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 187–207. doi:10.1108/00220410910937570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Starcic, A. I., Cotic, M., & Zajc, M. (2013). Design‐based research on the use of a tangible user interface for geometry teaching in an inclusive classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 729–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sweller, J., Ayres, P. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. TDSB (2013). Special education report: Toronto District School Board. Special Education and Sections Programs, Toronto, ON. http://www.tdsb.on.ca/Portals/0/Elementary/docs/SpecED/SpecED_EducationReport.pdf, last viewed March 2015.
  33. Tentori, M., & Hayes, G. (2010). ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp’10). In Designing for Interaction Immediacy to Enhance Social Skills of Children with Autism (pp. 51–60). Denmark: Copenhagen. doi:10.1145/1864349.1864359.Google Scholar
  34. Tufte, E. R. (1989). Visual Design of the User Interface: Information Resolution, Interaction of Design Elements, Color for the User Interface, Typogragphy and Icons, Design Quality. Armonk: IBM.Google Scholar
  35. Turnbull, A. P. (1995). Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools. Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49–56.Google Scholar
  37. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing Teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: the interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technologies for Aging Gracefully Laboratory (TAGlab)University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Communication, Culture, Information and TechnologyUniversity of Toronto MississaugaTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of Environmental StudiesYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  4. 4.School of Information StudiesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations