Using Interface Design with Low-Cost Interactive Whiteboard Technology to Enhance Learning for Children

  • Chien-Yu Lin
  • Fong-Gong Wu
  • Te-Hsiung Chen
  • Yan-Jin Wu
  • Kenendy Huang
  • Chia-Pei Liu
  • Shu-Ying Chou
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6768)


This study attempts to make use of interactive whiteboard as an interface for children with learning disabilities. Using flash software to design teaching materials with the assistance of interactive whiteboard could also be developed in the children’s learning. When detected by a wiimote and infrared light device, corresponding information appears on a screen to increase the interaction aimed at children with learning disabilities by adopting an enhanced intuitive learning method. This study is divided into training and testing steps. The training step allows researchers involved in special education to acquire low-cost interactive whiteboard skills and to develop a unit course for children with learning disabilities. The participants are children with disabilities in the testing step. In this study, the application of technological innovations relies upon user-interface design, which facilitates users’ control ability and interaction with an innovation, to convert the technical capabilities into a usable and friendly teaching material.


interactive assistive technology teaching materials children wiimote 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Klatt, B.A., Goyal, N., Austin, M.S., Hozack, W.J.: Custom-fit Total Knee Arthroplasty Results in Malalignment. J. Arthroplasty 23, 26–29 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shimizu, H., McDonough, C.S.: Programmed Instruction to Teach Pointing with a Computer Mouse in Preschoolers with Developmental Disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 27, 175–189 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hung, P.H., Lin, C.Y., Lu, C.C., Chang, Y.Y.: Development and Application of Online Assessment for Experimental Debugging Performance. In: The 7th conference of the international test commission, p. 102 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kawate, K., Ohneda, Y., Ohmura, T., Yajima, H., Sugimoto, K., Takakura, Y.: Computed Tomography–based Custom-made Stem for Dysplastic Hips in Japanese Patients. J. Arthroplasty 24, 65–70 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin, C.Y., Hung, P.H., Lin, J.Y., Lun, H.C.: Augmented Reality-based Assistive Technology for Handicapped Children. Key Engineering Materials 439–440, 1253—1258 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho, V., Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, W.M.J.: The Role of Perceived User-interface Design in Continued Usage Intention of Self-paced e-learning Tools. Computers & Education 53, 216–227 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim, Y.J.: The Effects of Task Complexity on Learner–learner Interaction. System 37, 254–268 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leaf, J.B., Dotson, W.H., Oppeneheim, M.L., Sheldon, J.B., Sherman, J.A.: The Effectiveness of a Group Teaching Interaction Procedure for Teaching Social Skills to Young Children with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 4, 186–198 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lopez, O.S.: The Digital Learning Classroom: Improving English Language Learners Academic Success in Mathematics and Reading Using Interactive Whiteboard Technology. Computers & Education 54, 901–915 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., Staarman, J.K.: In the Mind and in the Technology: The Vicarious Presence of the Teacher in Pupil’s Learning of Science in Collaborative Group Activity at the Interactive Whiteboard. Computers & Education 55, 350–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waite, S.J., Wheeler, S., Bromfield, C.: Our Flexible Friend: The Implications of Individual Differences for Information Technology Teaching. Computers & Education 48, 80–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rosinski, P., Squire, M., Strange, B.: Human-computer Interaction, Interface Design, and Composition Pedagogy. Computers and Composition 26, 149–163 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bower, M., Hedberg, J.G.: A Quantitative Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Teaching and Learning in a Web-conferencing Environment–the Efficacy of Student-centred Learning Designs. Computers & Education 54, 462–478 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotzé, P., Renaud, K., Biljon, J.V.: Don’t Do This – Pitfalls in Using Anti-patterns in Teaching Human–computer Interaction Principles. Computers & Education 50, 979–1008 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tataroglu, B., Erduran, A.: Examining Students Attitudes and Views Towards Usage an Interactive Whiteboard in Mathematics Lessons. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2, 2533–2538 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lin, C.Y., Hung, P.H., Wang, L.C., Lin, C.C.: Reducing Cognitive Load Through Virtual Environments Among Hearing-impaired Students. In: PACCS 2010, pp. 183–186 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, J.C.: Hacking the Nintendo Wii Remote. Pervasive Computing, 39–45 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chien-Yu Lin
    • 1
  • Fong-Gong Wu
    • 2
  • Te-Hsiung Chen
    • 3
  • Yan-Jin Wu
    • 4
  • Kenendy Huang
    • 4
  • Chia-Pei Liu
    • 5
  • Shu-Ying Chou
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationNational University of TainanTainanR.O.C.
  2. 2.Department of Industrial DesignNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanR.O.C.
  3. 3.National Tainan School for the Hearing ImpairedTainan CountyR.O.C.
  4. 4.Graduate Institute of Assistive TechnologyNUTNTainanR.O.C.
  5. 5.Municipal Jinsyue Elementary SchoolTainanR.O.C.
  6. 6.Tainan Municipal Heshun Elementary SchoolR.O.C.

Personalised recommendations