Human-Computer Interaction

INTERACT 2015: Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2015 pp 20-37 | Cite as

Technology Acceptance Evaluation by Deaf Students Considering the Inclusive Education Context

  • Soraia Silva Prietch
  • Lucia Vilela Leite Filgueiras
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9296)

Abstract

As a consequence of the National Policy on Special Education on the Perspective of Inclusive Education in Brazil, established in 2007, mainstream schools have begun receiving a greater number of Deaf or Hard of Hearing (D/HH) students that previously attended specialized schools. However, data point to the declining number of D/HH students enrolled from primary school to secondary school; i.e., there are reasons to believe that educational barriers are imposed on the means these students have of conquering a complete education. In this context, the goal of this work is to propose a technology acceptance model that takes into account constructs that involve aspects of the inclusive education context, as well as performing a pilot test on the interaction of 16 D/HH users with a mobile application, called SESSAI, to evaluate the model. SESSAI consists of a technology-mediated form of communication, which allows hearing persons and D/HH individuals to interact through an automatic recognition system. Among the constructs of the model, one of them refers to the potential educational barriers experienced by D/HH students in inclusive classrooms. With regard to research methodology, the study was developed in cycles of literature review and conduction of tests. The proposed model has shown positive results in capturing factors that influence technology acceptance given the domain specific context, since they incorporate aspects of pragmatic quality and hedonic quality (emotional user experience), and also considers issues related to perceived usefulness in minimizing potential educational barriers, future expectations, and facilitating conditions. We conclude that the model encompasses both users’ personal motivation and context of use aspects, and it can be used for the purpose for which it was proposed. Further investigations need to be conducted in order to adjust the model questionnaire and to recruit a broader number of participants.

Keywords

Assistive technology Technology-mediated communication Country specific developments Human-computer interaction Media in education 

References

  1. 1.
    Abad, M., Díaz, I., Vigo, M.: Acceptance of mobile technology in hedonic scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agyei, D.D., Voogt, J.M.: Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in Ghana: predicting prospective and practicing teachers’ use of technology. Comput. Educ. 56, 91–100 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmed, A.S., Seong, D.S.K.: Signwriting on mobile phones for the deaf. Mobility, Bangkok, 25–27 Oct 2006Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozelle, C., Betrancourt, M., Deriaz, M., Pelizzone, M.: Evaluation of technology acceptance of a computer rehabilitation tool. In: IDC 2008, 11–13 June 2008, Chicago, IL, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cavender, A., Ladner, R.E.: Hearing impairments. In: Harper, S., Yesilada, Y. (eds.) Web Accessibility. Springer, London (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, J.-L.: The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Comput. Educ. 57(2011), 1501–1511 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuchsberger, V., Moser, C., Tscheligi, M.: Values in action (ViA) – combining usability, user experience and user acceptance. CHI, Austin, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and I: understanding the relationship between users and product. In: Blythe, M.A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A.F., Wright, P.C. (eds.) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 31–42. Kluwer, The Netherlands (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Hum. Comput. Interact. 19, 319–349 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience – a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IBGE. www.ibge.gov.br (2015). Accessed 13 Jan 2015
  14. 14.
    INEP. portal.inep.gov.br/ (2015). Accessed 13 Jan 2015
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC 25010: systems and software engineering — systems and software quality requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE) — system and software quality models (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kosec, P., Debevc, M., Holzinger, A.: Sign language interpreter module: accessible video retrieval with subtitles. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W., Karshmer, A. (eds.) ICCHP 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6180, pp. 221–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuo, T.C.T., Shadiev, R., Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N.-S.: Effects of applying STR for group learning activities on learning performance in a synchronous cyber classroom. Comput. Educ. 58, 600–608 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo, X., Han, M., Liu, T., Chen, W., Bai, F.: Assistive learning for hearing impaired college students using mixed reality: a pilot study. In: International Conference on Virtual Reality and Visualization (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthews, T.L., Carter, S.A., Pai, C., Fong, J., Mankoff, J.: Scribe4Me: evaluating a mobile sound transcription tool for the deaf. Technical report No. UCB/EECS-2006–49. http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/ (2006). Accessed 13 Jan 2015
  20. 20.
    Mcgill, T.J., Klobas, J.E.: A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact. Comput. Educ. 52, 496–508 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Perseus Books Group, NewYork (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papadopoulos, M., Pearson, E.: Improving the accessibility of the traditional lecture: an automated tool for supporting transcription. In: Proceedings of the BCS HCI, People and Computers XXVI, Birmingham, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petrie, H., Harrison, C.: Measuring users’ emotional reactions to websites. In: CHI, Spotlight on Works in Progress, USA, 4–9 Apr 2009Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prietch, S.S., Filgueiras, L.V.L.: Developing emotion-libras 2.0 - an instrument to measure the emotional quality of deaf persons while using technology. In: Blashki, K., Isaías, P. (eds.) Emerging Research and Trends in Interactivity and the Human-Computer Interface. IGI Global Publishers, Hershey (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prietch, S.S., de Souza, N.S., Filgueiras, L.V.L.: A speech-to-text system’s acceptance evaluation: would deaf individuals adopt this technology in their lives? In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8513, pp. 440–449. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quico, C., Damásio, M.J., Henriques, S.: Digital TV adopters and non-adopters in the context of the analogue terrestrial TV switchover in Portugal. In: EuroITV 2012, Germany (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Q. 19(2), 561–570 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6(4), 144–176 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. Informs 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang, P., Li, N.: The importance of affective quality. Commun. ACM. 48(9), 105–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soraia Silva Prietch
    • 1
  • Lucia Vilela Leite Filgueiras
    • 1
  1. 1.Escola PoliténicaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations