Advertisement

Tangible Objects and Mobile Technology: Interactive Learning Environments for Students with Learning Disabilities

  • Elif PolatEmail author
  • Kursat Cagiltay
  • Necdet Karasu
Living reference work entry

Abstract

In recent years, tangible mobile applications have been used in general and special educational settings. Providing multi-sensory interaction, physical engagement, accessibility, and collaboration, interactive tangible mobile applications have a potential to enrich learning experience of both normally developing students and students with specific learning disabilities (SLD).

Despite the promising potential and agreement on the value of tangible technologies, few studies have yet revealed the use of interactive tangible technologies for students with SLD. Emerging research focus on supporting reading skills of students with SLD by developing tangible interfaces with different technologies. Moreover, related literature lacks both theoretical and empirical studies in relation with the use of tangible technologies for students with SLD.

This chapter presents definition and potential benefits of tangible technologies, its use with SLD, description of a tangible mobile application for students with specific learning disabilities and future directions and suggestions. It is thought that design guidelines may be enlightening for instructional designers to design and develop interactive tangible mobile applications for students with SLD.

Keywords

Tangible technologies Tangible mobile applications Specific learning disabilities Tangible objects Multi-touch applications 

References

  1. Abbott, Chris. 2007. E-inclusion: Learning difficulties and digital technologies (Report No. 15). Bristol: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, A.N. 2007. The CTI framework: Informing the design of tangible systems for children. In Proceedings of the first international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, USA, 195–202.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227010.
  3. Antle, A.N., M. Fan., and E.S. Cramer. 2015. PhonoBlocks: A tangible system for supporting dyslexic children learning to read. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, USA, 533–538.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2687897.
  4. Arita, J., J. H. Seo, and S. Aldriedge 2014. Soft tangible interaction design with tablets for young children. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2014 Posters, 54. ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Cobb, Sue, Angela Mallet, Tony Pridmore, and Steve Benford. 2007. Interactive flashlights in special needs education. Digital Creativity 18 (2): 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cramer, E.S., A.N. Antle, and M. Fan. 2016. The code of many colours: Evaluating the effects of a dynamic colour-coding scheme on children’s spelling in a tangible software system. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, UK, 473–485.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930692.
  7. De Raffaele, C., Buhagiar, G., Smith, S., and Gemikonakli, O. 2017. Designing a table-top tangible user interface system for higher education. In Proceedings of smart systems and technologies (SST), Croatia, 285–291.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SST.2017.8188711.
  8. Eisenberg, M., A. Eisenberg, S. Hendrix, G. Blauvelt, D. Butter, J. Garcia, R. Lewis, and T. Nielsen. 2003. As we may print: New directions in output devices and computational crafts for children. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on interaction design and children, UK, 31–39.  https://doi.org/10.1145/953536.953543.
  9. Falcão, T.P., and S. Price. 2010. Informing design for tangible interaction: A case for children with learning difficulties. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children, Spain, 190–193.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810568.
  10. Fan, M. and A.N. Antle. 2015. Tactile letters: A tangible tabletop with texture cues supporting alphabetic learning for dyslexic children. In Proceedings of the ninth International conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, USA, 673–678.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2688806.
  11. Fishkin, Kenneth P. 2004. A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8 (5): 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florian, Lani. 2004. Uses of technology that support pupils with special educational needs. In ICT and special educational needs: A tool for inclusion, ed. Lani Florian and John Hegarty, 7–20. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garcia-Sanjuan, Fernando, Sandra Jurdi, Javier Jaen, and Vicente Nacher. 2018. Evaluating a tactile and a tangible multi-tablet gamified quiz system for collaborative learning in primary education. Computers & Education 123: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garzotto, F., and Bordogna, M. 2010. Paper-based multimedia interaction as learning tool for disabled children. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children, Spain, 79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810553.
  15. Guerrero, Graciela, Andrés Ayala, Juan Mateu, Laura Casades, and Xavier Alamán. 2016. Integrating virtual worlds with tangible user interfaces for teaching mathematics: A pilot study. Sensors 16 (11): 1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haro, B. P. M., Santana, P. C., and Magaña, M. A. 2012. Developing reading skills in children with Down syndrome through tangible interfaces. In Proceedings of the 4th Mexican conference on human-computer interaction, Mexico, 28–34.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2382176.2382183.
  17. Hengeveld, B., Hummels, C., Overbeeke, K., Voort, R., van Balkom, H., and de Moor, J. 2009. Tangibles for toddlers learning language. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, USA, 161–168.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664.1517702.
  18. Hersh, Marion A., and Michael A. Johnson. 2008. On modelling assistive technology systems–Part I: Modelling framework. Technology and Disability 20 (3): 193–215.Google Scholar
  19. Horn, M.S., E.T. Solovey, R.J. Crouser, and R.J. Jacob. 2009. Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, USA, 975–984.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518851.
  20. Hutinger, Patricia L. 1996. Computer application in programs for young children with disabilities: Recurring themes. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 11 (2): 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IGI Dictionary Search. 2018. What is interactive technology. Retrieved June 28, 2018, from https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/parental-mediation-of-adolescent-technology-use/41845
  22. Jacob, R.J., H. Ishii, G. Pangaro, and J. Patten. 2002. A tangible interface for organizing information using a grid. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, USA, 339–346.  https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503437.
  23. Jacob, R.J., A. Girouard, L.M. Hirshfield, M.S. Horn, O. Shaer, E.T. Solovey, and J. Zigelbaum. 2008. Reality-based interaction: A framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in Computing Systems, Italy, 201–210.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357089.
  24. Jafri, Rabia, Asmaa Mohammed Aljuhani, and Syed Abid Ali. 2017. A tangible user interface-based application utilizing 3D-printed manipulatives for teaching tactual shape perception and spatial awareness sub-concepts to visually impaired children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 11: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kara, Nuri. 2015. Design, development and use of a smart toy for preschool children: A design and development research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  26. Kara, Nuri, Cansu Çiğdem Aydın, and Kürşat Çağıltay. 2013. Investigating the activities of children toward a smart storytelling toy. Educational Technology & Society 16 (1): 28–43.Google Scholar
  27. Kara, Nuri, Cansu Çiğdem Aydın, and Kürşat Çağıltay. 2014a. Design and development of a smart storytelling toy. Interactive Learning Environments 22 (3): 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kara, Nuri, Cansu Çiğdem Aydın, and Kürşat Çağıltay. 2014b. User study of a new smart toy for children’s storytelling. Interactive Learning Environments 22 (5): 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keay-Bright, Wendy. 2008. Tangible technologies as interactive play spaces for children with learning difficulties: the Reactive colours project. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society 4 (1): 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manches, A., and S. Price. 2011. Designing learning representations around physical manipulation: Hands and objects. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children, USA, 81–89.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1999030.1999040.
  31. Marshall, P. 2007. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, USA, 163–170.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004.
  32. O’Malley, Claire, and Danae Stanton Fraser. 2004. Literature review in learning with tangible technologies (Report No. 12). Bristol: Futurelab.Google Scholar
  33. Pandey, S., and S. Srivastava. 2011a. SpellBound: a tangible spelling aid for the dyslexic child. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on human computer interaction, India, 101–104.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2407796.2407813.
  34. Pandey, S., and S. Srivastava. 2011b. Tiblo: a tangible learning aid for children with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the second conference on creativity and innovation in design, Netherlands, 211–220.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2079216.2079247.
  35. Parkes, A. J., Raffle, H. S., and Ishii, H. 2008. Topobo in the wild: longitudinal evaluations of educators appropriating a tangible interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Italy, 1129–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357232.
  36. Polat Hopcan, Elif. 2017. Design, development and evaluation of a tangible mobile applicatıion for students with specific learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  37. Seo, J. H., Arita, J., Chu, S., Quek, F., and Aldriedge, S. 2015. Material significance of tangibles for young children. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, USA, 53–56.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680583.
  38. Shaer, Orit, and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction 3 (1–2): 1–137.Google Scholar
  39. Ullmer, Brygg, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Systems Journal 39 (3-4): 915–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNESCO. 2000. Analytical survey of information and communication technology in special education. http://iite.unesco.org/pics/publications/en/files/3214585.doc. Accessed 5 Feb 2017.
  41. Zuckerman, O., S. Arida, and M. Resnick. 2005. Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human Factors in computing systems, USA, 859–868.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055093.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technology DepartmentIstanbul University – CerrahpasaIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technology DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Education, Special Education DepartmentGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Section editors and affiliations

  • Hea-Jin Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of College of Education and Human EcologyThe Ohio State University at LimaLimaUSA

Personalised recommendations