• Save
Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces

on

  • 609 views

MexIHC 2012 - Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces

MexIHC 2012 - Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces

Statistics

Views

Total Views
609
Views on SlideShare
609
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible Interfaces Presentation Transcript

    • IHCLab Developing Reading Skills in Children with Down Syndrome through Tangible InterfacesBárbara P. Muro, Pedro C. Santana Martha A. Magaña IHCLab Facultad de Telemática Facultad de Pedagogía Universidad de Colima Universidad de Colima
    • Abstract• Implementing the methodology of “Down syndrome: reading and writing” (DSRW) with tangible technology• This study was developed in three stages: – Context (direct observation and video analysis) – Preliminary evaluation (first Prototype) – High fidelity prototype
    • Statistics• 1 of 700 births is a child with Down syndrome• In 2010, there were 5’739,270 handicapped people of which 8.5% were mentally disabled and 16.3% were born with a disability.
    • Down syndrome• Disorders – Mechanisms of attention • State of alert • Initiative • Memory – Mechanism of correlation • Analysis • Calculation • Abstract thinking.
    • Down syndrome• Even though they present this problem, the student will pay attention to the activity if it is of his interest.• It is appropriate to incorporate other kind of stimulations.
    • Down syndrome: reading and writing• 21 years of investigation (1970-1991) – María Victoria Troncoso, professor specialized on Therapeutic Education – María Mercedes del Cerro, professor specialized on Special Education• Perceptual-discriminative approach• The student understands what he reads, fluently, to remain motivated and to keep his interest in reading.
    • MaterialCard - Image Card - Word
    • The method
    • Tangible Interfaces• Tangible interfaces give physical form to digital information• It has been proven that using tangible interfaces offers some benefits in supporting teaching• They have been tested on children with autism, which is a condition with attention deficit that is also found in the DS, demonstrating favorable results• These interfaces do not intimidate non-expert users and encourage exploratory, expressive and experimental activities.
    • Direct Observation
    • The System• The idea for the user interface is a tabletop and a set of digitally augmented tools tagged with augmented reality tags so they can be recognized by the software.
    • First Prototype
    • Preliminary Evaluation
    • Results• The student found interesting and exciting the fact that the system improves the interaction that he generally has with the method.• It was noticeable during the whole session a constant attention and a permanent expression of joy and interest.• The child maintained his attention in the activities all the time• By the end of the session, the child did not want to stop interacting with the prototype and he, by his own initiative, continued working with it.
    • High fidelity prototype
    • Evaluation• Where? – The test took place in the Down Institute of Colima facilities• Who? – Ricky, Alex and Fer – One evaluator – Three observers – Two teachers• How? – With the teacher: • Structured interview to the teacher • We explained the concept of the system, the design and the functionality of the prototype. • We asked about the opinion that the teacher could create about the system from the given explanation.
    • – With the students: • Warm up exercises • Each student performed 3 activities: – Reading of 4 word cards projected on the tabletop. – Relation of the tangible interfaces with the projected word cards on the tabletop. – Relation of the tangible interfaces (word card) with the projected image cards on the tabletop.• At the end of the three evaluations, a final interview was made to the teacher
    • Evaluation
    • Results• The students: – Showed interest and curiosity when interacting with the prototype. – They were anxious to handle the tangible interfaces and place them where they were asked to. – One of the students, a shy one, made the “thumb up” signal to his teacher when he thought the evaluator was not watching.
    • Results• The teachers : – “I observed that they (the learners) were fascinated” – Maybe the students would learn faster with the interaction that the system allows them to have – Having this kind of technology would make them feel more integrated to society – The general opinion of the first teacher was “wow!” and she would really like to use the system once it is finished. – The second teacher commented that she was very interested in learning how to implement the system in regular classes.
    • Conclusions• The proposed system presented favorable results in preliminary evaluations• In the second evaluation, the results were very pleasant, the users showed enthusiasm, curiosity, excitement and desire to participate in the activities.• The system obtained good reviews from the teachers that attended the evaluation sessions.
    • Future Work• Our further work consists of the enhancement of the prototype• Perform a long term evaluation where want to measure the progress through several months and comparing it to the teaching of the method in a traditional way.• The final objective is to see if the learning process with our system is faster and better than the traditional methodology.
    • Aknowledgments• The Down Institute of Colima• The students Sergio Zamora, Hector Quintero, Eneida Sánchez and Nashielly Merlín of the IHCLab Research Group at the University of Colima
    • Thank you!Questions?