Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 1771–1802 | Cite as

APADYT: a multimedia application for SEN learners

  • Gonzalo Rubio
  • Elena Navarro
  • Francisco Montero
Article

Abstract

Information technologies have been increasingly used in education in recent years, mainly due to their possibilities of improving the classroom experience, especially those related to multimedia facilities. The new technologies are especially useful for the Special Educational Needs (SEN) group. In this paper we introduce APADYT Professional (Aplicación Psicopedagógica para Apoyo en Diagnóstico Y Tratamiento—Psychopedagogical APplicAtion for supporting Diagnosis & Education), an application developed in collaboration with SEN teachers, children with SEN and parents. This multimedia application supports SEN treatment and it exploits multi-touch interfaces to offer SEN learners multimedia learning activities. The main advantage of APADYT Professional is that it helps teachers’ work by providing them with a single application that supports multiple tasks. In this way APADYT fills the gap in the existing applications, by supporting pupil management, computer-assisted learning process, report generation, planning, communication between parents and specialists, authoring tools and others interesting facilities in an integrated way. User-centered techniques have been successfully used for the development of APADYT, as the results of the User eXperience (UX) assessment reported in this paper shows, These results also shows that the approach followed to design this multimedia application is extremely appreciated by SEN teachers and specialists.

Keywords

Multimedia learning activities Edutainment Special Educational Needs Computer Assisted Learning User-centered design techniques User experience assessment and evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alicia Andrés Jimenez and Julia Lara Calero of the Marta Valcarcel Educational Psychology Center for their contribution to our background knowledge of this problem. We would like also to thank our colleagues Juan I. Del Castillo, Luis Cañamares and Arturo Rodríguez, who helped to make APADYT a reality and the Department of the Psychology of the University of Castilla-La Mancha. We are grateful to Microsoft Ibérica for the technical support provided during the development of APADYT. This work has been partially supported by a grant (PEII09-0054-9581) from the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha and also by a grant (TIN2008-06596-C02-01) from the Spanish Government.

References

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-IV-TR, 4th edn. (DSM-IV). American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asteriadis S, Tzouveli P, Karpouzis K, Kollias S (2008) Estimation of behavioral user state based on eye gaze and head pose—application in an e-learning environment. Multimedia Tools Appl 41:469–493. doi: 10.1007/s11042-008-0240-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Athanaselis T, Bakamidis S, Dologlou I et al (2012) Making assistive reading tools user friendly: a new platform for Greek dyslexic students empowered by automatic speech recognition. Multimedia Tools Appl 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-1073-5
  4. 4.
    Attainment Company I (2012) Making change. http://justkidsgames.com/play.php?MakingChange. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  5. 5.
    Bacigalupo DA, Warburton WI, Draffan EA et al (2010) A formative eAssessment co-design case study. Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE CS Press, pp 35–37Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beacham NA, Alty JL (2006) An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Comput Educ 47:74–93. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beale IL (2005) Scaffolding and integrated assessment in computer assisted learning (CAL) for children with learning disabilities. Australas J Educ Technol 21:173–191Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertini M, Bimbo A, Ferracani A et al (2011) Interactive multi-user video retrieval systems. Multimedia Tools Appl 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0888-9
  9. 9.
    Brahan JW (1984) CAL technology: decade past, decade present. Comput Educ 8:323–333. doi: 10.1016/0360-1315(84)90002-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brain Train (2011) Brain train. http://www.braintrain.com/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  11. 11.
    Cogmed (2011) Cogmed. http://www.cogmed.com. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  12. 12.
    Cooper A, Reimann R, Cronin D (2007) About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Wiley Publishing Inc., IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Department of Health and Human Services (2002) Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information; Final rule. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/introdution.html. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  14. 14.
    Dow S, Lee J, Oezbek C et al (2005) Wizard of Oz interfaces for mixed reality applications. Extended Abstracts Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, p 1339Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durkin K, Conti-Ramsden G, Walker AJ (2010) Computer-mediated communication in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Comput Hum Behav 26:176–185. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dyck C (2002) Review of TSI Karhakta: at the edge of the woods. Lang Learn Technol 6:29–33Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ecalle J, Magnan A, Calmus C (2009) Lasting effects on literacy skills with a computer-assisted learning using syllabic units in low-progress readers. Comput Educ 52:554–561. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2010) Special needs education country data 2010. http://www.european-agency.org/publications/ereports/special-needs-education-country-data-2010/special-needs-education-country-data-2010. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  19. 19.
    Faux F (2005) Multimodality: how students with special educational needs create multimedia stories. Educ Commun Inf 5:167–181. doi: 10.1080/14636310500185943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gilmor T (1999) The efficacy of the Tomatis method for children with learning and communication disorders: a meta-analysis. Int J Listening 13:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grynszpan O, Martin J-C, Nadelc J (2008) Multimedia interfaces for users with high functioning autism: an empirical investigation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66:628–639. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haenselmann T, Lemelson H, Effelsberg W (2011) A zero-vision music recording paradigm for visually impaired people. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0832-z
  23. 23.
    Haesen M, Meskens J, Luyten K et al (2011) Finding a needle in a haystack: an interactive video archive explorer for professional video searchers. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0809-y
  24. 24.
    Hamam A, Eid M, El Saddik A (2012) Effect of kinesthetic and tactile haptic feedback on the quality of experience of edutainment applications. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-0990-7
  25. 25.
    Handley Z, Hamel MJ (2005) Establishing a methodology for benchmarking speech synthesis for computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Lang Learn Technol 9:99–120Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horn J (2008) Quick Heuristics for user eXperience. http://tpgblog.com/2008/03/24/quick-ux-quick-heuristics-for-user-experience/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  27. 27.
    Hornbæ K (2006) Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:79–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huang C (2004) Designing high-quality interactive multimedia learning modules. ComputMed Imaging Graph 29:223–233. doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2004.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO 9241-11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 11: Guidance on usability. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  30. 30.
    ISO 9241-210 (2009) Ergonomics of human system interaction—Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52075. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  31. 31.
    ISO/IEC 25010 (2011) Systems and software engineering—Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—System and software quality models. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35733. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  32. 32.
    Judge S, Simms KA (2009) Assistive technology training at the pre-service level: A national snapshot of teacher preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 32:33–44. doi: 10.1177/0888406408330868
  33. 33.
    JumpStart (2007) JumpStart world of learning kindergarten. http://www.jumpstart.com/Teachers/Kindergarten.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  34. 34.
    Karime A, Hossain MA, Rahman ASMM et al (2011) RFID-based interactive multimedia system for the children. Multimedia Tools Appl 59:749–774. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0768-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Knowledge Adventure (2011) Educative games. http://www.knowledgeadventure.com. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  36. 36.
    Lahm EA (2003) Assistive technology specialists: bringing knowledge of assistive technology to school districts. Remedial Spec Educ 24:141–153. doi: 10.1177/07419325030240030301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Law EL-C, Roto V, Hassenzahl M et al (2009) Understanding, scoping and defining user experience. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human factors in computing systems—CHI’09. ACM Press, New York, pp 719–728Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee J-H, Choi E, Song M, Shin B-S (2012) Dreamware: edutainment system for children with developmental disability. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-1089-x
  39. 39.
    Lexis Numerique (2012) Learning with the PooYoos. http://www.ripten.com/2011/03/28/nintendo-download-3282011-justin6464/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  40. 40.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lo J-J, Wang H-M, Yeh S-W (2004) Effects of confidence scores and remedial instruction on prepositions learning in adaptive hypermedia. Comput Educ 42:45–63. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00064-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maccini P, Gagnon J (2002) Perceptions and application of NCTM Standards by special and general education teachers. Except Child 68:325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Magnan A, Ecalle J (2006) Audio-visual training in children with reading disabilities. Comput Educ 46:407–425. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maguire M (2001) Methods to support human-centred design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55:587–634. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2001.0503 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Maguire M, Elton E, Osman Z, Nicolle C (2006) Design of a virtual learning environment for students with special needs. Hum Technol 2:119–153Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Margetis G, Zabulis X, Koutlemanis P et al (2012) Augmented interaction with physical books in an Ambient Intelligence learning environment. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0976-x
  47. 47.
    Mazza R, Dimitrova V (2007) CourseVis: a graphical student monitoring tool for supporting instructors in web-based distance courses. Int J Hum Comput Stud 65:125–139. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McDermott PA, Watkins MW (1983) Computerized vs. conventional remedial instruction for learning-disabled pupils. J Spec Educ 17:81–88. doi: 10.1177/002246698301700110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Microsoft (2010) Windows presentation foundation. http://windowsclient.net/wpf/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  50. 50.
    Microsoft (2011) Farseer physics engine. http://farseerphysics.codeplex.com/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  51. 51.
    Microsoft (2012) XNA. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/aa937791. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  52. 52.
    Microsoft—.NET Division (2009) Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). http://www.microsoft.com/net/WindowsCommunicationFoundation.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  53. 53.
    Microsoft—Business Division (2009) Windows Azure. http://www.microsoft.com/azure/windowsazure.mspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  54. 54.
    Mioduser D, Tur-Kaspa H, Leitner I (2001) The learning value of computer-based instruction of early reading skills. J Comput Assist Learn 16:54–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00115.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mulder S, Yaar Z (2007) The user is always right: A practical guide to creating and using Personas for the Web. New Riders, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mustaquim MM (2011) Automatic speech recognition—an approach for designing inclusive games. Multimedia Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-011-0918-7
  57. 57.
    National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2011) Learning disabilities. http://nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/fs7.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  58. 58.
    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2011) Dyslexia information page. http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/dyslexia/dyslexia.htm
  59. 59.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Norman DA (1998) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Oh J-M, Moon N (2012) Towards a cultural user interface generation principles. Multimedia Tools Appl 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-1017-0
  62. 62.
    Olson RK, Wise BW (1992) Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Read Writ 4:107–144. doi: 10.1007/BF01027488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pearce RAH (1953) Crossed laterality: a study in its significance and treatment in ordinary school life. Arch Dis Child 28:247–258. doi: 10.1136/adc.28.140.247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pi-Hua T (2006) Bridging pedagogy and technology: user evaluation of pronunciation oriented CALL software. Australas J Educ Technol 22:375–397Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pruitt J, Adlin T (2006) The Persona lifecycle. Keeping people in mind throughout product design. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rehasoft (2009) Rehasoft. http://www.rehasoft.com/dislexia/products.htm. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  67. 67.
    Rey-López M, Díaz-Redondo RP, Fernández-Vilas A et al (2008) T-MAESTRO and its authoring tool: using adaptation to integrate entertainment into personalized t-learning. Multimedia Tools Appl 40:409–451. doi: 10.1007/s11042-008-0213-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Richards RG (1998) The writing dilemma: Understanding Dysgraphia. RET Center PressGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ricketts J, Bishop DVM, Nation K (2009) Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. Q J Exp Psychol (2006) 62:1948–66. doi: 10.1080/17470210802696104 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Robins B, Ferrari E, Dautenhahn K et al (2010) Human-centred design methods: developing scenarios for robot assisted play informed by user panels and field trials. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68:873–898. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Roibás AC (2008) Understanding the influence of the users’ context in AmI. Soc Sci Comput Rev 26:103–118. doi: 10.1177/0894439307307699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schöning J, Steinicke F, Krüger A et al (2009) Bimanual interaction with interscopic multi-touch surfaces. Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Uppsala, pp 40–53Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Spanish Government (1999) Personal Data Protection Law 15/1999 of 13rd December 1999. https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/canaldocumentacion/legislacion/estatal/common/pdfs/Ley-15_99.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  74. 74.
    Tan TS, Cheung WS (2008) Effects of computer collaborative group work on peer acceptance of a junior pupil with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Comput Educ 50:725–741. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Texthelp (2009) Texthelp. http://www.texthelp.com/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  76. 76.
    Tullis T, Albert B (2008) Measuring the user experience. Collecting, analyzing and presenting usability metrics. Morgan Kaufmann PublishersGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    UK Parliament (1998) Data Protection Act 1998. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  78. 78.
    Visions Technology (2012) Math companion. http://mathcompanion.com/. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  79. 79.
    Watson T, Hempenstall K (2008) Effects of a computer based beginning reading program on young children. Australas J Educ Technol 24:258–274Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Xu J, Bull S (2010) Encouraging advanced second language speakers to recognise their language difficulties: a personalised computer-based approach. Comput Assist Lang Learn 23:111–127. doi: 10.1080/09588221003666206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Yang Y-F, Wong W-K, Yeh H-C (2009) Investigating readers’ mental maps of references in an online system. Comput Educ 53:799–808. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.0161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonzalo Rubio
    • 1
  • Elena Navarro
    • 2
  • Francisco Montero
    • 2
  1. 1.Wolters Kluwer España, Support Tools DivisionLas Rozas (Madrid)Spain
  2. 2.Computing Systems DepartmentUniversity of Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain

Personalised recommendations