skip to main content
10.1145/2662253.2662347acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesinteraccionConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

EMATIC: an inclusive educational application for tablets

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 September 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

EMATIC project (Mathematics Education through ICT) is a multi-device Intelligent Tutorial System (ITS) focused on the teaching of mathematics, especially for children with educational difficulties. Logical thinking and learning different aspects of basic math are the main learning goals of EMATIC. Also, EMATIC allows students to perform non-repetitively the same type of exercise, making the process of learning something as dynamic and entertaining as if it were a game. This paper examines key issues to support students with special education needs (SEN) in their learning of math, involving the interaction design and usability of the application's interface. The research goals include the identification of the main interaction difficulties and the improvement of the interaction design to get a better suit to these groups of users.

References

  1. Abdelhameed, H., and J. Porter (2006), "Counting in Egyptian Children with Down'sSyndrome", International Journal of Special Education, vol. 21, núm. 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Caycho, L., P. Gun y M. Siegal (1991), "Counting by Children with Down's Syndrome", American Journal on Mental Retardation, vol. 95, núm. 5, pp. 575--583.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Gelman, R., y M. Cohen (1988), "Qualitative Differences in the Way Down'sSyndrome and Normal Children Solve a Novel Counting Problem", en L.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nye, J., M. Fluck y S. Buckley (2001), "Counting and Cardinal Understanding in Children with Down's Syndrome and Typically Developing Children", Down' Syndrome Research and Practice, vol. 7, núm. 2, pp. 68--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Porter, J. (1999), "Learning to Count: A Difficult Task?", Down's Syndrome Researchand Practice, vol. 6, núm. 2, pp. 85--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sloper, P., C. Cunningham, S. Turner y C. Knussen (1990), "Factors Relating tothe Academic Attainments of Children with Down's Syndrome", British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 60, pp. 284--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Porter, J. and Lacey, P., 2005. Researching Learning Difficulties: A Guide for Practitioners. London: Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Monari, E. (2002). Learning mathematics at schooll... and later on. Down Syndrome News and Update, 2 (1), 19--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. NCTM (2000) "Principles and Standards - Standards 2000 Project". Retrieved 2014-04-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Kroesbergen E. H. & Van Luit J. E.H. (2003). Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs. A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special Education. 24(2).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayers, L. S. (2009) The effects of using computer software programs as a tool for teaching mathematics to improve the attention levels of second grade students with special needs. Ph.D. thesis. Caldwell Colleage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Bender, W. N., & Bender R. L. (1996). Computer-Assisted instruction for Students at Risk for ADHD, Mild Disabilities, or Academic Problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kovalchick A. & Dawson, K (Eds.) (2004). Education and technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Grupta, S. & Bostrom R. P. (2004). Collaborative e-learning: Information Systems Research Directions. In proceedings of AMCIS, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Muñoz, V. (2007). Diseño e Implementación de planificadores instruccionales en sistemas tutoriales inteligentes mediante el uso combinado de metodologías borrosa y multiagente. Ph.D. thesis. University of La Laguna.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Cecil, R. (2006): Clash of the Titans: Agile and UCD. http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2006/12/clash-of-the-titans-agile-and-ucd.php. Accessed 25-Feb-2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Colfelt A. (2010): Bringing User Centered Design to the Agile Environment. http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/bringing-user. Accessed 25-Feb-2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. González González C., Noda M., Bruno A., Moreno L., Muñoz L. (2013). Learning subtraction and addition through digital boards: a Down syndrome case, International Journal Universal Access in the Information Society - UAIS. 2013Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Center for Universal Design (2002). Guidelines for Use of the Principles of Universal Design. http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/about_ud/udprinciples.htm. Accessed 25-Feb-2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Muller, M.J. (2007). Participatory design: The third space in HCI (revised). In J. Jacko and A. Sears (eds.), Handbook of HCI 2nd Edition. Mahway NJ USA: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, L. Engaging Personas and Narrative Scenarios. Samfundslitteratur, PhD-Series. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Long, F. (2009). Real or Imaginary: The Effectiveness of using Personas in Product Design. Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, May 2009, pp1--10 Dublin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pruitt, John & Adlin, Tamara. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Morgan Kaufmann (2006). ISBN 0-12-566251-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Dow S., Fortuna J., Schwartz D., Altringer B., Schwartz B., and Klemmer S. (2011). Prototyping Dynamics: Sharing Multiple Designs Improves Exploration, Group Rapport, and Results. In CHI: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011. Available online: Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2011/PrototypingDynamics/PrototypingDynamics-CHI2011.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazar, J. (Ed.) (2007). Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces for Diverse User Populations. Wiley Eds. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nielsen J, Mack RL (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Pierotti, D. Heuristic Evaluation -- A System Checklist, Xerox Corporation, Retrieved 18/03, 2014 from http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/hechecklist.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Lidwell W., Butler J. & Holden K. (2003). Universal Principles of Design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. EMATIC: an inclusive educational application for tablets

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      Interacción '14: Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction
      September 2014
      435 pages
      ISBN:9781450328807
      DOI:10.1145/2662253

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 September 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate109of163submissions,67%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader