Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:54:52.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘INDRIYA’ – PARTICIPATORY DESIGN OF A MULTI-SENSORY LEARNING AID FOR CHILDREN WITH COMMUNICATION DISORDER

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Kavyashree Venkatesh  and
Shakuntala Acharya
Kavyashree Venkatesh
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Shakuntala Acharya*
Affiliation:
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
*
Acharya, Shakuntala, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati India, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Designing for disability is a very specialised area as it requires interdisciplinary expertise, and designing assistive devices for children with communication disorder, is especially a challenge as these users are incapable of providing adequate and coherent feedback. With the adoption of participatory design approach, in collaboration with experts/professionals/educators, as pivotal stakeholders and a proxy for the end-users; a game-based, multi-sensory learning aid has been developed to train children on the concept of sense organs. Several concepts were generated and evaluated through special educator participation and based on a preliminary survey of external special educators as evaluators, the prototype was found to be suitable for the target user to enhance their communication skills. This paper captures a research through design perspective on the design of customisable solutions for beneficiary user groups, who are unable to offer feedback.

Keywords

Participatory designCollaborative designDesign for X (DfX)User centred designDesign for Children with disability
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 9 - 18
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abirami, K. and Deepalakshmi, P., 2022, April. A Comparative Study on Algorithms Applied to the Design of Assistive Technology for Autism and Spectrum Disorder: Far and Beyond. In 2022 6th International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.Google Scholar
Aflatoony, L., & Kolarić, S. (2022). One Size Doesn't Fit All: On the Adaptable Universal Design of Assistive Technologies. Proceedings of the Design Society, 2, 1209–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aflatoony, L., & Lee, S. J. (2020, May). CODEA: A Framework for Co-Designing Assistive Technologies with Occupational Therapists, Industrial Designers, and End-Users with Mobility Impairments. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1843–1852). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aflatoony, L., & Shenai, S. (2021, July). Unpacking the challenges and future of assistive technology adaptation by occupational therapists. In CHItaly 2021: 14th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter (pp. 1–8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, A.N., Acharya, S. and Chakrabarti, A., 2021. Extended taxonomy of design and innovation games to identify perspectives of development and evaluation. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, pp.1547–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, B. and Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., 2022, June. The Inclusion of Children on the Autism Spectrum in the Design of Learning Technologies: A Small-Scale Exploration of Adults’ Perspectives. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 7, p. 867964). Frontiers Media SA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, E., Branham, S., Ali, A., Chang, J.J., Hofmann, M.K., Hurst, A. and Kane, S.K., 2015, April. Sharing is caring: Assistive technology designs on thingiverse. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 525–534)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, E., Hurst, A. and Hofmann, M., 2014, October. Coming to grips: 3D printing for accessibility. In Proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers & accessibility (pp. 291–292)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, A.K., Zubair, R. and Rathore, F.A., 2022. The role of Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Speech and Language Therapy: A mini review. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 72(3), pp.581–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. Z., Lee, L., Fellinghauer, C., Cieza, A., & Chatterji, S. (2022). Demographic and environmental factors associated with disability in India, Laos, and Tajikistan: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC public health, 22(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Couvreur, L. and Goossens, R., 2011. Design for (every) one: co-creation as a bridge between universal design and rehabilitation engineering. CoDesign, 7(2), pp.107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dursun, M. and Pedgley, B.Ş., 2021. Eliciting children's expectations for hand prostheses through generative design tools. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, pp.1343–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edemekong, P. F., Bomgaars, D. L., & Levy, S. B. (2017). Activities of daily living (ADLs).Google Scholar
Gitlin, L.N., Schemm, R.L., Landsberg, L. and Burgh, D., 1996. Factors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. Journal of Aging and Health, 8(4), pp.554–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guha, M.L., Druin, A. and Fails, J.A., 2008, June. Designing with and for children with special needs: An inclusionary model. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 61–64)Google Scholar
Gürbüzsel, İ., Göksun, T., & Coşkun, A. (2022, June). Eliciting parents' insights into products for supporting and tracking children's fine motor development. In Interaction Design and Children (pp. 544–550).Google Scholar
Hwang, D., & Park, W. (2018). Design heuristics set for X: A design aid for assistive product concept generation. Design Studies, 58, 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karia, D., Nambiar, R.S. and Arora, M., 2019, July. An affordable insulin pump for type-1 diabetic patients: A case study of user-in-the-loop approach to engineering design. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 847–856). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karki, J., Rushton, S., Bhattarai, S., Norman, G., Rakhshanda, S. and De Witte, P.L., 2022. Processes of assistive technology service delivery in Bangladesh, India and Nepal: a critical reflection. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, pp.1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laschok, Z. M., & Lim, Y. (2021). Dyslexia and self-development; a product for primary school classrooms to encourage social interaction with the intent of improving self-esteem. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 1323–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnert, F.K., Niess, J., Lallemand, C., Markopoulos, P., Fischbach, A. and Koenig, V., 2021. Child–Computer Interaction: From a systematic review towards an integrated understanding of interaction design methods for children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, p.100398.Google Scholar
Magnier, C., Thomann, G., Villeneuve, F. and Zwolinski, P., 2010, October. Investigation of methods for the design of assistive device: UCD and medical tools. In IDMME_P 30.Google Scholar
McDonald, S., Comrie, N., Buehler, E., Carter, N., Dubin, B., Gordes, K., McCombe-Waller, S. and Hurst, A., 2016, October. Uncovering challenges and opportunities for 3D printing assistive technology with physical therapists. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 131–139).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montignies, F., Nosulenko, V. and Parizet, E., 2010. Empirical identification of perceptual criteria for customer-centred design. Focus on the sound of tapping on the dashboard when exploring a car. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(5), pp.592–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norbury, C.F., 2014. Practitioner review: Social (pragmatic) communication disorder conceptualization, evidence and clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(3), pp.204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norrie, C.S., Waller, A. and Hannah, E.F., 2021. Establishing Context: AAC Device Adoption and Support in a Special-Education Setting. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(2), pp.1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, C. (2021). Designing an all-terrain wheelchair; a case study of inclusive design for social impact in low-resource settings. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 1133–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, C., Nickpour, F., & Bernardi, F. (2021). What can be Learnt from 130 Children's Dream Wheelchair Designs? Eliciting Child-Centred Insights Using an Interdisciplinary Design Analysis Framework. Proceedings of the Design Society, 1, 3409–3418.Google Scholar
Pires, A.C., Neto, I., Brulé, E., Malinverni, L., Metatla, O. and Hourcade, J.P., 2022, June. Co-Designing with Mixed-Ability Groups of Children to Promote Inclusive Education. In Interaction Design and Children (pp. 715–718).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raghavendra, P., Bornman, J., Granlund, M. and Björck-Åkesson, E., 2007. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: implications for clinical and research practice in the field of augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), pp.349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakap, S., 2015. Quality of individualised education programme goals and objectives for preschool children with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(2), pp.173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, A.V.D.F. and Silveira, Z.C., 2020. AT-d8sign: Methodology to support development of assistive devices focused on user-centered design and 3D technologies. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, 42(5), pp.1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarmiento-Pelayo, M.P., 2015. Co-design: A central approach to the inclusion of people with disabilities. Revista de la Facultad de Medicina, 63, pp.149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scariot, C.A., Heemann, A. and Padovani, S., 2012. Understanding the collaborative-participatory design. Work, 41(Supplement 1), pp.2701–2705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S., Avellan, T., Linna, J., Achary, K., Turunen, M., Hakulinen, J., & Varkey, B. (2020). Socio-Technical Aspirations for Children with Special Needs: A Study in Two Locations–India and Finland. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 13(3), 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.O., Scherer, M.J., Cooper, R., Bell, D., Hobbs, D.A., Pettersson, C., Seymour, N., Borg, J., Johnson, M.J., Lane, J.P. and Sujatha, S., 2018. Assistive technology products: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13(5), pp.473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, T.Y., Wang, R.Y., You, Y., Huang, L.Z. and Chen, C.P., 2015, September. Supporting collaborative play via an affordable touching+ singing plant for children with autism in China. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers (pp. 373–376)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsen, R., Bortot, F. and Caracciolo, A., 2021. From patient to maker-a case study of co-designing an assistive device using 3D printing. Assistive technology, 33(6), pp.306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar