Received in revised form30 July 2012Accepted 1 August 2012

Keywords:Computer-mediated communicationCurriculum designInformation processing theory

ductions of mainstream touch-devices with applications developed for persons with special needs have only just begun.Using an action-research framework, the primary objective of this study was to analyze the experiences of using an application on iPod

Touch and iPhone devices (iOS devices) by teachers and students in classroom environments. This application was developed for people

Abbreviations: ASD, Autism Spectrum Disorder; MID, Mild Intellectual Disability; LD, Learning Disabled.* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: rachelle.soulliere@utoronto.ca (R. Campigotto), rhonda.mcewen@utoronto.ca (R. McEwen), carrie@taglab.ca (C. Demmans Epp).1 A touch-device refers to a handheld computing device that operates through the use of the ngers or stylus as the primary input source for interaction between the user

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486and the hardware. Examples include mobile phones with touch-screens, iPod Touch devices, and tablet devices.1. Introduction

Alongside the excitement raised within the general population by the Apple iPod and other devices that use touch-based interaction,there are bold claims by application developers, device manufacturers, and the media that these so-called touch-devices1 can be effectivelyused in the instruction of students with special needs. These claims and the use of these devices within both special education andmainstream classrooms have been underinvestigated. Furthermore, the literature provides little guidance as to the best practices forincorporating mobile technologies into school environments (Poole et al., 2011). The unsubstantiated claims of developers, manufacturers,and the popular media run the risk of promising more than can be delivered. A familiar discourse in the past three decades has taken place,where similar claims were made of the then new technologies for use in special education. While studies of purpose-built assistive andaugmentative devices are more common (Beard, Carpenter, & Johnston, 2011; Dell, Newton, & Petroff, 2008), studies of classroom intro-iPhones/iOSPeer-assisted learning0360-1315/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.002students in grades 7 through 12. Both classrooms were identied as Special Education classes by theOntario Ministry of Education, and each student was identied as having exceptionalities requiringadditional support and differentiation within the curriculum to support their success. Participants usedMyVoice, a mobile application that is customizable through a website, which allows users to inputvocabulary words and link words with pictures. The application can also be used to speak on behalf ofusers. Based on ndings that technology perceived to be fun by students has the potential to improvemotivation in learning contexts, we aimed to (i) assess the degree to which the use of iOS devices and theMyVoice application affects attention and motivation levels for students with special needs, and (ii)identify factors that had the greatest inuence on the integration of the technologies with existingcurricula. Results indicated a strong potential for successfully integrating mobile technology withinspecial needs classrooms, with a high-degree of student support for using mobile devices to enhanceclassroom experiences. The results also highlighted the challenges of incorporating these technologiesinto curriculum in terms of practicality, teacher comfort, and the limitations of the device. We nd thatthe differentiation enabled by the multi-modal features of the application and device has positiveoutcomes on student perception of success, and that increased self-condence in areas of the curriculumfostered a more robust sense of community among special needs students. We conclude with studyimplications for information processing theory.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Article history:Received 4 April 2012A ve-month exploratory study was conducted with iOS mobile devices in two Toronto area schools withEspecially social: Exploring the use of an iOS application in special needsclassrooms

Rachelle Campigotto a,*, Rhonda McEwen b, Carrie Demmans Epp a

a Technologies for Aging Gracefully Laboratory (TAGlab), University of Toronto, 40 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2E4, Canadab Institute of Communication, Culture and Information Technology, CCT Building, 3359 Mississauga Road North, Room 3005, Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tAll rights reserved.

with memory and communication decits and is called MyVoice. Instead of investigating the academic effectiveness of these technologieswith an experimental approach, this study focuses on data collectionwithin natural classroom settings. By giving both teachers and studentsan active voice in the study we gained the exibility to adapt the research design and incorporate feedback as the research progressed,thereby giving participants a sense of partnership in the research process. As with other action-research investigations (Carr & Kemmis,1986; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007) the intent is to identify emergent factors that enhance and hamper teachers ability to inte-grate technology into the classroom to support student learning, rather than simply describe the results from an academic point of view.

A secondary study objective was to explore the inuential roles that curriculum design and student motivation might play in theintroduction of touch-based technologies in special education classrooms. In the study teachers took different approaches to integrating thedevices and software with curriculum. Building on evidence that curriculum design contributes to outcomes (Clark & Salomon, 1986) andthatmost learning ismotivated (Schunk, 2012), we examine the extent towhich these factors have consequences for the introduction of iOStechnologies into school environments. Furthermore, we assess the manner in which different interpretations on integrating iOS tech-nologies with curricula design might lead to different perceptions of success and student experiences.

To achieve these objectives a ve-month studywas performed in 2011 using iOS devices in twoToronto area public schools with studentsin grades 7 through 12. Working with the support of the schools principals, we engaged with the teachers from one classroom in eachschool. This allowed for the study of 25 students aged 1221. Both classrooms were identied as Special Education classes by the OntarioMinistry of Education. Ontario special education programs are mandated by the Minister under the Education Act; this act ensures thatstudents who need special accommodation and services are able to access them free of charge in any school in Ontario. A special educationprogram is meant for individuals whose behavioral, communicational, intellectual, physical or multiple exceptionalities indicate that extrasupport and services are needed (Ministry of Education, 2001). In Ontario there are approximately 293,000 students who receive specialeducation programs and services in their schools; this represents 13.92% of the total student population. Nearly 80% of those students areplaced in regular classrooms for more than half of a school day (Ministry of Education, 2009). While most students receive special educationin regular classrooms as was the case in School 2 in this study, many have smaller classes dedicated to special education within a regularschool. Additionally, there are schools geared specically toward students who require special education support, including School 1 in thisstudy. This study introduced the use of iOS devices as classroom tools to the students in both schools. Prior to this, none of the students hadused iOS devices in an academic environment.

As a contribution towhatmay broadly be called research in technology for supporting special education, a tertiary objectivewas to assessthe results of this study within the context of an existing learning theory. By relating the study results to information processing theory it ispossible to observe whether or not the use of iOS devices raises unique issues in the attention and motivation of students in specialeducation. A critique of information processing theory as applied to education is that the principles espoused do not readily lend themselvesto curricular structure and instructional design (Schunk, 2012). In keeping with the objective of exploring the inuence of curriculum designon the introduction of iOS technologies in the classroom and vice-versa, an opportunity to revisit information processing theory arises.

Within the overall research directive to critically analyze the results of using iOS devices in special education classrooms, there are twospecic research questions, (i) to what degree does the use of iOS devices and the MyVoice application affect attention and motivationlevels for students with special needs?; and (ii) which factors had the greatest inuence on the integration of the technologies with existingcurricula?

2. Material

2.1. Application

The application selected for the study is called MyVoice. MyVoice was selected for four reasons:

the researchers had access to the developers of the application since it was developed at the same research institution it operates on iOS devices it was created to be used by people with special needs, including cognitive and neurological differences, aphasia, apraxia, and speechimpairments

it had been evaluated using design heuristics and for its suitability as a communication and cognitive support tool it includes a location-aware feature that was intriguing to the teachers at both research sites.

The application was designed as a dual-interface cognitive support tool that can be used for augmentative and alternative communi-cation (AAC) purposes; it has both a website that can be used from a desktop or laptop computer and an iOS device interface. This allowssomeone who might be assisting the user to provide help with the set up and administration of the application even when the user isgeographically separated from the assistant or caregiver. Users (or assistants) can enter and organize words or phrases into a privatecollection of vocabulary items called a book through thewebsite. Thesewords are then synchronizedwith the application that is installed onthe users iOS device, ensuring that the same collection of vocabulary items can be seen through both interfaces. This allows teachers orspeech language pathologists to provide the user with new vocabulary items even if the teachers or speech language pathologists do nothave physical access to that users device.

The iOS device interface allows the user to interact with the vocabulary that has been entered through theweb-based interface. Users cannavigate through the hierarchically organized vocabulary and select a vocabulary entry (word or phrase) by touching the devices screen. Ifa user selects an entry, it is spoken aloud.

Both interfaces allow the user to associate an image with a vocabulary entry. The iOS device interface allows the user to select a word orphrase from his or her vocabulary after which the user can photograph something within the environment. The web-based interface allowsusers to browse through image les that are on their computer and upload them for a specied vocabulary entry. In addition to the dualinterfacedesignof this AAC, users can identify locations andassociatewordswith those locations. This location-aware functionality is possible

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 75becauseMyVoice exploits the Global Positioning System (GPS) information that is provided by the current generation of mobile devices.

2.2. Application evaluation

The MyVoice application has undergone continual evaluation and renement throughout its development (Demmans Epp, Campigotto,Levy, & Baecker, 2011). Early evaluation involved soliciting feedback from an adult with aphasia (a language disorder that can disrupt

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748676reading, writing, and speaking). Hewould use the application to support communication as hewent about his daily routines and provide thedevelopment teamwith feedback about the applications functionality and design. After which, the developers would adjust the applicationand give their tester the updated software. This cycle continued for over six months.

Beyond this user testing, heuristic evaluationswere performed.During these evaluations specialists inhumancomputer interaction steppedthrough the application and identied potential usability challenges. The Gestalt principles (Mullet & Sano,1995) andNielsens heuristics (1994)were applied to identify these challenges and propose potential solutions. Some of which were incorporated into the application.

2.3. Devices

This featureand interfacecombinationwaschosen toenableusermobilityandprovideuserswithexiblesupporton iOSdevices.Thesedeviceswere selected due the perceived rise in popularity and desire for many teachers to incorporate them into the classroom; in the case ofMyVoiceapplication, there is insufcient data to indicate that the application is used successfully as an aid or support by allmembers of the population, butthere is still interest in utilizing it to support cognition and communication. Thismaybedue to thepopularity of iOSdevices in the general Torontopopulation and a desire to use amainstreamdevice for student support, rather than anAACdevicemore limited in functionality and substantiallyhigher in price for those who do not qualify for government assistance or funding for communication devices. The small size of iPhones(11.5 6.2 1.2 cm)2 and iPod Touches (11.1 5.9 0.7 cm) as well as their commonplace use make their employment as a support tool ideal.

However, a consequence of the small size and delicate nature of the devices can present challenges for some users. To mitigate thepotential of their breaking when dropped, rubber cases were provided for each of the devices in the research sites. Unfortunately, the smallsize of application icons could not be mitigated and the size of icons on the iOS device screens can make it difcult for some users to selectthem. TheMyVoice interface had not been evaluated for its ease of usewith our target population prior to this study. This was, in part, due tothe diverse nature of this population, whose needs and abilities are highly variable.

3. Method

3.1. Action-research methodology

The research design was consistent with action-research methodology, where researchers and participants share in the evolution andadaption of the research design which allows for greater exibility. This is a successful research strategy when undertaking exploratoryresearch and more so when the research includes participants in an educational setting where power differentials among researchers,teachers, and students may arise with adverse consequences (Avison, Baskerville, & Myers, 2001). As a practice, the researchers presentedthe study objectives and goals to the teachers and students at the same time and allowed questions and comments to be asked with equalimportance attributed to participants. As a result, teachers and students believed that they had a similar level of control on the researchprocess and took a personal interest in the study.

In the case of some action-research projects there is the undesirable potential for participants to want to attribute positive outcomes tothe research as a proxy of their perception of successful participation. We note that in the case of this study, the use of log-data thatindependently reported application usagewas incorporated tomitigate biases in self-report data. However, this log data can only be used toverify reports of the applications use. It does not track user motivation or affect, and cannot be used to determine user intent (Moffatt,Findlater, & Allen, 2006).

3.2. Data collection

The exploratory nature of the study supported the use of mixed data collection methods to allow for the cross-checking of results viaa triangulation of data sources. Demographic prole data of students, data from interviews with two teachers from different schools, datafrom interviews with students, observations, and data automatically logged and transmitted from the devices were all used to provide bothqualitative and quantitative measures. In addition, since the research was conducted at two separate research sites (i.e., schools) there wasthe additional opportunity to compare results and identify commonalities and differences. The researchers were all experienced in thedesign, management, and analysis of mixed-method studies in educational contexts.

Anonymous, demographic proles of participants were collected and associated with the user account codes that were assigned to eachstudent. Teachers completed the demographic proles for every participating student. The proles included the students sex, ethnicity,ofcial diagnosis, and experiencewith AAC and iOS devices. It also included a brief assessment of the participants social and communicationskill level at the start of the study (Fig. 1).

Teachers were asked to create a communication prole based on each students needs in areas of attention, behavior, speech, andlanguage difculties. Teachers provided information on students social abilities, their ability to interact with other students, their verbalskills, and reading comprehension. This information corresponds to what is ofcially recorded in their Individualized Education Plan (IEP),3

2 See specications at http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html, and http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/specs.html.3 An IEP is a written plan describing the special education program and/or services required by a particular student. It identies learning expectations that are modied

from or alternative to the expectations given in the curriculum policy document for the appropriate grade and subject or course, and/or any accommodations and special

education services needed to assist the student in achieving his or her learning expectations. See http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/iep/iep.html#whatfor more information.

Fig. 1. Participant exceptionality diagnosis.which is a written document describing the services and accommodations needed by each student who receives special educationcurriculum. Teachers were also asked to provide information on the individual students diagnoses. In particular, teachers were asked if theprimary diagnosis was Autism Spectrum Disorder or if students had communication challenges since this was one of the intended uses ofthe application from the developers perspective. Teachers provided information about specic impairments from the students IEP,including the source of the designation, such as amedical doctor or an education professional. Additionally, a list of statements was providedand the teacher was asked to check all that apply.R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 77The list provided to teachers was informed by characteristics of students with Learning Difculties focusing on language delay andreading comprehension. Characteristics that were unrelated to communication were excluded because they were not relevant to the skillsthat MyVoice is intended to support.

Qualitative data was gathered via individual semi-structured interviews with the teachers; each interview was recorded with theirpermission and transcribed, excluding identifying information. Teachers were interviewed twice: a third of the way through the studyperiod and at the conclusion of the study.

Teacher 2 chose to conduct an informal group interview with his students and asked them what they enjoyed and what they haddifculties with; each student gave an anonymous response, recording their answer via the device. That session was also transcribed.

Quantitative data was gathered through the application by recording every interaction that users had with the device in order todetermine usage statistics and patterns. Each time a user touched the screen, the information about that actionwas written to a log le. Thisincluded any time a user selected a word or moved between categories of words or books. The information contained in the log les (use ofindividual vocabulary items) is outside the scope of this paper. The contents of these log les and the usage statistics that can be derivedfrom them are, therefore, not discussed; instead this paper focuses on how the teachers integrated an application on personal iOS devicesinto their classroom as well as the classroom level opportunities and challenges that resulted from its integration.

Upon completion of data collection, the devices were collected and wiped of identifying information. Data was analyzed by determiningrelevant themes that emerged from the data, focusing on the aspects necessary to successfully integrate mobile devices and the MyVoiceapplication into a special needs classroom. Given the research questions, particular focus was given to social and communication aspects aswell as student and teacher motivation when using technology in the classroom.

3.3. Research sites

There were two research sites for the study: one class from each of two public schools in the Toronto area. These schools were selectedbecause they represent two types of special education environments popular in this area: one was a classroom in a low incident school theother was in a school that had specic classrooms dedicated to helping special needs students.

Sample: He/She has a short attention spanHe/She tends to use simplistic, vague or colloquial languageHe/She has difculty with social language or behavior

This mix offered a diversity in participants that is encouraging of general results. The choice of these schools also representeda convenience sample: they were recommended by the principal of a school that had previously participated in a study conducted by thelead researcher. That principal had a professional relationship with the other school sites and personally introduced the researchers to theprincipals of the participating schools.

The class selected from the rst school, hereafter called School 1, was a two period, non-credit course for girls aged 1721. There were 15students in the class with one teacher and two Education Assistants (EAs). Of these students, 10 had difculty with understanding andinterpreting language that is commonly used in their surrounding environment. The goal of the curriculum, entitled TheWorld ofWork, isto expose students to different aspects of work through job shadowing, guest speakers, and co-operative placements. Each student enrolledin the course has been identied, on their Individual Education Plan (IEP), as having an exceptionality that deviates from typical devel-opment. In this class, students had ofcial diagnoses of exceptionalities that included Mild Intellectual Disability (MID), Downs syndrome,Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and learning disabilities (LD). Some students were able to take part in co-op placements, while othersremained in the class all semester.

The class selected from the second school, hereafter called School 2, was a combined seventh and eighth grade class that had male andfemale students. This course is named an Intensive Support Class for students with learning disabilities, demonstrating a signicantdiscrepancy between average or better intellectual ability and lower academic achievement. Therewere 13 students, a teacher, and one full-time EA enrolled in the homeroom course; the EAwas also present for various subjects includingmath, reading, writing, and geography. Thestudents in this class were described, by the teacher, as needing additional communication support in the areas of writing and speaking orarticulation.

School 1 participated in the study for three months. Initially, the School 1 study had been planned to last ve months, but uponconsultation with the researchers and teacher, it was decided to conclude the study at three months. The study was then moved toa different location (School 2) for the remainder of the school term. The reason for reducing the study from vemonths to three months willbe discussed at length later; generally, the teacher in School 1 was struggling to integrate the application within her classroom curriculum.School 2 was involved to gain the perspective of a new teacher, compare experiences, and evaluate integration using a new feature thatallowed the teacher to create and share collections of vocabulary items called books.

3.4. Study implementation

The devices were introduced to both research sites in a similar fashion. After the research team received research ethics board approvalfor the study, the school principals and teachers were consulted in an initial meeting describing the study at a high-level. The necessaryconsents were obtained from three parties: principals, teachers, and students.

Students were required to opt-in to the study with the appropriate informed consent signed and approved by their parents. If an EAwaspresent during the course of the study, his/her informed consent was also obtained on a voluntary basis. Only one student was not toparticipate fully in the study because nemotor problems as a result of her exceptionality made using the device very difcult: she remainedwith the class during exercises and engagedwith teacher-designed alternative learningmaterials rather than the iOS device and application.

Classrooms were provided with iPhones and iPod Touch devices installed with the MyVoice application, and the schools supplieda computer in the classrooms on which we installed MyVoice. School 1 had a total of four iPhones and six iPod Touch devices within thespecial education classroom. For School 2, there were six iPhones and seven iPod Touch devices used. For each school the students wererandomly assigned iPhones, with vibration output called haptic-feedback enabled. The remaining students received an iPod Touch. Randomdistribution of haptic-feedback enabled devices was aimed to help answer research questions involving the use of vibration and patterns ofuse that will be the subject of another paper.

Students had an individual prole within the MyVoice application and were identied by their user names. User names were notpersonalized and were pre-created to protect students anonymity. At the request of the teachers, measures were taken to restrict access toInternet browsers, music, games, and other applications unnecessary for the study, and to minimize distractions for students. The use of thedevices in the classroom was meant to align as much as possible with the existing curriculum; teachers were given training on the deviceand sample lesson plans, but were afforded the freedom to use the device as frequently as necessary, and they were encouraged to developcurriculum-based lesson plans that included the use of the devices.

School 1 required additional researcher support since at that point in the study researchers needed to add vocabulary to devices remotelysince theMyVoice application only allowed individual accounts to be maintained. To provide a list of vocabulary words to all of the studentsin the classroom the teacher would have had to reenter all of the data in the list into each students account. This was tedious and notfeasible given the daily demands of a classroom teacher. Having to reenter data multiple times was a burden that made the applicationdifcult to use. We, therefore, provided a data entry service for School 1. In response to this issue the MyVoice application team developedthe functionality for the application to create vocabulary books. This functionality was implemented for School 2. This enabled the teacherto perform data entry once he could save the entered data as a book that could be shared with students by dragging and dropping the bookinto each of their accounts.

4. Results

This exploratory study aimed to assess the degree to which using iOS devices with the MyVoice application affect attention andmotivation levels for students with special needs, and also to identify factors that had the greatest inuence on the integration of thetechnologies with existing curricula. Results indicate the potential for integrating mobile technology within a special needs classroom andhighlight difculties related to the practicality of integrating such devices into the classroom. The results below indicate some of thelimitations of the software and the device on which it was provided. In terms of software customization, options are important at theclassroom level, more so than at the individual level. Furthermore, the use of the iOS devices by the special needs students appeared toafford them with feelings of importance within the school vis--vis their non-special education peers, boosted their self-condence, and

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748678fostered a sense of community for this group based on peer-assisted learning.

4.1. Attention and motivation school 1

The application was new to each student, but the device itself was familiar. This was expected given the wide-spread adoption of iOSdevices amongmembers of the general public in Toronto. Students knewwhat an iPhone or iPod Touchwas; they could turn them on, accessthe application almost immediately, and navigate general uses, such as picture taking. From their observations on student response to theinitial introduction of the devices and the project, the teachers decided that student attention could be a variable worth investigating, andwere interested in discovering whether the device could support improved attention to classroom instruction.

One teacher believed that it was eventually easy for all of them. I think they grew up using different devices than the teachers generation[School 1]. Students did not demonstrate the same difculty, as Teacher 1, in nding the relevance of usingMyVoice. This is most likely due tothe excitement of getting to use the devicewithin the classroom. Students weremotivated to use the device on popularity alone, even beforethey were introduced to the application.

This population of students seemed to thrive on their desire and motivation to learn; if they could successfully perform a task on thedevice, they wanted to continue using it. Teacher 1 agreed that their motivation to use the device made it relevant for them, indicating thatthe students never ever saw it as irrelevant. They thought they were helping out, that they were trying something different [School 1]. Studentswere motivated to use a mainstream device and some even liked having this cool technology that other classrooms did not have. Byharnessing their excitement and exploiting their familiarity with mobile devices, teachers were able to keep students engaged.

While excitement and motivation to learn using the device was a positive factor, it was a challenge for teachers to integrate the deviceinto their daily routine. Teachers wanted the device to be useful and harness the students excitement while integrating the technologysfunctionality into the curriculum. Both teachers had difculty exploiting the fun factor of the device while transitioning it to use as aneducational tool rather than having it perceived as a toy. This conrms the results of other studies where it was difcult to accept the use ofmobile devices as a study aid (Wong, Chin, Tan, Liu, & Gong, 2010).

The two teachers took different approaches to incorporating the technology within their curricula. Teacher 1 allowed the students toexplore with the device in a less controlled manner, mainly due to her difculty getting it to t into her lesson plans: I think I just have tothink of a way to incorporate it into the lesson. I am open to trying different things so its not a burden on me [School 1]. The World of Workcurriculum focused on exploring the community, which made it possible to use the device for picture taking and documenting experienceeasily.

After a few exercises where students worked with the devices in the classroom, Teacher 1 expressed a concern that students werefocusing too much on the camera function. I would like to think of using it in different contexts but I have to think of a way so that its not thecamera function. I [would like] to get them to use the camera function to include pictures of what they are seeing in the columns of MyVoice,instead of leaving them on the general folder in the device. [School 1].

While on the eld trips to the library, students were presented with an opportunity to use the device and application as it was intended:as amobile device that provides vocabulary on the go. The students, however, did not use the application during this trip because they foundit too difcult to perform themultiple tasks that its use requires in this environment. Pictures were taken using the iOS device camera ratherthan theMyVoice application. This student behavior is noteworthy because it comments on themulti-stage process requiredwhen using theapplication. While the camera function held the interest of the students, who took hundreds of pictures of sights they saw within thecommunity, there was little motivation to extend the picture taking into something more meaningful, such as linking pictures to vocabularywords for later retrieval.

One possible reason for this is thatMyVoice restricted the users ability to be spontaneous even though it allows photographs to be takenwithin the application. MyVoice allows photographs to be taken by selecting an existing vocabulary item that does not already have animage. This will then add the picture that is taken to that vocabulary item. This action, however, needs to be premeditated, by creatinga category on the user account via the webpage before going into the community. In that way MyVoice is not fully functional ofine. Thisinhibited students from spontaneously interacting with the application and, as a result, nearly all of the pictures taken during studentoutings used the iOS camera function rather than MyVoice.

Students did not use the application to its full potential and did not move any images to theMyVoice application and label or categorizethem to build vocabulary words and associations. This is related to learning problems, identied in previous research, that suggest thatstudents with special needs require instruction on how tomanage sequential and hierarchical concepts (Adelman & Taylor,1993; Tomlinson,1989). The results from this study conrm this nding and suggest that students with special needs must develop sequential and hierar-chical cognitive skills before they can effectively use applications like MyVoice.

Tomlinson (1989) suggests that the cognitive load presented by encountering difculties in manipulating nested or hierarchical conceptsleads to students ignoring the function altogether. In this study we observed the students engaging in similar strategies. This behavior mayalso suggest that, for some learners to be successful applications should support sequencing and hierarchical organization through thedevice interface, and that such activities should require fewer steps. In this study students were motivated to engage with the applicationbut a different type of interface was needed in order to scaffold the students existing abilities to the applications existing interface thatrequired the development of sequential and hierarchical cognitive skills.

4.2. Curriculum design and technology school 1

At rst, teachers enrolled in the study had difculty conceptualizing the use of a mobile device within an educational setting. Mobiledevices are currently perceived to be personal communication devices, and in fact their use has been strongly opposed and discouraged byNorth American school-boards. Tasked with thinking about how the devices could serve as educational tools the teachers drew on studentsfamiliarity with using the devices in their non-school lives, and leveraged the excitement created by introducing the device to the class.

However, the ability to immediately identify a place in the existing curricula that would capitalize on the affordances of the device reliedon the teachers creativity and re-visioning skills. Even though neither teacher owned an iPhone, both teachers were familiar with mobilephones, and they found that repurposing iOS devices as educational tools was a new experience. They indicated that their learning curve

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 79was low a 1 or 2 out of 10 [School 1], which made continued use of the application a success.

Adopting an action-research methodology potentially leads to the situation described here where, unlike in an experimental design thatrequires researchers to bemore prescriptive in expectations of use, the teachers were asked to gure it out as theywent along. This approachwas meant to reect the natural way curricula and supportive tools are adapted in the classroom; demanding that a teacher use a devicea certain number of times, in specied ways, would have introduced a sense of articiality to the study.

Teacher 1 faced difculties with considering MyVoice as a learning tool rather than limiting it to a speech output device. Even afterreiterating that the purpose was to explore the potential of MyVoice as a technological tool for the classroom, her acceptance of it asa learning tool remained a challenge. We attribute themajor challenge in her acceptance of the application as a general tool in the classroomto the name andmarketing of theMyVoice application. The teacher became stuckwith the notion that the applicationwas for persons withsevere speech and language decits. Teacher 1 noted I think because all of the students could speak, the challenge was trying to think ofrelevant ways to use MyVoice [School 1]. She struggled with nding utility in using images to support the memory of her students as theyentered unfamiliar environments: a possible positive use for the devices and application.

4.3. Attention and motivation school 2

In a later sectionwewill review students comments on their impressions about using the iOS devices and what they perceived to be thepositives and negatives of the device and application. From Teacher 2 perspective, there was a clear link between the introduction of thedevice and motivation of students, noting there were benets denitely keeping especially with students who are LD its interest, itsmotivation towards wanting to use the device [School 2]. The desire and excitement of using something they have seen someone else using[School 2] was a great way to hook students at the introductory phase of an activity or new subject matter. The teacher described it as agood sell and an active way to get them drawn into something [School 2]. The teacher concentrated on this motivation and interest to getstudents excited about a new subject. His main focus was on using the vocabulary books as an attention hook before formally introduc[ing] itto the class [School 2]. For the often difcult topic of Mean, Median and Mode, students were given access to vocabulary books andinstructed to explore the idea, look at the pictures and to get you thinking about it, take a listen [School 2] before a formal lesson took place.

While students were motivated during this type of instruction supported by MyVoice the teacher described difculties maximizing thepotential of the lesson and translating the motivation into an attentive, complete lesson. Students actively listened to the device but theteacher worried it didnt get to a level where paper and pen, getting into something [.] it didnt get to that level yet [School 2]. For the timeMyVoicewas used, it failed to get beyond a surface level of an introductory aspect [School 2]. This result was echoed in the rst school andmay have to do with the difculties students have translated knowledge, especially abstract knowledge, into a concrete outcome as dis-cussed earlier. Much like School 1s students inability or lack of interest in linking photographs with vocabulary words at a later time, School2s student could view and access the hierarchical language provided in the vocabulary books, but had difculty accessing it to answerquestions on worksheets or re-order the data outside of the platform.

4.4. Curriculum design and technology school 2

While Teacher 2 was far more controlled, he did express value in an exploratory approach similar to the one provided by Teacher 1. Henoted that giving students a vocabulary book and letting them pursue something is great but limiting...there is much more value in gettingthem to walk around and see things [School 2]. While students wanted to play with it he wanted to have it remain tangible and arrive ata learning outcome.

The struggle to balance the two goals, a) to leverage student motivation and enthusiasm, while b) promoting learning, was believed to beachievable, given more time and using a technology that has more scope than MyVoice provided. Some examples of additional featuresrequired by such a technology are the ability to integrate video, make changes from the device rather than the website and the ability toembed links.

Teacher 2 chose to execute a more controlled use of MyVoice within his lesson plans. He created structured exercises based on theexisting curriculum. He beneted from functionality changes in the MyVoice application and, unlike Teacher 1, he had the ability to createvocabulary books that could be dragged and dropped into each student account upon sign in. He created books on directed Show and Telland Paragraphing exercises, and another on the topics of Mean, Median and Mode (Figs. 2a and 2b).

Even with this additional functionality and the many hours of effort that Teacher 2 expended on integrating the application into hiscurriculum, he was only able to compliment his lesson plans. He was not able to achieve his personal goal of usingMyVoice as a platform tomake extensions within the curriculum. Teacher 2 indicated that, given more time, his envisioned integration might be achieved:

..[W]e did a short tell they didnt necessarily use their show and tell into a descriptive paragraph but if that were the case, perhaps bytaking photos of it, or extending the possibility of them taking it home and taking photographs of what they are going to describe thatmight help, or a video of that experience or what they are going to do. Maybe that would help [Teacher 2]

Although MyVoice provided some additional support for the students, some aspects of the intended use were too difcult for thestudents. Teacher 2 indicated that having the words available via the device, was helpful, although like students at the rst school, thestudents at School 2 were not able to organize and enter the words themselves. Choosing relevant words and creating a vocabulary was nota task they could accomplish. Teacher 2 felt that, while the students did not have access to creating vocabulary words they would have gotsomething out of constructing and creating something on their own. However, he posited that some of them would really have been strugglingwith the abstract ideas [School 2].

4.5. Practical issues

While teachers indicated success in engaging students andmaintaining motivation to learn vocabulary, there were additional difculties

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748680to the successful integration of mobile technology. In this study some traditional constraints that teachers face within the classroom

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 81presented barriers to the successful use of the devices. While this is a case study of two classrooms, there were many practical issues thatcould be accepted as general challenges that many classrooms could face when incorporating new technology.

Onemight expect that classroom teachers would quickly realize that the integration of these technologies poses logistical challenges thatrequire additional planning as well as the development and implementation of processes to ensure the viability of using such tools. Previousliterature on the use of mobile technology (sometimes called one-to-one or ubiquitous computing) in classrooms has often neglected theseissues (Poole et al., 2011); research in ubiquitous computing has instead focused on how students have used these technologies to benettheir learning (Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Snchez, & Vavoula, 2010). This study illuminates some of the logisticalchallenges that may be faced when integrating mobile devices into a classroom.

Maintaining adequate power levels on the devices required 1215 devices to be plugged in, which posed a challenge. While battery lifeduring an activity was not problematic, the teachers did have to plan for charging. The charging of mobile devices is a new classroommanagement issue for teachers and is one that takes some getting used to.

Storing the mobile devices was also a challenge. Even though the teachers in the case study were diligent about security, one device wasstolen. Teacher 2 recounted the incident saying, we were divvying them up and one was missing...I mean I know I misplace stuff...and then Irealized one was gone, um, it really messed me up. I was really really upset about that. When I gured out someone had stolen it, right? [School 2].The device was later turned in by a student, but this scenario highlights a common concern when bringing expensive, small, and portabledevices into the classroom. In other studies (Kagohara, 2011; Kotrlik and Redmann, 2009) teachers are reluctant to use the devices fearingbreakage, loss, and other damages that may occur when students use these devices. Teachers are concerned about liability and the respon-sibility of having these devices in the classroom and this can negatively affect the frequency and duration of device use within the classroom.

A limited number of computers with Internet access were present in the classroom and this, in turn, limited the possibility of vocabularycustomization by the students since customizationwithMyVoice is done via a web-interface using a desktop or a laptop computer. Studentsalso needed individual help to create categories within the application, especially categories that are abstract in nature. When asked ifstudents could log in to customize their own vocabulary, or create vocabulary words linked with pictures, one teacher stated:

Ok....it wouldwork [if each student had a computer of their own] but in practicality it doesnt always because some computers are fasterthan others, sometimes the computers dont always work, sometimes there is an issuewith something and people would get frustrated. Ithink if this happened a couple of times, unless it was absolutely necessary I think [customization] wouldnt be used. [School 1]

Fig. 2a. Screen shot of books School 2.

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748682Most schools do not have dedicated computers for each student; in order to access the MyVoice customization option students wouldneed to log in individually during a class period, which is limited in time: this is not possible when computer availability is lacking. Anotheroptionwould be to stagger computer use, where some students use the computer to customize vocabulary while others perform a differenttask. This would require more careful classroom management of a scarce resource and could become a hassle.

Even in the best scenario, where each student uses a computer simultaneously, teachers foresaw the difculty of managing the cus-tomization due to the abstract nature of vocabulary organization. It is not always obvious to users, especially within this population, how toorganizewords hierarchically. Decidingwhat to name categories and deciding what words belongwithin categories is difcult. For example,milk is a food, but it is also a drink, and can be found in the kitchen or the fridge and, logically, could be placed in many categories. Abstractconcepts or new vocabulary make categorization more difcult. At the introductory phase of the study, a few students were chosen toillustrate the use ofMyVoicewhile logging into an account and typing new words. Some were able to do this but many required individualsupport to perform this task. Thus, the opportunity to organize vocabulary via the website was limited. Furthermore, this level of support isoften considered to be above and beyond what can be reasonably provided within a classroom.

4.6. Technical issues application and hardware

Technical issues surrounding the software and device also prevented full integration of the devices into the curriculum and, in turn,affected attention and motivation. From an application standpoint the students number one complaint was that MyVoice loaded slowly orfailed to update thewords on their devicewith those that were entered through thewebsite. This wasmainly due to server problems and anunreliable Internet connection within the school. Students are accustomed to immediacy when it comes to technology; although the waitwas not long, it sometimes impeded their enjoyment of using the device.

Only onemajor bugwas reported during the study period. Teacher 1 had developed a lessonwhere the students added the location of theeld trip and associated words. When a collection of words are associated with a location, MyVoice reorders the collections of vocabulary,using the GPS information from the device. This happens within Place Mode. Place Mode reorders the word groups preferentially: wordsthat are associated with a nearby location are moved to the top of the list in order to provide easy access to them. Place Mode, aside from thereordering of words via the GPS location, is identical to Word Mode (the normal vocabulary mode used most often by the students) in thatthe user must enter the vocabulary: it is not automatically generated. In this case, MyVoice failed to recognize the entered location and thewords that had been associated with it. It then created duplicate entries of other places that had been added previously.

Fig. 2b. Screen shot of mean, median and mode books School 2.

To work around this bug the researcher created a category and added all of the words that had previously been associated with thelocation to that category. In this instance, the bug did not impede the use of the vocabulary words, once they were inputted by theresearcher, although students did lose the benet of the GPS and map. They were, therefore, unable to navigate their eld trip pointing out

Teacher 1 had time to work with the device earlier in the year and on her March break, Teacher 2 was given the device in the last month of

the main positive outcomes observed by teachers. Teacher 1 mentioned that the students really enjoyed the fact that they could pick it up

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 83quickly, because they are not used to understanding and knowing how to use things quickly. Really I think that was the highlight [School 1].The increase in condence and ease of learning [Teacher 1] contributed to social interaction, collective problem solving, and the creation

of community, the latter being a particular struggle for School 2. Teachers noted an increase in social interaction in the forms of problemsolving and helping one another, or peer-assisted learning, which is not common in special needs classrooms. According toTopping and Ehly(1998) peer-assisted learning is dened as the acquisition of knowledge and skill through active helping and supporting among statusequals or matched companions. This is in contrast to more traditional examples of peerpeer interaction in educational settings, such aspeer tutoring that in most cases involves students with different abilities and/or ages.

Interacting appropriately in different contexts, in this case within a school and with peers, was a skill that Teacher 1 identied asa struggle for her students. She saw the mobile device benetting the students by enabling their interacting with each other, and havinga good time doing something new. The students were a lot more social and comfortable talking to each other when they were talking about thedevices and when they were asking each other to do certain things on the devices so, they actually spoke with each other a lot more and were a lotmore creative [School 1]. The mobile device was a successful platform to bridge the gap between students and was, in many respects, easyenough to use that students felt comfortable explaining it to one another. Teacher 2 observed similar interactions and noted there were veryfew times I had to go around and help [...] on a technological front; how dowe add this?, how dowe take photos?, how dowe nd objects? [School2], instead students were able to work through those dilemmas together. Teacher 2 also noticed an increase in interaction and observedstudents really helped each other when it came to using the device.

4 http://www.loquendo.com/en/products/text-to-speech/in-depth/.5school. In some ways, it provided an activity to keep students interested after the end of school enthusiasm sets in, but it proved moredifcult to the teacher. He pointed out that there is a certain point in the school year where you have to do it...for example, mean median andmode.I dont think I did it as much justice as I could have. So evenwith the device. Another time? [School 2]. The rush to the end of the year andto complete tasks that have taken longer than expected, complicated by the introduction of a new technology, was not ideal. In the future,we would recommend starting the introduction of a new technology early in the year, for a study or when a teacher plans to use it as a tool.

Potential improvements to the application and difculties with integration were noted. The use of mobile technology in the classroomdid offer some successes for students and teachers. The attempt at integratingMyVoice into the classroom revealed that there is potential togive more ownership to students over their learning. In fact, teachers had the most success using the device when students were treated atas co-explorers within both the scope of using the device as a classroom tool and the research project. The exploration of the twoclassrooms indicated that technology can be used to provide students with autonomy over their learning. It can also be a platform forsharing student knowledge of technology and the subject matter. This allows the introduction of technology to become a tool for atteninghierarchies within the classroom.

4.8. Condence and peer-assisted learning

Both teachers found that students were much more condent when using mobile technology within the classroom. This is especiallynoteworthy because this population of students often struggles with learning newmaterials and skills. An increase in condence was one ofstreet signs and landmarks, which was originally part of the exercise.Students expressed that it was difcult to understand the voice: many said that it spoke too quickly. There was no option to slow down

the speaking speed, although MyVoice can be customized to use a male, female, or childs (male or female) voice. Teacher 2 agreed, [thevoice] needed to be slower for some of them. Just so they can process it. This is supported by others who state that a carefully pronounced slowrate of speech may be easier for learners to understand (Archibald & OGrady, 2008). The ability to modify the rate of speech of a text-to-speech (TTS) engine is a feature of some (e.g., Loquendo4 and Voice Reader Studio5), but not all TTS engines (e.g., TTSBuilder6). The rate ofspeech can affect comprehension (Archibald & OGrady, 2008). It is, therefore, important that an AAC device or a device meant to be used bya population with cognitive impairments use a TTS engine that has this ability. In addition to this, the program should allow the user, theteacher, or a caregiver to congure the rate of speech that is used.

The small size of themobile device and some of the required interaction techniques required, such asmanipulating input with an isolatedindex nger, were difcult for one student with Cerebral Palsy. She also experienced difculty using the device because she was unable tohold it with one hand and navigate the applicationwith the other. Her teacher stated, one of the students that did have difculty speaking, didhave ne motor skill issues and she found it difcult to navigate [School 1]. Pushing the category bars within the application was difcultsince the area of contact is small and cannot be resized. Though she consented to be part of the study she could not useMyVoice due to thisproblem. In a forthcoming study on Aphasia and MyVoice similar problems were reported by users. Other issues included some studentsnding it really hard to turn the device on and off because of the pressure that needed to be applied to the button.

4.7. Timing technology integration

When the devices are introduced within the school year also makes a difference to the successful integration of the technology in theclassroom. It appears that the earlier in the term that the technology is introduced, the better it is from the teachers perspective. Whilehttp://www.smartlinkcorp.com/translation-software/text_to_speech_software_tts-Voice_Reader_Studio_American_English-LT90102US-info.html.6 http://www.bestshareware.net/download/ttsbuilder-edu.htm.

Traditionally, education follows a model where the teacher is the expert and students are receivers of knowledge. In this study, theintroduction of a new technology created a new experience for the teacher and the students and contributed to a collaborative learningexperience. Teacher 2 indicated that using an Apple iPod Touch was a pretty new experience and he relied on the students to share theirknowledge of mobile devices.

The introduction of a new technology allowed for collaboration between the students and teachers, and this was not lost on Teacher 2. Healso indicated that with any technology there should be a way to level them all out and have students start at the same point. It breaks downthe hierarchy of who can and cannot do certain things, something that is especially apparent in special education classrooms. Levelingstudents, and in this case the teacher, by integrating technology into the classroom may help with meeting different needs of students ina unied way, while not drawing attention to the difculties of particular students.

4.9. Student voices

During the deployment in School 2, the teacher took the initiative to ask the students questions about their experience and record theirresponses on the iOS devices. The questions were straightforward focusing on what was good and what was bad about using the iOSdevice in the classroom. The responses were anonymous and students were able to pass if they did not want to participate in the discussion.Overall students were very excited to be using iOS devices in their classroom. They enjoyed the sounds and wanted to use it to play music.Students found that it helped them learn and focus on a particular task. There were comments on the applications ability to help withreading and a student noted that the thing reads and I get to read with it. Reading alongwith the device, and having the application speakthe phrase aloud was important to keeping students engaged. One student recognized that reading support was helpful for fellow class-mates noting that the thing reads to you, which is good because some people in our class cant really read.

The application provided another level of reinforcement for students who had difculty sounding out the words within denitions, suchas the Mean, Median, and Mode lesson, which had new vocabulary. Additionally, students indicated that the pictures linked withvocabulary words helped them remember stuff and have things stick in your head. Other comments revolved around the independencestudents felt by not having to ask for clarication. Students indicated that having the picture, and the ability to press the button and be readaloud to, created a scenario where my teacher doesnt have to say it and re-say it to everybody in the class which takes energy sometimes.

Some students struggled with the amount of time the application took to load, which was a critique from almost all of the students. Theteacher noted that syncing the devices was a challenge due to the wireless connection and the application itself. Additionally making thebooks was viewed as too long a process. The majority of students also felt that the small font size and the quick speed of the voice werea complication. In addition, one student felt the voice was too slow. Having the ability to adjust the speed and font size for individual needswould be benecial in a classroom setting.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Answering the questions: differentiation, exibility and customization

The primary objective of this study was to analyze teacher and student experiences of using an application on iOS devices in a classroomenvironment. To this end we posed the research question, to what degree does the use of iOS devices and the MyVoice application affectattention andmotivation levels for students with special needs? The ndings demonstrate that to a large degree using iOS devices was bothappealing and motivating. While teachers and students all reported positive consequences for attention and motivation success in theireyes was among other things contingent upon the easewith which tasks could be performed, the spontaneity afforded by the applicationin terms of peer-assisted collaboration, and the novelty of the device itself.

A secondary objective was to explore the inuential roles that curriculum design and student motivation might play in the introductionof touch-based technologies in special education classrooms. We posed the question, which factors have the greatest inuence on theintegration of the technologies with existing curricula? Findings show that the successful integration of existing technologies into class-rooms can be attributed to software and devices that can discreetly meet the needs of students performing at different levels. The ability fora teacher to integrate mobile technology into his/her classroom depends on the ease of use and the exibility of the application. We learnedquickly thatMyVoicewas envisioned as an individual tool, which was very limiting in a classroom setting and made it difcult for Teacher 1to use. Based on her comments and observations, we attempted to mitigate the individualistic nature of MyVoice for the second teacher.

As previously described, Teacher 1 did not have the ability to customize a classroom set of devices. For example, when the class went ona eld trip to the library the goal was to introduce students to the location of the library, the librarians name and contact information, andthe various sections of the library. The relevant vocabulary words (ction, non-ction, teen literature, library catalog, directions to thelibrary) were organized on each account. In order to input a set of vocabulary words, the teacher needed to manually input each word foreach student. That involved logging into 15 accounts separately and manually entering each of the words on the list as well as repeatedlyuploading pictures. That proved to be unrealistic and tedious, especially within the connes of what is reasonably expected from a studyparticipant or a classroom teacher.

The inability to easily create vocabulary lists and associate a list easily to multiple accounts was a hindrance, and Teacher 1 indicated thatshe would not use MyVoice if she had to manually input words for each student. For School 1, the research assistant did the manual dataentry. Based on comments from Teacher 1, and the general impracticality of manual data entry, the concept of vocabulary books wasdeveloped for Teacher 2. A set of vocabulary words and categories could be manually entered and then easily formed into a book with theclick of a button. That book would exist in the Teachers MyVoice account, and could be dragged and dropped into other accounts. It is nota perfect solution since a teacher would still need to log into each account individually, but it made the overall process faster. Additionally,we brought up the concept of pre-created books (ones that could be downloaded and created by an outside source, for example a book ofmath words) with Teacher 1. Teacher 1 expressed that pre-created vocabulary books would be useless to her since the needs of students,both as individuals and as a class, are specic and the curriculum is always changing; she would, however, welcome the ability to create her

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748684own books.

In contrast to the rst teachers projection of the usefulness of sharable pre-dened books, Teacher 2 enjoyed the ease of creatingvocabulary books. However, he also indicated that he found it limiting having to always structure his lessons in a book form. He expressed

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 7486 855.3. Touch input and mobility

According to information processing theory, experiences are rst received as input through one or more of the senses.7 Generally it isheld in the literature that the greater the number of senses (or modalities) involved in the learning process, the better the likelihood that theinput will be integrated into the memory of the learner. Touch-technologies are relatively new to classroom environments so there areinsufcient studies that address the multimodal affordances of these devices. However, from this study we note that the direct cause andeffect nature of the touch enabled devices combined with strong visual and auditory features appeared to strongly inuence the learningexperiences of these special needs students. Therefore, we suggest the placing more emphasis on the combination of the tactile, visual, andauditory sensory modalities when considering the use of technologies in similar environments, especially when comparing the use ofmobile devices to desktop computers that do not have tactile or touch input.

Further, the mobility of the devices supported peer-learning to a degree that traditional desktop computers do not. Students could taketheir device to another classmates desk. Once there, the student could show something on his/her device to that classmate or the studentscould compare their devices to solve problems. To this regard, we found that mobility was an important characteristic of the input process.The relationship between input and mobility has not previously been identied in the theorizing of information processing and wehypothesize that mobility is a component of the framework. Further studies are warranted to develop or refute this claim.

5.4. Curriculum-context and attention

Learning processing theory considers attention following the submission of information to sensory systems. Following Normans (1968)lead, much of the focus is on what information or which aspects of the information presented is attended to by the learner. As such, theemphasis in the literature is on the location of the information. More explicitly, there has been a focus on determining if the information thatreceives the greatest amount of attention is at the start, middle, or end of a written sentence.

Our ndings provide early indications that the curriculum context within which the information is presented plays a key role in thedegree towhich the students attend to specic aspects of the information on the iOS devices. As discussed in the ndings, students in School

7the need for a system to have more than just words and hierarchies, such as the ability to integrate a link to a webpage or record their ownvoice within the application. The ability to upload or match a video instead of a static picture would also be useful to demonstrate abstractconcepts. This was something Teacher 2 desired since he often uses improvisation as a creative tool, or icebreaker, within his classroom. Avideo, he felt, would better explain an abstract concept. MyVoice did provide different levels of aid to students in a way that allowed themprivacy and was not obvious to other students. This could benet students with exceptionalities since they have expressed embarrassmentabout having to ask for help or for instructions to be repeated. Both teachers expressed that the use of the mobile device was challengingenough to inspire students. However, once the teachers made modications to how it was used, it was not so challenging that it becamea source of frustration. These types of challenges are expected to be a commonly encountered frustration when attempting to repurposeexisting mobile technologies into a classroom setting since most mobile applications are conceived as tools for individuals because of thepersonal nature of mobile devices (Barkhuus & Polichar, 2010).

Tailoring curriculum to individuals is common practice within a classroom, especially for students with individualized education plans(IEPs). Teacher 2 explained that subjects for which he chose to use MyVoice, such as Mean Median and Mode, were those that manystudents had learned previously but were often grade levels apart. The challenge, he shared has been like trying to differentiate, that is a verypopular word now, differentiate the instruction because you have students who are working like six grades below and some who are working twogrades below and it is not consistent.MyVoicewould enable the use of sight and sound reinforcement as well as haptic feedback which mayprovide a sensory aspect and dimension that pen and paper would not. It was tactile [Teacher 1] and they were able to include a lot ofvocabulary words. Students can also re-listen to words or instructions repeatedly without having to ask the teacher. Many studentsexpressed that this feature was useful for them: they did not feel like they were bothering the teacher if they were having trouble reading.

MyVoice, of course, did not solve all problems within the classroom, but participating teachers did see the potential of incorporatingmobile technologies. One teacher stated:

I mean I found that using the technology has been benecial for everybody. When that student was using her device she was so hadproblems reading the syllable words, even though I tried when I created the books, I tried to put images that would help, and it did help,but she still had some problems reading because... [that was her difculty] [School 2].

5.2. Information processing theory lessons learned

This study offers an opportunity to revisit the concept of information processing theory as articulated by Donald Norman in his classic1968 work entitled Toward a theory of memory and attention. In Normans conceptualization, information processing theory arises fromwork in cognitive psychology and provides a framework to support the study of processes that govern the ways in which information islearned. For practitioners in the special education area this provides a useful set of conceptual tools when thinking about how newinformation is presented to the learner, and encourages the view that the learner is actively involved in the process of learning. Norman(1968) proposed four components of the framework: input, attention, perception, and working memory. Of the four, input and attentionwere directly related to this study.Two frameworks for LD-appropriate instruction, From Bridges to Practice: A Researched-based Guide for Literacy Practitioners Serving Adults with Learning Disabilities,1999. Retrieved from http://ldlink.coe.utk.edu/instructional_framework.htm in March 2012.

1may have paid toomuch attention to taking photos. However, this was inuenced by the curriculum-based exercises for which the deviceswere used. The fact that in School 2 photo-taking did not receive the same attention is some indication that there is a relationship betweenthe curriculum-context and the aspects of the technology that garnered the greatest attention. Again, area is worth further exploration andstudy.

5.5. Information structure and processing

The ndings showed that students experienced some difculty with navigating the hierarchical structure used in the application. Inparticular, the nesting of information within a set of folders challenged their abilities to understand how to independently seek and ndinformation. Other studies have indicated that procedural knowledge (the knowledge of the rules in a system) is important for persons withlearning disabilities (Baldwin, 1992; Swanson,1987). We build on this by suggesting that application designers need to consider alternativesto nested information hierarchies for applications targeting special need populations. In our case the structure of the information appearedto limit the self-direction of the user, which in turn reduces the amount of information that can be processed or learned. It is possible that

R. Campigotto et al. / Computers & Education 60 (2013) 748686using more creative strategies for the structuring and presentation of information on these devices will broaden the scope of learning forusers.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the kind support of Google, the University of Toronto Connaught Innovation Fund, the Natural Sciencesand Engineering Research Council of Canada, and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant for partial funding of thisstudy.

References

Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (1993). Learning problems and learning disabilities, in moving forward. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers.Archibald, J., & OGrady, W. (2008). Contemporary linguistic analysis. Pearson.Avison, D., Baskerville, R., & Myers, M. (2001). Controlling action research projects. Information Technology & People, 14(1), 2845.Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461484.Barkhuus, L., & Polichar, V. E. (2010). Empowerment through seamfulness: smart phones in everyday life. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(6), 629639. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0342-4.Beard, L., Carpenter, L., & Johnston, L. (2011). Assistive technology: Access for all students (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-13-705641-5.Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 464478). New York: Macmillan.Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.Dell, A., Newton, D., & Petroff, J. (2008). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experience of students with disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc, ISBN 978-0-13-119164-8.Demmans Epp, C., Campigotto, R., Levy, A., & Baecker, R. (2011). MarcoPolo: context-sensitive mobile communication support. In Proc. FICCDAT: RESNA/ICTA 2011, RESNA.Kagohara, D. M. (2011). Three Students with Developmental Disabilities Learn to Operate an iPod to Access Age-Appropriate Entertainment Videos. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 20(1), 3343.Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2009). Technology Adoption for Use in Instruction by Secondary Technology Education Teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 4459.Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Snchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2010). Innovation in mobile learning: a European perspective. International Journal of Mobile

and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1335.Ministry of Education. (2001). Special education: A guide for educators.Ministry of Education. (2009). Closing the gaps for students with special education needs in Ontario: Research trends and capacity building. Ontario Education Research

Symposium.Moffatt, K., Findlater, L., & Allen, M. (2006). Generalizability in research with cognitively impaired individuals. In Presented at the workshop on designing for people with

cognitive impairments, ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI06), Montreal, Canada.Mullet, K., & Sano, D. (1995). Designing visual interfaces: Communication oriented techniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen, & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75, 522536.Poole, E. S., Miller, A. D., Xu, Y., Eiriksdottir, E., Catrambone, R., & Mynatt, E. D. (2011). The place for ubiquitous computing in schools: lessons learned from a school-based

intervention for youth physical activity. In 13th International conference on Ubiquitous Computing (Ubicomp) (pp. 395404). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Swanson, H. L. (1987). Information-processing theory and learning disabilities: an overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 37.Tomlinson, P. (1989). The teaching skills: modern cognitive perspectives. In D. Sugden (Ed.), Cognitive approaches in special education. UK: Falmer Press.Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ, & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wong, L., Chin, C., Tan, C., Liu, M., & Gong, C. (2010). Students meaning making in a mobile assisted Chinese idiom learning environment. In. Presented at the 9th international

conference of the learning sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 349356). Chicago, Illinois: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Especially social: Exploring the use of an iOS application in special needs classrooms1. Introduction2. Material2.1. Application2.2. Application evaluation2.3. Devices

3. Method3.1. Action-research methodology3.2. Data collection3.3. Research sites3.4. Study implementation

4. Results4.1. Attention and motivation school 14.2. Curriculum design and technology school 14.3. Attention and motivation school 24.4. Curriculum design and technology school 24.5. Practical issues4.6. Technical issues application and hardware4.7. Timing technology integration4.8. Confidence and peer-assisted learning4.9. Student voices

5. Conclusion5.1. Answering the questions: differentiation, flexibility and customization5.2. Information processing theory lessons learned5.3. Touch input and mobility5.4. Curriculum-context and attention5.5. Information structure and processing

AcknowledgmentsReferences