Design Rationale: Opportunities and Recommendations for Tangible Reading Systems for Children

Min Fan

Alissa N. Antle School of Interactive Arts & Technology

Simon Fraser University, 250-13450 102 Avenue Surrey, B.C. Canada V3T 0A3 [minf, aantle, ecramer]@sfu.ca

Emily S. Cramer

ABSTRACT Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) have been suggested to have the potential to support learning for children. Despite the increasing number of TUI reading systems there are few design guidelines for children, especially for those with dyslexia (a specific difficulty in language acquisition skills). In this paper we discuss four design opportunities and five design recommendations for designing tangible reading systems for children, particularly those with dyslexia. We ground our analysis using theories of the causes and interventions for dyslexia, best multisensory training practices and existing research on TUIs that support learning to read for children. We describe our tangible reading system, called PhonoBlocks, focusing on two core design features which take advantage of these opportunities. We also describe how we iteratively fine-tuned the details of our design based on our recommendations, an expert review and feedback from tutors who work with children with dyslexia every day. We include a discussion of design trade-offs in our process. This design rationale paper contributes to the growing research on designing tangible spelling and reading systems for children.

Author Keywords Tangible user interfaces; children; dyslexia; reading; spelling; literacy; design rationale.

ACM Classification Keywords H5.2. Information interfaces and presentation: User interfaces. K.3.m Computers and education: Computer-assisted instruction.

INTRODUCTION The ability to read is critical to gaining many other academic, practical and life skills. Early reading acquisition involves learning the alphabetic principle, which is the set

of rules that explain how letters are associated with sounds depending on their context within a word. Successful early reading acquisition plays a vital role in the subsequent development of reading skills in children [10]. Traditional phonics-based multisensory instruction, such as the Orton-Gillingham (O-G) program, has been shown to be effective in helping children to learn letter-sound correspondences; it is particularly effective for children with a learning difficulty in language acquisition referred to as dyslexia [34]. In the multisensory approach, visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic senses are simultaneously linked in order to draw children’s attention to letter-sound relationships [22]. However, this approach has the following drawbacks: (1) it is extremely time-consuming due to its prolonged, intensive, and one-to-one process and (2) it requires many highly trained tutors. As a result, O-G interventions are not widely available to many children who struggle with early reading skills [25].

Researchers in the learning sciences have highlighted the potential of computer-based instructions, arguing for the advantages in terms of resource and cost-effectiveness [28] as well as other aspects commonly associated with computers, such as offering immediate digital feedback and promoting playful learning through multimedia and digital games [27]. However, other researchers have suggested that TUIs may have unique benefits in supporting learning to read for children not available in Graphical User Interface (GUI)-based systems (e.g., [11,18,24,29]). These claims are based on the unique characteristics of TUIs such as their spatial nature [37] and multiple modalities of representations, particularly the tactile/kinesthetic modalities [2]. These characteristics may benefit children in the early reading acquisition stage, particularly those with dyslexia. While several tangible reading systems have been developed for children, only a few have targeted the instruction of letter-sound correspondences [11,17,38] and even fewer have been designed for children with dyslexia to support the learning of complex letter-sound rules of English [29,30]. More importantly, we have not seen any research that specifically explored which features of TUIs should be leveraged and in what ways these features may support reading acquisition in children with dyslexia. Our research targets this gap in design knowledge. Outcomes from our design work may help other researchers and practitioners make effective design decisions about which

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 Permissions@acm.org. IDC '16, June 21-24, 2016, Manchester, United Kingdom © 2016 ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-4313-8/16/06…$15.00 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930690

101

features are important in the design of tangible reading systems for children. We used a research-through-design approach informed by theories and practice-based knowledge to explore the design opportunities for designing TUIs that support learning the alphabetic principle for children, focusing on children with dyslexia. We first give an overview of theories of causes of dyslexia and describe best practices for reading interventions. We suggest unique characteristics of TUIs that may support children in learning to read. We present an overview of existing research on tangible reading systems for children. Based on these four forms of analysis, we derive four opportunities and suggest five recommendations for designing tangible reading systems for children, focusing on children with dyslexia. We then describe the core design features of our tangible prototype reading system, called PhonoBlocks. We describe how it takes advantage of tangible opportunities and follows our recommendations. We also discuss iterative revisions we made based on an expert review and ongoing tutor feedback. We also discuss the trade-offs we made during our design process. We conclude by generalizing our findings and presenting key considerations for the design of tangible reading systems for children.

THEORIES OF CAUSES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA Learning to read is a cognitive developmental process in which readers need to pass through each stage to gradually develop accurate and fluent word reading abilities [13]. Therefore, the success of early reading acquisition (i.e., the learning of the alphabetic principle) plays a vital role in subsequent reading development in children. However, approximately 10% of individuals in English–speaking countries experience difficulties in learning to read. This specific learning impairment is commonly referred to as dyslexia [34]. Although dyslexia is heterogeneous, one of the most accepted causes is an impairment in phonological processing, which is the ability to manipulate sounds in speech [10]. Specifically, phonological deficits impede children’s ability to manipulate sounds and learn grapheme-phoneme (i.e., letter-sound) correspondences, which then leads to difficulties in learning to read [42]. It is worth noting that learning to read English poses particular challenges because English contains multi-letter morphemes (e.g., tion, ough), and inconsistent letter-sound correspondences (e.g., ea/e//i:/, c/s//k/) [39].

Although dyslexia is a lifelong condition, children with dyslexia can learn to read well under proper instruction [10]. Research suggests that explicit and intense phonics-based (letter-sound) instruction has shown efficacy in helping children, particularly children with dyslexia, to learn to read [22,34]. One widely used phonics-based intervention is the multisensory approach wherein visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic representations are simultaneously linked to explicate letter-sound relations

[22]. The Orton-Gillingham (O-G) program is one example of a multisensory intervention [35]. The O-G program is often conducted with a trained tutor. Physical letter tiles or other tools (e.g., flash cards, cubes) are often used to facilitate multisensory training on letter-sound correspondences [4]. For example, one important activity in the O-G program is to ask children to trace letters [4]. Like typical readers, dyslexic children have problems distinguishing mirrored letterforms such as b, d, p, and q [10]. The letter tracing activity can help dyslexic children to learn letterforms and their letter-sound correspondences [4,10]. During interventions, tutors may also use other cues such as pictures [13] and colours [5,19] to attract children’s attention and help the children to memorize letter-sound correspondences. However, one limitation of this approach is that it is resource intensive due to the nature of its prolonged and one-to-one process with highly trained tutors.

In order to effectively help dyslexic children learn to read and spell, many computer-aided learning tools have been developed. Applications include the Fast ForWord 1 Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program2, Literate [23], and Dybuster [21]. However, all these GUI-based applications only utilize visual and auditory modalities. Many learning activities of the traditional multisensory program, such as tracing and manipulating letters, therefore cannot be well supported in such GUI-based approaches. In addition, these software applications usually allow children to play and learn on their own so they fail to actively involve tutors in the children’s learning process.

TUI-BASED OPPORTUNITIES WHICH MAY SUPPORT LEARNING TO READ Recent research has suggested that computer-supported instructions may be more effective and accessible in supporting children learning to read [10,21]. TUIs are a computing paradigm wherein the real world is augmented by physical objects embedded with digital information [3]. Based on implications of theories of dyslexia, the practice-based reading interventions, and research on TUIs, we propose that TUIs may more effectively support children in learning to read. In particular, we suggest that TUIs have four unique characteristics, which provide opportunities to enhance computer-based interventions for children with dyslexia.

1. Opportunity: Spatiality Research suggests that because TUIs may include 2D or 3D physical objects they are inherently more spatial than most interfaces [37]. As a result, TUIs may have particular benefits for learning domains that involve (either physically or metaphorically) spatial properties [24]. Letters are visual symbols represented in 2D space. While learning to read, children have to decipher a series of letters in a certain 1 http://www.scilearn.com/products/fast-forword/language-series 2 http://lindamoodbell.com/program/lindamood-phoneme-sequencing-program

102

spatial (linear) order. The physical and spatial qualities of TUIs may be used enable hands-on interaction with 2D or 3D letters in linear sequences in 2D space. This may make TUIs effective for the support of children’s early reading acquisition.

Theories about causes for dyslexia have suggested that children with dyslexia have particular challenges in manipulating sounds in speech and learning the alphabetic principle [10,34,42]. The spatially congruent mapping between physical representations and digital representations of TUIs offers an opportunity to support the learning of letter-sound correspondences. For example, when a reader places one or more physical letters on a tangible tabletop, the associated digital information for the letter sound(s) and the 2D letter(s) with the same spatial order will be immediately shown on the display. The spatial congruency of physical-digital mappings in TUIs may support explicit associations between letters and sounds, which is particularly important for children with dyslexia.

2. Opportunity: Multiple Interaction Modalities Research about multisensory interventions has demonstrated the benefits of simultaneously using all available senses in supporting children with dyslexia in learning to read [4,22]. The tactile modality may be beneficial for children in learning letter shapes and letter-sound associations. First, much research in the educational domain suggests that the use of tactile/kinesthetic modalities can benefit learning through improving learners’ attention and memory [26]. Second, letter tracing may help children to easily remember letter shapes and sounds by leveraging the use of motor memory [10]. Lastly, the physical manipulation of concrete letters also helps in learning abstract concepts such as word decoding by offloading difficult mental processing to external tools (e.g., by physically moving two syllables apart) [1]. Therefore, TUIs that incorporate multiple modalities including visual, auditory, tactile or kinaesthetic modalities may be advantageous in promoting the use of multiple senses in reading acquisition [2]. Compared to GUIs, TUI’s tactile modality that supports letter tracing and hands-on interaction with letters may be particularly beneficial for children with dyslexia in reading acquisition [10].

3. Opportunity: Multiple Letter Representations Theories of the interventions for dyslexia have suggested that intensive training and repetition are necessary to help children with dyslexia to learn to read well [10]. TUIs incorporate both digital and physical representations. The multiple representations allow for multiple ways to represent letters and sounds. For example, letters and sounds can be represented as 2D or 2.5D digital versions on display while they can also be represented in various tangible forms such as 3D plastic or 2.5D wooden letters embedded with letter sounds. Multiple representations of letters and sounds may help to consolidate learners’ memorization [10].

In the O-G program, tutors often use colours [5,19] and pictures [13] to help with attention and memorization. The multiple representational properties of TUIs may also support a broad design space for contextual cues (e.g., colour, picture or even textural cues) associated with letters and sounds [19,20]. Physical objects contain a wealth of visual and tactile information such as size, shape, colour, and texture [12]. When linked to digital information, physical objects can be powerful tools that carry multi-modal information. These ideas are supported by dual-coding theory, which suggests that information conveyed by both verbal and nonverbal representations may be easier to learn [7]. Therefore, the associations between letters, sounds, pictures, and other nonverbal cues such as colours, pictures or tactile qualities may benefit children with dyslexia in learning letter-sound correspondences [21].

4. Opportunity: Flexible, Structured Procedures The specific focus of early interventions on explicit letter-sound relations and the specialized multisensory training methods needed for children with dyslexia are different from those for typical readers. As a result, tutors need to receive considerable specialized training to teach children with dyslexia. Without a specially trained tutor, some interventions may be less effective. The design of TUIs can incorporate a specific training script or procedure in conjunction with 3D objects within the system. For example, traditional multisensory interventions require tutors to teach consonant-digraphs as groups (e.g., th in thin) [5]. When designing for TUIs, designers can only allow the system to make a response (e.g., produce sounds or colours) when both letters in a digraph are placed together. In this way the system only allows for a particular way of use, which can help inexperienced tutors to teach children with dyslexia.

Furthermore, the multiple access points of physical objects provide flexible ways to actively engage both the tutor and a child in the teaching activity [3]. The tutor can use these objects to demonstrate the rules to the child or share the tool with the child or collaboratively complete a task together with the child.

TANGIBLE READING SYSTEMS FOR CHILDREN A number of tangible reading systems have been developed. Here, we focus on those designed for learning letter-sound correspondences rather than for story-telling or other forms of narrative. Sluis et al. presented Read-It, a tangible tabletop designed to support collaborative learning of phonological awareness for children who speak Dutch [38]. In Read-It, each tangible card represents a word. Once a card is flipped, the users will see a word and the associated sound of that word will be provided. Children have to match the card (word) with other cards (words) that start with the same sound (called an onset sound). The strength of the design lies in its central focus on phonological training. However, this prototype only focuses on the training of onsets. It does not cover the learning of

103

complex letter-sound rules of English. Another similar tangible tabletop was presented by Sung et al. called Shadow Box [41]. The main form of interaction with Shadow Box is wooden word blocks. When a child puts a single word block into the tabletop the system immediately displays the related picture and plays the sound of the word. While Read-It focuses on the training of onsets, Shadow Box emphasizes the training of relationships between words, sounds and meanings. One recent commercial tangible product called Osmo3 utilizes an iPad and a set of squared wooden letter cards to support word building activities. When iPad displays a picture, a child needs to construct the word with the letter cards on a desk. The Osmo literacy activity also focuses on a whole-word approach to learning the relationships between words and meaning.

In addition to tangible tabletops, a series of cube-based applications have also been developed which offer the possibility of supporting more complex letter-sound associations through word building activities [11,17]. In these cube-based tangible systems designed for reading and spelling, each facet of a cube represents a letter. A child has to rotate each cube to select the correct facet and then connect cubes together to make a word or sentence. Digital feedback is provided within the cubes or in both cubes and the digital display. Specifically, in Spelling Bee, once a child has completed the connection, LED colour feedback embedded in the cubes immediately indicates whether the current spelling is correct (green) or not (red), while the letter sound is played out through a cube-embedded speaker [11]. In Spelling Cube, the same cube-embedded colour feedback is retained while a separate display provides further digital feedback involving the meanings, sounds, and associated pictures [17]. Here the Spelling Cube’s design is advantageous by enabling multiple digital information channels — digital information is conveyed through both cube and digital computer displays. However, both systems use generic blocks to represent letters so they do not support letter-tracing activities. More importantly, those systems still emphasize learning word vocabulary rather than the rules of the alphabetic principle.

While several tangible reading prototypes exist, few have been found that are specifically designed for children with reading difficulties. We only found two designed for children with dyslexia and one designed for non- or hardly-speaking toddlers. SpellBound is a tangible system that supports dyslexic children to learn letter-sound correspondences. SpellBound allows children to construct 2D alphabets by using a set of wooden shapes that contain visual features of letters (such as the crossbar of a t, or tail of a q) and to place those 2D letters onto a platform to trigger the letter sound and associated picture of the word. [30]. However, the researchers only sketched out the initial

3 https://www.playosmo.com

idea; as far as we know, this prototype has not yet been developed. Tiblo uses Lego-like blocks to represent several different concepts including words, numbers, and potential phonemes [29]. Children with dyslexia can draw the concept on a piece of paper, attach it to a block, and record the sound for the concept. A set of blocks can be connected in a certain order to represent a word, narrative or any other concepts. However, Tiblo does not focus on learning letter-sound correspondences. Furthermore, the generic forms of blocks still cannot support letter tracing activities.

Hengeveld et al. developed the LinguaBytes, a tangible system aimed at stimulating language development for young children with multiple disabilities (e.g., both cognitive and motor disabilities) [18]. LinguaBytes consists of a digital display, a physical control panel, and a wide range of tangible input materials such as story booklets, 3D tangible letters, and programmable RFID labels. This prototype can support a variety of activities including exercises related to phonological awareness, semantics, syntax, and story reading. Since toddlers at those ages (3 to 5 years) have not started to learn letter-sound correspondences the majority of the exercises in LinguaBytes encourage young children to communicate through story reading or other activities. Although LinguaBytes incorporates several letter-sound activities, it is limited in only allowing children to learn simple one-to-one letter and sound association rather than inconsistent letter-sound mappings in various word contexts.

In summary, we found that most tangible prototypes designed for typical readers emphasized the training at the whole-word level. Tangible reading systems specifically designed for children with dyslexia largely focused on simple one-to-one letter-sound correspondences.

DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Antle and Wise have discussed the general learning design process designers need to consider when designing learning tools [3]. They argued the importance of starting with learning goals. The specific elements of the tangible learning environment are then designed to facilitate the achievement of the learning experiences and learning goals.

Theories about causes of dyslexia suggest the importance of teaching children with dyslexia the explicit and complex letter-sound correspondences of English (learning goal) [10,34,42]. The practice-based theories about reading interventions suggest the promise of using multiple modalities (particularly the tactile modality) and multiple representations in promoting learning to read (elements of learning environment) [4,5,21]. The implications of theories and best practice, together with the unique characteristics of TUIs, create the potential to support effective approaches of helping children with dyslexia learning to read. Despite the possible advantages, few tangible reading systems have been developed to support the learning of complex letter-sound rules for dyslexic children, and none of them have leveraged the uses of

104

multiple modalities and representations to promote such learning.

Here, we look at the learning design process and the key design elements of TUIs through the lens of theories of the causes, interventions and best practices for helping children with dyslexia. Based on this grounding we derive and present five recommendations for designing tangible reading systems for children, particularly children with dyslexia.

1. Use Situation and Concept-Driven Design Methods One fundamental question for designing any kind of research-based application is how to choose an appropriate design approach. There are several research-oriented approaches that generate design guidelines. Pragmatic methods follow a design process grounded in an existing situation or context. For example, researchers and designers can employ user-centered design, participatory design, contextual design or other available design approaches to explore and design for the particulars of specific situations and users [6]. Hengeveld designed and evaluated the LinguaBytes using a situated Research-through-Design approach [18]. In collaborating with therapists and working closely with targeted children, the final product of LinguaBytes was iteratively developed and evaluated through five design circles.

Stolterman and Wiberg proposed an alternative, concept-driven approach that advances the use of theoretical concepts to inform concrete design [40]. Concept-driven design allows the design to start from the conceptual and theoretical levels rather than from the practical (or empirical level). In this case, knowledge generated from theoretical concepts can inform the design of new artifacts.

We suggest that designing tangible learning applications for children, particularly children with dyslexia, requires consideration of both the specifics of the situation the system will be used in and grounding in theoretical concepts related to causes and interventions of reading difficulties. The advantage of the situation-driven approach lies in the fact that it leverages the use of a wealth of hands-on knowledge from tutors who work closely with children. The practical teaching techniques of tutors could be leveraged to design an effective system for helping children in learning to read [5,19]. In addition, the system designed in this approach is easily employed in schools as from the initial stages designers consider the usage context. However, this approach is also limited in that it is difficult for designers to find out the underlying factors that contribute to the reading outcomes without guidance from theoretical concepts.

This problem may become more obvious when designing for children with dyslexia. Given that dyslexia is heterogeneous (e.g., diverse dyslexic profiles, different levels of reading difficulties) [10], tutors develop a variety of teaching techniques and tend to use different ones for

different children [22]. Therefore, using only the situation-driven approach in this case fails to identify the cognitive problems of children with dyslexia in learning to read and fails to consider the underlying mechanisms that may contribute to their reading improvements.

The concept-driven approach, however, can compensate for the limitations of the situation-driven approach. The theories of the causes and intervention for dyslexia allow researchers and designers to understand the major causes of dyslexia and to identify the most difficult problem that these children have to face in learning to read. Understanding the knowledge is particularly important because (1) it can help researchers to determine the learning goal, and (2) it may also help to inform the design process by providing information about cognitive processes and/or mechanisms that can be supported using practice-based techniques.

Our first recommendation (R1) is: Use a hybrid approach that is driven by theoretical concepts (with regard to causes and interventions) and includes situated design methods (e.g., including teachers, tutors, children in the design process). When designing for children with dyslexia we suggest that it will be more effective to use both approaches together. The concept-driven approach can be integrated with the situation-driven approach [40]. For example, in designing a tangible reading application the initial learning goal and design features can be informed by theories of dyslexia and reading acquisition. Then, the theory-based prototype can be refined through a user-centered approach by which designers can integrate tutors’ hands-on knowledge into the current system design. The advantages of this hybrid approach are: (1) it becomes easier for us to understand both what and why knowledge for choosing such particular design features; and (2) it ensures the design can be employed in the real-life context. However, the embedded approach is more complex and time-consuming compared to using either approach alone.

2. Use Physical-Digital Relations to Highlight Letter-Sound Correspondences TUIs that incorporate both physical and digital representations not only allow simultaneous use of visual, auditory, tactile or kinesthetic senses but also provide various ways to illustrate the relationship between letters and sounds through coupling physical and digital representations. In the context of TUIs designed for reading, physical objects often comprise a set of small 2D or 3D shapes, each shape consistently representing a letter, word or object. Digital information primarily includes letter sounds, digital letters, associated pictures (meanings) or other visual and auditory feedback. Children can interact with objects that trigger digital information. However, how users act on objects and the specific digital information they obtain varies from one system to another [1].

In Shadow Box, when children put a single word block onto the tabletop the system immediately displays the related

105

picture and plays the sound of the word [41]. Such picking-up and placing actions are also the main interaction method used in LinguaBytes [18]. In LinguaBytes, a child places a 3D letter onto a module. Once this letter is detected, the associated sound is played and the 2D letter and picture appear on a separated screen in front of the module. The physical-digital mappings in Shadow Box and LinguaBytes, (i.e., a tangible letter or word triggering the associated digital information) appear to be similar. However, the spatial distance between physical and digital components differs in these two systems. According to the external representation framework presented by Price et al. [32], LinguaBytes is discrete — input and output are located separately; Shadow Box is co-located — input and output are contiguous. It is worth noting that discrete coupling may require more attention than other approaches since a child in the discrete scenario must focus on both physical objects and the digital display, but the approach may also result in space and time for reflection [32].

Price et al. also proposed a third embedded approach wherein a digital effect occurs within an object [32]. In this way, physical representations also serve as digital representations. Spelling Cube and Spelling Bee are two cube-based tangible systems that use such an embedded mapping approach [11,17]. These applications differ from previous ones in two ways. First, multiple physical letter cubes and their spatial arrangements are simultaneously detected so the systems can support complex letter-sound correspondences through word-building activities (e.g., change the word gam to game); and second, embedded coupling is used; physical objects carry all or partial digital information, such as colour information. In Spelling Cube and Spelling Bee, the LED lights are embedded within the letter cubes to indicate whether or not spelling of the current word is correct.

These two features of the designs of Spelling Cube and Spelling Bee may be particularly beneficial for children with dyslexia, although the original goals of both prototypes were not designed for those children. First, design that allows children with dyslexia to learn the inconsistent letter-sound correspondences in various word contexts is extremely important. As is known, children with dyslexia have particular challenges in learning to read English due to the language containing multi-letter, morphemic, and inconsistent letter-sound correspondences [39]. Design that supports learning letter-sound correspondences in various word contexts can benefit children with dyslexia.

Second, the embedded colour cues add nonverbal digital information channels within physical letters. Children with dyslexia have difficulty in manipulating sounds in speech and associating letters with sounds [10]. The colour cues embedded within physical letters, if used effectively, can attract attention [5], highlight patterns in words [19] or provide more informational cues to help children with

dyslexia to discriminate similar sounds and remember letter-sound relationships [21]. More importantly, compared to the colour cues used in traditional educational practice that only highlight the stable patterns (e.g., pat, rat, bat) [5,19], the digital colour cues in TUIs can easily change colours to indicate sound changes in various contexts (e.g., gam->game). Our second recommendation (R2) is: Use both co-located/nearby and embedded designs together. For example, digital colour cues can be embedded in physical letters which share or are very close to a display space showing related digital representations of those letters (symbols, sounds, pictures). This approach may direct learners’ attention to relationships between patterns of letters and letter sounds (and word meanings), and may also help them to notice the sound changes of letter groups in different word contexts.

3. Design 3D (Embedded) Tangible Letters In traditional multisensory programs, a variety of physical tiles (e.g., letters) are used to facilitate literacy learning [22]. In various TUIs designed for reading, physical objects can represent letters, words or pictures [41]. However, in TUIs designed for children with dyslexia, physical representations should focus on letters (lowercase, which young children learn first) rather than words because (1) children with dyslexia have difficulty in learning letter-sound correspondences, and (2) tracing letters plays an important role in helping them to conquer the mirrored letter problem [10].

The few current tangible applications for children with reading difficulties focus on letters but still differ in their design strategies: (a) LinguaBytes uses 3D plastic letter shapes [18]; (b) Tiblo uses plastic Lego-like blocks to represent concepts (e.g., letters) [29]; and (c) SpellBound uses 2D wooden letter shapes [30]. The major differences in these TUIs lie in (1) whether the physical representations are generic or in letterforms, and (2) whether they are 2D or 3D. Obviously, letter shapes are important for children with dyslexia because they support the learning of letter shapes through tracing activities. In the 2D versus 3D debate, 2D letters allow children to easily line up letters on a surface, but also have limitations: (1) they might limit certain actions of manipulating letters such as playing with them in space; (2) 2D digital letters lack distinct physical boundaries and thus cannot facilitate easy letter tracing activity for dyslexic children; and (3) technically speaking, it is difficult to embed electronic components into purely 2D letter shapes (discounting 2.5D or cubes). This makes it challenging to provide additional digital information such as dynamic colour cues. Our third recommendation (R3) is: Use 3D representations for tangible (embedded) letters rather than only 2D designs.

Another difference among these systems is material type. Plastic and wood are very common materials in product design because they are cheap, solid, and safe for children. However, recent research has advocated for exploration of

106

more possibilities in materiality while designing artefacts. Diajadiningrat et al. argued that a physical object has the richness of naturally linked characteristics such as material and texture, which offer more room for expressiveness than screen-based elements [12]. A recent TUI paper suggested that young children (aged 4 to 7 years) can associate materiality with meaning [36]. In their study, children were presented with a set of digital items on an iPad and asked to select one of four stamps made of different materials (i.e., plastic, wood, silicone, felt) for each. Results indicated that children were more likely to associate wood with musical instruments and to associate felt with clothing. In Bara et al.’s study, physical letters were used to facilitate letter tracing activities for young children with and without reading difficulties [4]. Although their study could not demonstrate whether the learning benefits were due to the tracing activities with physical letters or the tracing action per se, the researchers inferred that the rich physical properties such as colour, weight, and texture might partially contribute to better learning outcomes.

Despite the great promise of leveraging materiality in TUI design, there are no specific ideas about how to design materials or texture cues that can facilitate learning to read for children with dyslexia [15]. One possible approach to associating textures with letter sounds is based on an educational practice called Object-Imaging-Projection method (OIP) [20]. The OIP method associates letters/sounds with particular objects that have forms very similar to the letter shapes and whose beginning sounds are the letter sounds. For example, “a/a/” is often associated with apple while “b/b/” is often associated with ball.

4. Design for Various Tutor-Student Relations Reading interventions for typical readers can be in either large or small groups. However, the most common and effective approach for children with dyslexia is the one-to-one multisensory approach [22]. Therefore, when designing TUIs we should consider how the systems could be easily employed in actual school contexts to best support their use by both tutors and children.

A tangible application’s design should support the use in context by tutors. In traditional multisensory interventions, tutor participation is important because tutors can also direct children’s attention to the letter-sound knowledge by using pointing to gestures or by sharing letter tiles with children and asking them to actively participate in the learning activities [22]. The multiple access points of TUIs supports interaction between tutor, child and system [18]. This is one advantage of TUIs compared to other UIs that do not contain multiple physical input objects.

Children need a lot of practice learning to spell and read. Therefore, the system should also support a child to use the system to practice without tutors. For example, the design of TUIs can offer a game-based mode that can support dyslexic children to practice by themselves what they have learned. This function helps these children to gradually

develop strategies for self-directed reading [13]. Our fourth recommendation (R4) is: Design to support tutor-led, child-led and tutor-child interaction and activities, and provide consistency between the two approaches.

To support tutor-led training some other requirements should be considered. For example, individual tutors may have their own teaching style or techniques [22], therefore the system should support a certain level of customization. Tutors may also want to check each child’s learning performance during application use, in order to track reading development [33]. The system should thus record important user data such as students’ daily performance in practice (e.g., task accuracies, duration, and the kinds of errors made) and make it accessible to tutors (e.g., through data visualization). Furthermore, some tutors may not have experience with TUI technologies [43] so the system must be easy to learn and use.

5. Consider Unique User Characteristics Our final recommendation (R5) is: Consider the unique profiles of children with dyslexia and provide appropriate design features based upon their profiles. This recommendation includes many considerations, some of which we have highlighted here. The first notable characteristic of children with dyslexia is their inadequate knowledge of literacy and/or visual problems in viewing texts [10]. Therefore, TUI button design should use pictorial icons rather than text so that children with dyslexia can easily understand them. In addition, simple auditory instruction can be provided to direct children in the learning activity. However, it is suggested that auditory instruction should not be too long due to children’s limited working memory, and should be as simple as possible [16].

In the learning tasks, lowercase letters rather than uppercase letters should be incorporated because most children with dyslexia have problems learning mirrored lowercase letters such as b, d, p, and q [10]. Children with dyslexia with severe visual deficits (the subtype of dyslexia) may also have problems viewing tightly spaced or serif-typeface letters, so appropriate font placement and selection is crucial [43]. Notably, there is a greater percentage of boys with dyslexia than girls due to genetic causes [34]. When designing the user interface colour palettes or colour cues, designers should consider this genetic gender bias. For example, the system can provide various themes or allows individuals to select their preferred colour palette.

In addition to visual elements, factors related to interaction and learning activities are also important to consider. First, immediate feedback is crucial for children during interaction. Children can get frustrated if they do not get quick feedback [16]. Immediate feedback also plays a vital role in the learning process by informing children with dyslexia of correct/incorrect answers and guiding them to acquire new concepts [22]. Second, the appropriate scaffold design is also required [16]. Children with dyslexia can have fairly different profiles, so different levels of scaffolds

107

should be provided during the task to enable them to acquire knowledge without tutor support [14]. Furthermore, positive feedback/rewards should be incorporated [14]. These can help dyslexic children to build confidence, and encourage and motivate them to continue their learning activities. Lastly, physical affordances can be designed to help children conquer the mirrored letter problem. For example, physical letters could contain constraints that prevent children from placing them in the wrong orientation. This design leverages the use of physical laws, which children can easily learn [37].

PHONOBLOCKS: AN EXAMPLE OF A TANGIBLE READING SYSTEM FOR CHILDREN WITH DYSLEXIA PhonoBlocks is a tangible reading (and spelling) system we created which utilizes the four unique opportunities of TUIs and satisfies the five requirements. PhonoBlocks uses dynamic colour cues embedded in 3D letters alongside an application running on a touch laptop to support children to learn seven basic decoding or reading (and spelling) rules at the level of the alphabetic principle. It was designed for tutor, tutor-child and child-led interaction (R4), and the UI was specifically designed for dyslexic children aged 7-8 years old (R5).

PhonoBlocks comprises a touch-based screen near (right beside) a platform with seven slots, and a set of lowercase 3D letters which were embedded with LED strips (R3) (Figure 1). A child interacts by placing one or more tangible letters onto the platform (Figure 2). The system detects the 3D tangible letters and their spatial arrangements through a set of pogo pins embedded at the bottom of the letters; it then displays the appropriate colour cues embedded in the letters. Audiovisual feedback is also provided on the screen which also displays coloured 2D letters, associated letter sounds, and pictures (R2). We describe our principles for deriving colour-coding schemes for each rule in [8] and provide the results of a preliminary evaluation for one rule (consonant-le).

Figure 1. PhonoBlocks contains a touch-based screen, a platform with seven slots and 46 lower-case 3D letters

embedded with LED strips.

Design Process We used a hybrid situation and concept-driven approach to design the system (R1). Our theoretical research suggested that our learning goal should be to target the deficit of phonological awareness children have when learning the complex rules of letter-sound correspondences. O-G

interventions highlight the potential of using colour cues and the tactile modality. We leverage TUIs opportunities for using spatial properties (O1), multi-modal interaction (O2) and representations (O3) in our design. We begin with these concepts and discuss details of two main design features: dynamic colour cues and 3D tangible letters.

To ground our work in context we consulted with a literacy/dyslexia expert and reading tutors, all of whom work closely with children with dyslexia. Each tutor had 3-5 years’ experience working with children with dyslexia. To inform and refine our design, we conducted a series of focus groups with 5-6 tutors at a school specializing in teaching children with reading difficulties located in North Vancouver, Canada and two review sessions with our literacy/dyslexia expert. During the focus groups we asked tutors about (1) the most difficult challenge for their students in learning to read, (2) the general O-G approach they used for teaching the students, involving the specifics of the learning activities, physical tiles, and the other teaching techniques, and (3) we asked them to review our prototype. The tutors provided details about how they used multiple representations to teach children using O-G materials. They also described the specific ways they used colour cues and physical letter tiles in their O-G practice. They tended to use colours differently in different learning tasks. For example, when they taught the children consonant-digraphs, they coloured the consonant-digraphs as a group within words (e.g., path); when teaching the differences between vowel and sounds, they instead coloured all vowels red and all consonants blue (e.g., big). The tutors thought that our prototype might have particular benefits in learning activities that highlight the alphabetic rules involving sound changes (e.g., magic-e activity) or that contain stable patterns within words (e.g. consonant blends and digraphs). They further recommended several learning activities such as the consonant-blends, magic-e, and syllable division. Their feedback confirmed our conceptual approach, provided specific rules to focus on and gave us insight into the procedures for teaching each rule which we coded into our system (O4). Based on their O-G practice and other research, reported in [8], we decided to use different colour-coding schemas for each of these different activities (Table 1).

Figure 2. A child places the 3D letters onto the platform to

make the word “flag”.

108

Our expert review led to three ways to refine our design. First, she suggested we narrow down the number of colours used each the activity and to only highlight the part of each reading rule we wanted to emphasize in order to better attract the children’s attention. Second, she worked with us to determine the optimal timing of each colour change and suggested that we use a colour flash to draw attention to the related sound changes produced by adding letters. For example, in the consonant digraph activity for sh, we decided that the letter s would only light up when the h was added, to indicate that the two letters together make one sound. In the magic-e activity, the middle vowel flashed three times and changed colour from yellow to red when an e is added. She also suggested a function that enabled the tutor or child to make all the letters change back into a single colour. This may help children practice how to blend individual sounds into a word and increase their reading fluency.

Activities Sequence of Interaction Original

Colour Cues Current Colour Cues

CVC bet bet—>bet Consonant blends f->fl->flag f->fl->flag—>flag Consonant digraphs s->sh->shop s->sh->shop—>shop Magic-e gam->game gam->game—>game Vowel digraphs ea->eat e->ea->eat—>eat R-controlled vowel c->ca->car c->ca->car—>car Syllable division water water—>water

Table 1. Seven rule-based activities and colour-coding schemas (black text = white LED light; grey text = LED off.

Final Design PhonoBlocks contains seven rule-based activities and each activity has a unique colour-coding schema (Table 1) and associated activity procedure (O4). For example, in the magic-e activity children need to learn that when an e is added at the end of the word with consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) structure, the vowel sound will change from short to long. Figure 3 shows how the letters change colour to indicate the sound change.

Figure 3. In the magic-e activity, the colour of letter a changes

from yellow to red to illustrate the vowel sound change.

The system includes 46 x 3D lowercase letters with a notch (2.5*1*3 inch) were made with semi-transparent acrylic. There are extra vowels (e.g., a, e, and o) and consonant letters (e.g., b, p, and h) to allow for more word combinations based on tutors’ feedback (Figure 4). We

decided to use 3D letters because they provide more obvious hard edges for children to trace letters on and also make it possible for us to implement the LED strips (R3).

The design of PhonoBlocks supports two modes of interaction: the tutor-driven or learning mode and student-driven or practice mode. The tutor’s mode allows the tutors to control the learning activity, while the student’s mode offers a series of game-based word building exercises so that children can practice by themselves (Figure 5).

Figure 4. 46 x 3D tangible, semi-transparent, acrylic letters.

Because the letters provide multiple access points a tutor and child can work together in both modes. In the practice mode, a hint function was designed that provides different levels of clues for children if they get stuck. For example, when a child first clicks the hint button, the system will slowly repeat the sound of the word to be built. The second time the child seeks hint help, the system will display partial letters of the word. More audiovisual rewards will be given if children use the hint function fewer times. This encourages children to think and complete the task by themselves (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Tutor mode (L): the audio button repeats the sound of the word and the check button triggers the picture of the

word. Student mode (R): the question-mark button repeats the audio instruction for the task and the key button provides

hints. The solid star appears if a child correctly completes the task in his/her first try.

Based on (R5), the system does not contain any text (except for the words to be taught). All the buttons were designed as icons and all the instructions were given through simple audio clips (Figure 5). The design of interface and interaction is simple and straightforward, which we believe is easy for both tutors and children with little experience with technologies to learn and use.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this paper we explored the design space of tangible reading systems designed for children, particularly children with reading difficulties. We began by identifying

109

important concepts from theories of dyslexia and based on some of the unique opportunities associated with TUIs that may make them effective for supporting children to learn to read (and spell). We then reviewed a number of current tangible reading systems designed for children with and without dyslexia. We identified four design opportunities and five design recommendations for designing tangible reading systems for children, particularly children with dyslexia. We then worked with a reading expert and dyslexia tutors to fine tune the design of our prototype based upon their formative and iterative feedback. Our approach highlights the dual benefits of using situation- and concept-driven approaches to research through design. However, there can be conflicting recommendations between the theoretical concepts and situated knowledge. While the tutors suggested many ways that (early versions of) PhonoBlocks could help children learn to read, our theoretical research (and expert reviewer) determined our focus on phonological awareness and letter-sound rules. On the other hand, while many researchers favour multisensory interventions, others argue that there is a lack of theoretical evidence to support this approach [35]. For example, Ritchey and Goeke presented the results of a meta-review which showed that most experiments demonstrating the efficacy of multisensory interventions were not well-designed or controlled and thus the findings lacked validity or reliability [35]. However, in educational practice, tutors explained the benefits of specific strategies used in the O-G multisensory approach based on their own experience helping their students to learn to read. These explanations helped us refine our use of dynamic colours and supported the use of tangibility. Our situation driven approach also suggested that this approach would result in a system that was somewhat familiar to the children. We think this stance is important for designing any systems for use outside of the lab.

Both theory about causes of dyslexia (e.g. poor phonological awareness and attention) and tutor experiences (e.g. use of colour in O-G) led us to the decision to use dynamic colour cues that may help draw attention to important changes in letter sounds based on letter positions in words. However, it was challenging to design the specific color-coding schema for English given this language contains complex letter-sound rules. In this paper we presented two specific colour-coding schemas. For example, in the magic-e and consonant-blend activity, we can use a “coarse” approach wherein the colour cues are not mapped to individual sounds but are used to highlight the general rule (e.g., game, flag). We also realized we could use a “fine” approach wherein colour cues are mapped to individual sounds (e.g., game, flag). In previous thesis work we explored the derivation and benefits of fine- vs. coarse-grained colour-coding schemes for vowel discrimination and consonant-le rules [9]. There is still much to explore in this design space and we encourage other researchers to do so.

Dynamic colour cues may not be limited to only helping children with dyslexia. Typical children who do not have reading difficulties still need to pass through each stage (i.e., from pre-alphabetic, to partial alphabetic, to full alphabetic, and to consolidated alphabetic stages) to gradually learn to read well [13]. The dynamic colour cues here can be used in different ways at each stage to promote learning. We suggest that the benefits of dynamic colour cues can be further explored for both dyslexic and typical children.

In addition to the colour cues, we also mentioned the potential of textural cues or other cues in supporting reading acquisition. OIP offers a metaphoric mapping approach for associating texture with the letter sounds [15, 20]. However, there are also other options. For example, research on cross-modal associations suggests human beings may naturally associate low-frequency sounds with rough textures and high-frequency sounds with smooth textures [31]. In addition to textures, Kast et al. explored the possibility of associating shape cues (e.g., triangle & squares) and melody cues with German letters/sounds to promote learning for children with dyslexia [21]. Although the justifications and contributions of using these cues in supporting learning to read are still being debated, these researchers’ attempts demonstrate the possibilities of leveraging the physical or other properties in supporting reading acquisition.

In conclusion, both our discussion of design opportunities and recommendations for designing tangible reading systems for children, and the specific prototype design presented, have the potential to contribute to the design space of TUIs for reading for children, particularly for those with dyslexia. We encourage designers and researchers to consider the opportunities and recommendations that we discussed in the design of tangible reading systems, and to actively explore the design space and extend the body of knowledge on the development of tangible learning systems involving reading tasks for children.

SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN This is a design rationale paper and no children participated in this work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We should like to thank our funders: SSHRC and CSC, Dr. Maureen Hoskyn (CRECHE, SFU) and the tutors and children at Kenneth Gordon Maplewood School.

REFERENCES 1. Alissa N. Antle. 2007. The CTI Framework: Informing

the Design of Tangible Systems for Children. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, ACM, 195–202. http://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227010

2. Alissa N. Antle. 2013. Research opportunities: Embodied child–computer interaction. International

110

Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1, 1: 30–36. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.001

3. Alissa N. Antle and Alyssa F. Wise. 2013. Getting Down to Details: Using Theories of Cognition and Learning to Inform Tangible User Interface Design. Interacting with Computers 25, 1: 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007

4. Florence Bara, Edouard Gentaz, and Pascale Colé. 2007. Haptics in learning to read with children from low socio-economic status families. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 25, 4: 643–663. http://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X186643

5. Virginia W. Berninger, Robert D. Abbott, Dori Zook, Stacy Ogier, Zenia Lemos-Britton, and Rebecca Brooksher. 1999. Early Intervention for Reading Disabilities Teaching the Alphabet Principle in a Connectionist Framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities 32, 6: 491–503. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200604

6. John M. Carroll. 2003. HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann.

7. James M. Clark and Allan Paivio. 1991. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3, 3: 149–210. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076

8. Emily S. Cramer, Alissa N. Antle, and Min Fan. 2016. The Code of Many Colours: Evaluating a Dynamic Colour-Coding Scheme in a Tangible Spelling System for Children with Dyslexia. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, in press.

9. Emily Sarah Cramer. 2015. A Code of Many Colours: Rationale, Validation and Requirements for a Sound-Based Letter Colour-Code that Might Support Some Children with Dyslexia in Spelling Certain Words. Retrieved April 14, 2016 from http://summit.sfu.ca/item/15715

10. Stanislas Dehaene. 2009. Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. Penguin.

11. Amnon Dekel, Galit Yavne, Ela Ben-Tov, and Yulia Roschak. 2007. The Spelling Bee: An Augmented Physical Block System That Knows How to Spell. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACM, 212–215. http://doi.org/10.1145/1255047.1255092

12. Tom Djajadiningrat, Stephan Wensveen, Joep Frens, and Kees Overbeeke. 2004. Tangible Products: Redressing the Balance Between Appearance and Action. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 8, 5: 294–309. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0293-8

13. Linnea C. Ehri. 2014. Orthographic Mapping in the Acquisition of Sight Word Reading, Spelling Memory, and Vocabulary Learning. Scientific Studies of Reading 18, 1: 5–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

14. Taciana Pontual Falcão and Sara Price. 2010. Informing Design for Tangible Interaction: A Case for Children with Learning Difficulties. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, 190–193. http://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810568

15. Min Fan and Alissa N. Antle. 2015. Tactile Letters: A Tangible Tabletop with Texture Cues Supporting Alphabetic Learning for Dyslexic Children. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM, 673–678. http://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2688806

16. Heléne Gelderblom and Paula Kotzé. 2009. Ten Design Lessons from the Literature on Child Development and Children’s Use of Technology. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, 52–60. http://doi.org/10.1145/1551788.1551798

17. Wooi Boon Goh, L. L. Chamara Kasun, Fitriani, Jacquelyn Tan, and Wei Shou. 2012. The i-Cube: Design Considerations for Block-based Digital Manipulatives and Their Applications. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, ACM, 398–407. http://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318016

18. Bart Hengeveld, Caroline Hummels, Hans van Balkom, Riny Voort, and Jan de Moor. 2013. Wrapping Up LinguaBytes, for Now. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, ACM, 237–244. http://doi.org/10.1145/2460625.2460664

19. Sara J. Hines. 2009. The Effectiveness of a Color-Coded, Onset-Rime Decoding Intervention with First-Grade Students at Serious Risk for Reading Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 24, 1: 21–32. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.01274.x

20. Jay Isgur. 1975. Establishing Letter — Sound Associations by on Object — Imaging — Projection Method. Journal of Learning Disabilities 8, 6: 349–353. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221947500800602

21. Monika Kast, Martin Meyer, Christian Vögeli, Markus Gross, and Lutz Jäncke. 2007. Computer-based multisensory learning in children with developmental dyslexia. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 25, 3-4: 355–369.

22. Kathleen Kelly and Sylvia Phillips. 2011. Teaching Literacy to Learners with Dyslexia: A Multi-sensory Approach. SAGE.

23. Heikki Lyytinen, Miia Ronimus, Anne Alanko, Anna-Maija Poikkeus, and Maria Taanila. 2007. Early identification of dyslexia and the use of computer game-based practice to support reading acquisition. Nordic Psychology 59, 2: 109–126. http://doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.59.2.109

24. Paul Marshall. 2007. Do Tangible Interfaces Enhance Learning? Proceedings of the 1st International

111

Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, ACM, 163–170. http://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004

25. Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, and Alan S. Kaufman. 2011. Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA. Retrieved January 21, 2016 from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10500934

26. James Minogue and M. Gail Jones. 2006. Haptics in Education: Exploring an Untapped Sensory Modality. Review of Educational Research 76, 3: 317–348. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003317

27. D. Mioduser, H. Tur-Kaspa, and I. Leitner. 2000. The learning value of computer-based instruction of early reading skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 16, 1: 54–63. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00115.x

28. Roderick Nicolson, Angela Fawcett, and Margaret Nicolson. 2000. Evaluation of a computer-based reading intervention in infant and junior schools. Journal of Research in Reading 23, 2: 194–209. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00114

29. Sumit Pandey and Swati Srivastava. 2011. Tiblo: A Tangible Learning Aid for Children with Dyslexia. Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design, ACM, 211–220. http://doi.org/10.1145/2079216.2079247

30. Sumit Pandey and Swati Srivastava. 2011. SpellBound: A Tangible Spelling Aid for the Dyslexic Child. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, ACM, 101–104. http://doi.org/10.1145/2407796.2407813

31. Dessislava Peeva, Bridget Baird, Ozgur Izmirli, and Donald Blevins. 2004. Haptic and sound correlations: Pitch, Loudness and Texture. Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004. Proceedings. Eighth International Conference on, IEEE, 659–664. Retrieved September 22, 2015 from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1320212

32. Sara Price, Jennifer G. Sheridan, Taciana Pontual Falcao, and George Roussos. 2008. Towards a framework for investigating tangible environments for learning. International Journal of Arts and Technology 1, 3-4: 351–368. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2008.022367

33. Angela M. Puccini, Marisa Puccini, and Angela Chang. 2013. Acquiring Educational Access for Neurodiverse Learners Through Multisensory Design Principles. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, 455–458. http://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485848

34. Gavin Reid. 2013. Dyslexia: A Practitioner’s Handbook. John Wiley & Sons.

35. Kristen D. Ritchey and Jennifer L. Goeke. 2006. Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-Based Reading Instruction: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Special Education 40, 3: 171–183. http://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030501

36. Jinsil Hwaryoung Seo, Janelle Arita, Sharon Chu, Francis Quek, and Stephen Aldriedge. 2015. Material Significance of Tangibles for Young Children. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, ACM, 53–56. http://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680583

37. Ehud Sharlin, Benjamin Watson, Yoshifumi Kitamura, Fumio Kishino, and Yuichi Itoh. 2004. On Tangible User Interfaces, Humans and Spatiality. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 8, 5: 338–346. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0296-5

38. R. J. W. Sluis, I. Weevers, C. H. G. J. van Schijndel, L. Kolos-Mazuryk, S. Fitrianie, and J. B. O. S. Martens. 2004. Read-It: Five-to-seven-year-old Children Learn to Read in a Tabletop Environment. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Interaction Design and Children: Building a Community, ACM, 73–80. http://doi.org/10.1145/1017833.1017843

39. Margaret J. Snowling and Joy Stackhouse. 2013. Dyslexia, Speech and Language: A Practitioner’s Handbook. John Wiley & Sons.

40. Erik Stolterman and Mikael Wiberg. 2010. Concept-Driven Interaction Design Research. Human–Computer Interaction 25, 2: 95–118. http://doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586696

41. Ja-Young Sung, A. Levisohn, Ji-won Song, B. Tomassetti, and A. Mazalek. 2007. Shadow Box: an interactive learning toy for children. The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, 2007. DIGI℡ ’07, 206–208. http://doi.org/10.1109/DIGI℡.2007.43

42. Frank R. Vellutino, Jack M. Fletcher, Margaret J. Snowling, and Donna M. Scanlon. 2004. Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 1: 2–40. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x

43. Nadia Munji Zakariah, Nurul Huda, Nor ’ain Mohd Yusoff, Nadia Munji Zakariah, Nurul Huda, and Nor ’ain Mohd Yusoff. 2012. Design Factors of Learning Disabilities in Emotional Design Model for Dyslexic Learners. 1255–1261. Retrieved July 3, 2015 from /p/40911/

112