Good coordination among school staff and families leads to increased learning quality and academic success for students with special education needs and disabilities (SEND). This pilot study aims to investigate the use of mobile technology for the coordination of therapy and learning for students with SEND. This study first follows a participatory design methodology to identify the key design principles required to inform the design of a coordination mobile app for special education. Then, a mobile app (IEP-Connect) is designed and implemented with the aim of facilitating information sharing between different parties involved in the intervention of students with SEND. The proposed app uses the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) as the focal point of coordination. The evaluation of the app focused on students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as their learning requires sharing information from different distributed sources. Results from the usability study revealed that the app has “good” usability and that participants were satisfied with the use of the app for recording and sharing IEP information. The results of this study provide an understanding of the ways in which a coordination app for special education could be made easy and rewarding to use.
AlbornoN. E.GaadE. (2014). “Index for Inclusion”: A framework for school review in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12073
2.
AlGhannamB. A.AlbustanS. A.Al-HassanA. A.AlbustanL. A. (2018). Towards a standard Arabic system usability scale: Psychometric evaluation using communication disorder app. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(9), 799–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1388099
3.
AmirO.GroszB. J.GajosK. Z.SwensonS. M.SandersL. M. (2015). From care plans to care coordination: Opportunities for computer support of teamwork in complex healthcare. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ‘15, 1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702320
4.
BangerterA.ManyakovN. V.LewinD.BoiceM.SkalkinA.JagannathaS.ChatterjeeM.DawsonG.GoodwinM. S.HendrenR.LeventhalB.ShicF.NessS.PandinaG. (2019). Caregiver daily reporting of symptoms in autism spectrum disorder: Observational study using web and mobile apps. JMIR Mental Health, 6(3), e11365. https://doi.org/10.2196/11365
5.
BangorA.KortumP. T.MillerJ. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
6.
BevanN.CarterJ.HarkerS. (2015). ISO 9241-11 revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998? In KurosuM. (Ed.), Human-computer interaction: Design and evaluation (pp. 143–151). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20901-2_13
7.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB.McClellandI. L.JordanP. W. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (Vol. 189(194), pp. 4–7). CRC Press.
8.
BrookeJ. (2013). SUS: A retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies, 8(2), 29–40.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research, enhanced Pearson eText with loose-leaf version—access card package (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
13.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
14.
DeLoneW. H.McLeanE. R. (2002). Information systems success revisited. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2966–2976. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2002.994345
15.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). The MIT Press.
16.
FrøkjærE.HertzumM.HornbækK. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332455
17.
GaadE. (2019). Educating learners with special needs and disabilities in the UAE: Reform and innovation. In GallagherK. (Ed.), Education in the United Arab Emirates: Innovation and Transformation (pp. 147–159). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7736-5_9
GreenbergS.BuxtonB. (2008). Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357074
20.
GrynszpanO.WeissP. L. (Tamar)Perez-DiazF.GalE. (2014). Innovative technology-based interventions for autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. Autism, 18(4), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313476767
21.
HarratiN.BouchrikaI.TariA.LadjailiaA. (2016). Exploring user satisfaction for e-learning systems via usage-based metrics and system usability scale analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.051
22.
JordanR.RobertsJ. M.HumeK. (2019). The SAGE handbook of autism and education. Sage.
23.
KamaruzamanM. F.RaniN. M.NorH. M.AzahariM. H. H. (2016). Developing user interface design application for children with autism. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 887–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.022
LewisJ. R.SauroJ. (2009). The factor structure of the system usability scale. In KurosuM. (Ed.), Human centered design (pp. 94–103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12
26.
LinsteadE.BurnsR.NguyenD.TylerD. (2016). AMP: A platform for managing and mining data in the treatment of autism spectrum disorder. In 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2545–2549. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2016.7591249
27.
LinsteadE.GermanR.DixonD.GranpeeshehD.NovackM.PowellA. (2015). An application of neural networks to predicting mastery of learning outcomes in the treatment of autism spectrum disorder. In 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 414–418. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMLA.2015.214
28.
MarambaI.ChatterjeeA.NewmanC. (2019). Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 126, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018
29.
MarcuG.TassiniK.CarlsonQ.GoodwynJ.RivkinG.SchaeferK. J.DeyA. K.KieslerS. (2013). Why do they still use paper? Understanding data collection and use in Autism education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3177–3186. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466436
MoreC. M.BarnettJ. E. H. (2014). Developing individualized IEP goals in the age of technology: Quality challenges and solutions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2013.782533
32.
MünchJ.FagerholmF.JohnsonP.PirttilahtiJ.TorkkelJ.JäarvinenJ. (2013). Creating minimum viable products in industry-academia collaborations. In FitzgeraldB.ConboyK.PowerK.ValerdiR.MorganL.StolK.-J. (Eds.), Lean enterprise software and systems (Vol. 167, pp. 137–151). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44930-7_9
SchadewitzN.JachnaT. (2007, November). Comparing inductive and deductive methodologies for design patterns identification and articulation. International Design Research Conference IADSR 2007 Emerging Trends in Design Research. http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/index.htm
35.
SharminM.HossainM. M.SahaA.DasM.MaxwellM.AhmedS. (2018). From research to practice: Informing the design of autism support smart technology. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173676
36.
SiegelL. M. (2017). The Complete IEP Guide: How to Advocate for Your Special Ed Child. Nolo.
37.
SiyamN. (2018). Special education teachers’ perceptions on using technology for communication practices. Journal for Researching Education Practice and Theory (JREPT), 1(2), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2537590
38.
SiyamN. (2019). Factors impacting special education teachers’ acceptance and actual use of technology. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2035–2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09859-y.
39.
SpencerT. D. (2013). Self-contained classroom. In VolkmarF. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders (pp. 2721–2722). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1698-3_84
40.
SpielK.FrauenbergerC.KeyesO.FitzpatrickG. (2019). Agency of autistic children in technology research—A critical literature review. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(6), 38:1–38:40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344919
41.
SpinuzziC. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2), 163–174.
42.
UAE Federal Law 29/2006 (2006).
43.
VirnesM.KärnäE.VellonenV. (2015). Review of research on children with autism spectrum disorder and the use of technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341503000102
44.
WessaP.PoelmansS.MilisK.BloemenE.DoomC. (2008). Usability and acceptance of e-learning in statistics education, based on the compendium platform. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (on Cd-Rom), 1–1. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1677121
WoodsA. D.MorrisonF. J.PalincsarA. S. (2018). Perceptions of communication practices among stakeholders in special education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 26(4), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426617733716
47.
YeeH. S. S. (2012). Mobile technology for children with autism spectrum disorder: Major trends and issues. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on E-Learning, E-Management and E-Services, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/IS3e.2012.6414954
