A

RESEARCH STUDY

INTO

USAGE OF

MICROSOFT

TABLE-TOP TECHNOLOGY

IN

TEACHING STUDENTS WITH

AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER

 CONTENTS

1. Introduction

1.1- Intro to learning disorders.

1.2- What is Autism?

1.3- What is a Table-Top?

1.4- History of Table-Top.

1.5- Features of a Table-Top.

2. Method of Analysis

2.1- Objectives

2.2- Hypothesis

2.3- Study Sample size

2.4- Data Collection Tools

2.5- Scoring

2.6- Reliability

2.7- Procedure

3. Statistical Analysis and Results

3.1-Chart figure

3.2- Discussion

4. Executive Summary

4.1- Objective

4.2- Method

4.3 - Results

4.4- Summary of Correlation

5. Limitations and Suggestions for further study

6. References
INTRODUCTION

1.1- Intro to learning disorders?

Learning disorders are neurologically-based processing maladies that

affect how a person sees, speaks, hears, understands, remembers and

responds to new information. People with learning disorders may have

these symptoms

 Listening or paying attention

 Speaking, Reading and Writing

 Doing math

 Drawing

 Remembering

1.2. What is Autism

“Autism” and Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are both general terms

for a group of complex brain development disorders. These disorders are

characterized, in varying degrees, by difficulties in social interaction,

verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive b ehaviors. Autism is

categorized into five complex, brain-based disorders that affect a

person’s behavior as well as social and communication skills. The

thinking and learning abilities of people with ASDs can vary —from

gifted to severely challenged. ASD is hereditary and starts before the age

of 3 and lasts throughout a person's life."

1.3- What is Table top technology

The latest evolution of computer are Tabletops. A computer with a large

GUI interface in the tradition of earlier terms, such as desktops , laptops

and Palmtops.

• Table top term was first used in 2001

• Tabletops are suitable as collaborative work tool with simultaneous

multi input capability

• Interfaces for Common shared orientation -free workspace and the

affordance of placing objects on th em.

• Allowing new forms of sensor input like hand movement and gesture

interaction, tangible interaction, and novel interactive visualizations.

1.4- History of Table-Top.

Table–tops evolved in the technological quest to replace the ageing single

user WIMP(Windows, Icon, Menu, Pointer) environment with a multiuser,
multi touch collaborative interactive work environment. In brief the
evolution took place in 5 stages:

DIGITALDESK- In 1992 PIERRE WELLNER built a Touch based

Augmented Desktop with Data Projection and Image Capture. It worked
with Computer Vision based finger tracking replacing the mouse and was
used to perform Engineering calculations.

ACTIVE DESK – In 1995 a new prototype of Electronic Drafting Table was developed
as part of the Ontario Telepresence Project. It consisted of back projection system and
cable assisted tracking system. This is a Hybrid interface built for the first time in
human history to integrate Human and digital worlds by using the concept of graspable
objects.
The INTERACT – Developed in 1999 it was a single touch (click to select) interactive
device with a double-mirrored rear projection system that supported 1024 x 768 pixel
display. It was used only for Marketing.

DIAMOND TOUCH- In 2001 a hybrid tangible technology device was built to assist
collaborative study by MER labs where humans can interact with the digital world
object and computer can detect and interact with human world objects. By 2009 it was
further marketed and commercialized by Circle Twelve Company.

1.5- Features of Table-Top.

1. Multi touch interactive environment to assist collaborative team work.

2. Can sense hand movement and gestures.

3. Has Multimedia and Internet capabilities.

4. Specially designed software is needed to take advantage of these features.

5. Can be used to interact with Digital world objects and vice versa.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS

2.1- Objectives of this study

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the efficiency in Table-

top technology implementation in augmenting education of children with

Autism Spectrum Disorder.

1. To study the difference in the efficient delivery of education process

of Autism students using Table –top technology

2. To analyze the difference in Teachers efficiency before and after

implementing Table-Top technology.

2.2-HYPOTHESIS

1) There will be a signi ficant difference in the delivery of education

process of Autism students before and after usage of implementation
of Table-top technology.

2) There will be a significant growth in efficiency in organizational and

Medicare sectors after the implementation of Smart healthcare cards.

2.3-STUDY SAMPLE SIZE

The sample of the present study consisted of 14 special skilled teachers .

They were taken on accidental basis. A diagrammatic representation of

the sample is given below.

TOTAL SAMPLE
(N =14)

Lady Teachers Men Teachers

(N = 7)
( N = 7)
2.4-DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

I. The data was collected using questionnaire as a research instrument.

The TOPSIS-Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal

Solution questionnaire designed by Steve Warwood and Hing Yee Tsang

(2004) was used as a research instrument to collect survey data . The

questionnaire consists of 5 items grouped into 5 critical factors. These

critical factors are as follows: (1) Increase in Teaching Efficiency. (2)

Better Operational Efficiency. (3) Improvement in Teacher student

coordination (4) Better communication with student . (5) Better

Measurement and feedback.

Scoring units:

Each item is to be rated on a 5 - point rating scale – Not important, less

important, important, very important and crucial. The following scoring

pattern was adopted:

CATEGORIES OF SCORING
RESPONSE

Not important 1

Less important 2

Important 3

Very important 4

Crucial 5
2.5-SCORING:

Each item is to be rated on a five point rating scale – Strongly Agree,

Agree, Sometimes Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. Out of 18

items 14 are “true keyed” and the rest 4 items are “false -keyed”. The

following scoring

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES SCORE

TRUE KEYED FALSE KEYED

Strongly Agree 1 5

Agree 2 4

Sometimes Agree 3 3

Disagree 4 2

Strongly Disagree 5 1

2.6- RELIABILITY:

Internal consistency of the three scales has typically been estimated by

using coefficient alpha. The number of estimates obtained for the three

scales range from a low of 20 for the before smart card implementation

segment to a high of more than 40 for after smart card implementation

segment. Median reliabilities for the before, continuance and after

implementation efficiency scales, respectively, are 0.85, 0.79 and 0.73

with few exceptions, reliabilit y estimates exceeds 0.70.

Reliability measurement:

The internal consistency of the 11 critical factors has been estimated by

using Cronbach’s alpha. It ranges from 0.62 to 0.92

2.7-PROCEDURE:

For the purpose of study, research was conducted in 2 School for

differently enabled students , half of the teachers being Ladies and the

other half being men. Teachers were administered the questionnaire

directly at the school premise. They were instructed to read the

instructions of the questionnaires carefully before they start attempting

the questions. They were also told not to leave any item unanswered.

They were assured that the information collected from them would be

kept confidential.

3. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

After doing the scoring for all the data, the following statistical

techniques were used:

‘t’ – test: This is used to determine whether there is a significant

difference before and after implementation of table top technology to

educate students with Autism .

Correlation: This is used to det ermine whether there exists a significant

improvement in relationship between student and teacher while

collaboratively working on a table top .

T ab le 3 .1 : Means, Stand ar d Deviatio ns and t -values b etween the After and

Go vernment Or ganization manager s

S.No Factors ORGANIZAT Means SDs t- value Significance

ION
1 Teaching After 23.30 1.83
8.97 < 0.01
Efficiency Before. 16.25 3.00
2 Operation After 24.50 2.16
Efficiency 11.806 < 0.01
Before. 15.650 2.56
3 Teamwork After 22.10 2.77
improvement 7.62 < 0.01
Before. 14.70 3.34
4 Teacher and After 23.85 3.36
Student co- Before. 14.60 2.58 9.7 < 0.01
ordination
5 Measurement and After 26.80 2.54
Feedback 12.5 < 0.01
Before. 16.70 2.55
12 Total efficiency After 268.45 15.92
improvement 17.67 < 0.01
Before. 177.70 16.53

3.2 DISCUSSION
The primary goal of the present study is to investigate the difference in

the efficient delivery of education process of Autism students using

Table–top technology

The second goal was to measure the improvement in teacher student

relationship when using the table top interactively.

Discussion for t-ratio values of Survey questionnaire

Table. 4.1 in the previous chapter showed means, SDs and t -values for

different dimensions of before and after implementing table top

technology. These results showed a significant consistent trend of

improvement both in teaching efficiency and student-teacher interaction.

Thus my hypothesis was ascertained by the findings of the study.

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4.1-Objective:

The main objective of present investigative study was to measure the

difference in the efficient delivery of education process of Autism

students using Table–top technology.

The second objective was to measure the improvement in teacher student

relationship when using the table top interactively.

4.2-Method:

The sample for study consisted of 14 special skilled teachers of an special

school where Table-top technology was implemented a few months back.

Out of these 14 teachers, 7 were lady teachers and the rest 7 were male

teachers. The survey data was gathered using accidental sampling method.

For the purpose of measuring opinion a TOPSIS questionnaire developed

by Steve War Wood and Hing Yee Tsan g was used.

4.3-Summary of Results

 Significant improvement in teaching efficiency by implementing Table

– top technology.

 Significantly development in teacher student co -ordination when using

interactive table top environment.

 5.LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER

STUDY

All investigative research study suffers from some limitations, because of

the limited time and resources at the hand of the researcher. From this

perspective the present study suffers from some limitations. These

limitations along with the suggestions for further study are as follows.

Firstly the study is limited only to a single school in USA- abc City. Thus

the research done was based on small section of educational organizations

hence a comprehensive study of multiple educational organizations in

other parts of the country may be carried out.

Secondly, since only 14 teachers opinion was studied, generalizations

cannot be made accurately. So a study involving a larger group of similar

special schools may be conducted.

Thirdly, on the basis of stochastic values method, we cannot fully grasp

the reality of improvement in teaching by using technology , I suggest that

in further studies, this method should also be supplemented with some

other qualitative method for a better analysis .

Lastly, in the present research study only two variables in organizational

commitment were ascertained. A further study involving other relevant

variables and parameters can also be undertaken.

 6. REFERENCES
1. APA. DSM-IV diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th edition ed.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

2. Murray D. Autism and information technology: therapy with computers. In: Powell
S, Jordan R, editors. Autism and learning: A guide to good practice. London: David
Fulton Publishers; 1997.

3. Bernard-Opitz V, Sriram N, Nakhoda-Sapuan S. Enhancing social problem solving

in children with autism and normal children through computer-assisted instruction.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2001;31(4):377-384.

4. Moore D, McGrath P, Thorpe J. Computer aided learning for people with autism a
framework for research and development. Innovations in Education and Teaching
2000;37:218 228.

5. Morris MR, Huang A, Paepcke A, Winograd T. Cooperative Gestures: Multi-User

Gestural Interactions for Co-located Groupware .ACM CHI 2006 Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems; Montreal, Canada: ACM; 2006.

6. Rogers Y, Lindley SE. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive
displays: Which way is best? Interacting with Computers. 2004;16(6):1133-1152.

7. Morris MR, Piper AM, Cassanego A, Huang A, Paepcke A, Winograd T. Mediating

Group Dynamics through Tabletop Interface Design. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications. 2006(Sept/Oct 2006):65-73.

9. Dietz PH, Leigh DL. DiamondTouch: A Multi-User Touch Technology. ACM

Symposium on User Interface Software andTechnology (UIST): ACM Press; 2001. p.
219-226.

10. Kobourov SG, Pavlou KE, Cappos J, Stepp M, Miles M, Wixted A. Collaboration
with DiamondTouch. INTERACT; 12-16September; Rome, Italy: Springer; 2005. p.
986-989.

11. Gal E, Bauminger N, Goren-Bar D, Pianesi F, Stock O, Zancanaro M, et al.

Enhancing social communication of children with high functioning autism through a
co-located interface. Artificial Intelligence & Society. 2009;24:75 84.

12. Piper AM, O'Brien E, Morris MR, Winograd T. SIDES: a cooperative tabletop
computer game for social skills development . The 20th anniversary conference on
Computer supported cooperative work; 4 8 November Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM;
2006. p. 1-10.

13. Shen C, Vernier F, Forlines C, Ringel M. DiamondSpin: an extensible toolkit for

around-the-table interaction. the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems; Vienna, Austria: ACM; 2004. p. 167-174.
14. Han JY. Low-Cost Multi-Touch Sensing through Frustrated Total Internal
Reflection . The 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User
Interface Software and Technology; Seattle,WA, USA2005. p. 115-118.

15. Battocchi A, Gal E, Ben-Sasson A, Pianesi F, Venuti P, Zancanaro M, et al.

Collaborative puzzle game - an interface for studying
collaboration and social interaction for children who are typically developed or who
have autistic spectrum disorder. In: Sharkey P,editor. The 7th International conference
series on disability, virtual reality and associated technologies (ICDVRAT); Maia,
Portugal: UNiversity of Reading, UK; 2008. p. 127-34.

16. Battocchi A, Ben-Sasson A, Esposito G, Gal E, Pianesi F, Tomasini D, et al.

Collaborative puzzle game: a tabletop interface for fostering collaborative skills in
children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Assistive Technologies.
2010;4(1):4-13.

17. Bauminger N, Gal E, Goren-Bar D, Kupersmitt J, Pianesi F, Stock O, et al.

Enhancing social communication of children with high functioning autism through a
co-located interface . The 6th International Conference on Social Intelligence Design;
July 2-4; Trento, Italy2007. p. 15-23.

18. van Veen M, de Vries A, Cnossen F. Improving Collaboration for Children with
PDD-NOS using a Serious Game with Multi-touch
Interaction . CHI NL; Leiden, the Netherland2009. p. 17-20.

19. Giusti L, Zancanaro M, Gal E, Weiss PL. Dimensions of collaboration on a tabletop

interface for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder . Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI 2011); May 7-12; Vancouver, BC, Canada: ACM Press;
2011. p. 3259-3304.

20. Weiss PL, Gal E, Eden S, Zancanaro M, Telch F. Usability of a multi-touch

tabletop surface to enhance social competence training for children with Autism
Spectrum Disorder. In: Eshet-Alkalai Y, Caspi A, Eden S, Geri N, Yair Y, editors. the
Chais conference on
instructional technologies research 2011: Learning in the technological era; Raanana:
The Open University of Israel; 2011. p. 71-77.