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
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 finetuned 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: Computerassisted 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
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 [email protected].
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
Emily S. Cramer
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 OrtonGillingham (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
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 graphemephoneme (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 phonicsbased (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 Program 2 , 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 practicebased 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
http://lindamoodbell.com/program/lindamood-phoneme-sequencingprogram
2
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 lettersound 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 multimodal information. These ideas are supported by dualcoding 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 lettersound 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 hardlyspeaking 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 lettersound 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-toone 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, conceptdriven 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 handson 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 situationdriven 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 LetterSound 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 pickingup 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 lettersound 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-toone 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, childled 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).
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 35 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 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
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
Current
Colour Cues
Colour Cues
CVC
Consonant blends
Consonant digraphs
Magic-e
Vowel digraphs
bet
f->fl->flag
s->sh->shop
gam->game
ea->eat
bet—>bet
f->fl->flag—>flag
s->sh->shop—>shop
gam->game—>game
e->ea->eat—>eat
R-controlled vowel
Syllable division
c->ca->car
water
c->ca->car—>car
water—>water
Table 1. Seven rule-based activities and colour-coding schemas
(black text = white LED light; grey text = LED off.
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 studentdriven 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).
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-vowelconsonant (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
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 welldesigned 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 finevs. 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.
2.
110
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
Alissa N. Antle. 2013. Research opportunities:
Embodied child–computer interaction. International
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1, 1: 30–36.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.001
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
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
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
John M. Carroll. 2003. HCI Models, Theories, and
Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science.
Morgan Kaufmann.
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
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.
Emily Sarah Cramer. 2015. A Code of Many Colours:
Rationale, Validation and Requirements for a SoundBased 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
Stanislas Dehaene. 2009. Reading in the Brain: The
New Science of How We Read. Penguin.
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
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
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 ColorCoded, Onset-Rime Decoding Intervention with FirstGrade Students at Serious Risk for Reading
Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice 24, 1: 21–32. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405826.2008.01274.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, AnnaMaija 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
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction,
ACM, 163–170.
http://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004
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?docI
D=10500934
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
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.13652729.2000.00115.x
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
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
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
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.j
sp?arnumber=1320212
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
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
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. ConceptDriven 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