Virtual reality and its role in removing the barriers that turn cognitive impairments into intellectual disability

Early expectations of the contribution that virtual reality (VR) could make to education far exceeded actual applications. This was largely due to the initial immaturity of the technology and a lack of evidence base on which to base design and utilisation. While the early developments in computer based learning largely concentrated on mainstream education, leaving those with special needs behind, the potential of VR as an educational tool was exploited for those with intellectual disabilities right from the start. This paper describes the empirical evidence that has contributed to the development of educational virtual reality for those with intellectual disabilities: studies on transfer of learning from the virtual to the real world; how teachers might support those using VR; the design of virtual environments and what input/control devices best facilitate use of desktop VR. Future developments and ethical issues are also considered

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program

Include 2011 : The role of inclusive design in making social innovation happen.

Include is the biennial conference held at the RCA and hosted by the Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design. The event is directed by Jo-Anne Bichard and attracts an international delegation

Une revue systématique de la littérature sur les interfaces utilisateur intelligentes: résultats préliminaires

National audienceThe user interfaces (UIs) promote the interaction with the software system to achieve the users' goals. In this way different types of interaction are provided, such as direct manipulation, web UI or tangible interaction. These interfaces have evolved, including artificial intelligence and adaptation mechanisms to answer the evolution of the technological areas. From this evolution emerged the intelligent user interfaces (IUIs) that aim to be more effective, efficient, and natural. Considering the importance of IUI nowadays, we have performed a systematic literature review (SLR) to investigate the design trends of IUIs in the context of contemporary software systems (CSS), such as software systems based on internet of things (IoT) or dedicated to smart cities. Preliminary results show which models and technologies are most used to develop IUIs, and which application domain is mostly represented.Les interfaces utilisateur (IU) visent à favoriser l'interaction avec le système pour permettre aux utilisateurs d'atteindre leurs buts. Ainsi, différents types d'interaction sont possibles, tels que la manipulation directe, les interfaces web ou l'interaction tangible. Ces interfaces ont évolué au fil du temps, tout en intégrant des mécanismes issus de l'intelligence artificielle, tels des mécanismes d'adaptation, pour répondre à l'évolution des domaines technologiques. De cette évolution ont emergé les interfaces utilisateur intelligentes (IUI) qui visent à être efficaces et naturelles. Ainsi nous sommes en train de mener une revue systématique de la littérature pour étudier les tendances de conception des IUI dans le contexte des systèmes logiciels contemporains (SLC), tels que les systèmes basés sur l'internet des objets ou dédiés aux villes intelligentes. Les résultats préliminaires montrent quels sont les modèles et technologies les plus utilisés pour développer des IUIs, ainsi que le domaine d'application le plus représenté

An investigation into the perspectives of providers and learners on MOOC accessibility

An effective open eLearning environment should consider the target learner’s abilities, learning goals, where learning takes place, and which specific device(s) the learner uses. MOOC platforms struggle to take these factors into account and typically are not accessible, inhibiting access to environments that are intended to be open to all. A series of research initiatives are described that are intended to benefit MOOC providers in achieving greater accessibility and disabled learners to improve their lifelong learning and re-skilling. In this paper, we first outline the rationale, the research questions, and the methodology. The research approach includes interviews, online surveys and a MOOC accessibility audit; we also include factors such the risk management of the research programme and ethical considerations when conducting research with vulnerable learners. Preliminary results are presented from interviews with providers and experts and from analysis of surveys of learners. Finally, we outline the future research opportunities. This paper is framed within the context of the Doctoral Consortium organised at the TEEM'17 conference

Culture and culture change in a higher education context: what works and what doesn’t?

PUBLISHED VERSION: Organisational culture and culture change are related concepts which have their origins in organisational studies, but also have relevance to higher education and the constitution of contemporary universities. This paper first explores definitions of and approaches to organisational culture and culture change. Two specific theories are then favoured as being particularly useful when planning and undertaking change initiatives in higher education environments – these being ‘multiple cultural configurations’ and the ‘meso’ theory. Based on a literature review of thirty six studies, arguments are put forward for their wider application in higher education change contexts. In addition, a critique of more popular technical rationalist approaches for the management of change is presented