A comparative study of an assistive e-learning interface among students with and without visual and hearing impairments

References

• El Miniawi H, Brenjekjy A. Educational Technology, potentials, expectations and challenges. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2015;174:1474–1480.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar JA, Muniandy B, Yahaya WAJW. Exploring the effects of visual aesthetics in e-learning for engineering students. Knowl Manag E-Learn. 2018;10(3):250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sein-Echaluce ML, Fidalgo-Blanco Á, Alves G. Technology behaviors in education innovation. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;72(72):596–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang R, Wang XY, Li P, et al. (2016, August). Analysis on the behavior characteristics of technological innovation based on cultural perspective. In Management Science and Engineering (ICMSE), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 576–581). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Hartson HR. Human–computer interaction: interdisciplinary roots and trends. J Syst Softw. 1998;43(2):103–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo HC, Tseng YC, Yang YTC. Promoting college student’s learning motivation and creativity through a STEM interdisciplinary PBL human-computer interaction system design and development course. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2019;31:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewett TT, Baecker R, Card S, Verplank W, et al. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. New York: ACM; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Wang HC, Chiu YF. Assessing e-learning 2.0 system success. Comput Educ. 2011;57(2):1790–1800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang TH. Developing an assessment-centered e-Learning system for improving student learning effectiveness. Comput Educ. 2014;73:189–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang D. Virtual mentor and the lab system—toward building an interactive, personalized, and intelligent e-learning environment. Comput Inf. 2004;44(3):35–43.
   Google Scholar
• Sutcliffe A. 2013. Human-computer interface design. Singapore: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Moggridge B, Atkinson B. 2007. Designing Interactions (Vol. 14). Cambridge: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Lv M, Guo L. Study on optimal design of digital music player based on Human-Computer Interaction. IJSIP. 2015;8(1):135–146.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill EF, Bowser A, Preece J. Teaching and learning human-computer interaction: past, present, and future. Interactions. 2013;20(2):44–53.
   Google Scholar
• Bergman E, Johnson E. Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Adv Hum Comput Interact. 1995;5(1):87–114.
   Google Scholar
• Vidhya P, Kumari J. ICT based learning tools and its impact on students with visual Impairment. Int J Comput Sci Informa Techno Secur. 2015;5(6):396–398.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad PA, Ganaie MY. Neuroticism of Physically Challenged Viz. Visually Impaired, Hearing Impaired and Orthopedically Impaired Secondary School Students of Kashmir Division. J Pharm Altern Med. 2015;5:ISSN 2222-4807.
   Google Scholar
• Iniesto F, Rodrigo C. Strategies for improving the level of accessibility in the design of MOOC-based learning services. In Computers in Education (SIIE), 2016 International Symposium on (pp. 1–6). Piscataway: IEEE; 2016; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Nganji JT. Designing disability-aware e-learning systems: disabled students’ recommendations. Int J Adv Sci Techno. 2012;48(6):1–70.
   Google Scholar
• Tosho A, Mutalib AA, Abdul-Salam SN. Instructional design principles for developing a courseware for low vision and hearing impairment. e-Academia J. 2016;5(2):123–132.
   Google Scholar
• Orero P, Tor-Carroggio I.User requirements when designing learning e-content: interaction for all. In Designing for the User Experience in Learning Systems. (pp. 105–121). Cham: Springer; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jung Y, Lee J. Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCS). Computers & Education. 2018;122:9–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng R, Benckendorff P, Gannaway D. Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Comput Educ. 2019;129:48–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez Gordón S, Luján Mora S. Research gaps in accessibility and MOOCs: a systematic literature review 2008–2016 (dataset December 2016). 2017. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/61628
   Google Scholar
• Woo Y, Reeves TC. Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social constructivist interpretation. Internet and High Educ. 2007;10(1):15–25.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Samarraie H, Teng BK, Alzahrani AI, et al. E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students. Stud High Educ. 2018;43(11):2003–2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farhan W, Passi K. (2016, January). E-learning user interface for visual and hearing impaired students. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government (EEE) (p. 10). The Steering Committee of the World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).
   Google Scholar
• Ngubane-Mokiwa SA. Accessibility strategies for making MOOCs for people with visual impairments: A Universal Design for Learning (UDL) perspective. Proceedings of 8th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open Learning (PCF8); Commonwealth of Learning (COL) and Open University Malaysia (OUM). 2016. p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kurt S. Moving toward a universally accessible web: web accessibility and education. Assist Technol. 2019;31(4):199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berners-Lee T. 2013. The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Disponible en; [cited 2020 June 24]. Available from: http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility.
   Google Scholar
• Lange B, Koenig S, Chang CY, et al. Designing informed game-based rehabilitation tasks leveraging advances in virtual reality. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1863–1870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin NA, Martin R. Would you watch it? Creating effective and engaging video tutorials. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning. 2015;9(1–2):40–56.
   Google Scholar
• Rivas-Costa C, Anido-Rifón L, Fernández-Iglesias MJ, et al. An accessible platform for people with disabilities. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 2014;30(6):480–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossland MD, S. Silva R, Macedo AF. Smartphone, tablet computer and e‐reader use by people with vision impairment. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):552–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haage A, Bosse IK. Media use of persons with disabilities. In International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 419–435). Cham: Springer; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Pino A. Free assistive technology software for persons with motor disabilities. In Open source technology: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 462–505). Pennsylvania: IGI Global; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Mates BT. 2011. Assistive technologies in the library. Chicago: American Library Association.
   Google Scholar
• Jang Y, Song C, Chung SP, et al. (2014, November). A11y attacks: exploiting accessibility in operating systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (p. 103–115).
   Google Scholar
• Petrovčič A, Taipale S, Rogelj A, et al. Design of mobile phones for older adults: an empirical analysis of design guidelines and checklists for feature phones and smartphones. Int J Hum–Comput Int. 2018;34(3):251–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicente MR, Lopez AJ. A multidimensional analysis of the disability digital divide: some evidence for Internet use. Inf Soc. 2010;26(1):48–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fichten CS, Asuncion JV, Barile M, et al. Access to educational and instructional computer technologies for post‐secondary students with disabilities: lessons from three empirical studies. J Educ Media. 2000;25(3):179–201.
   Google Scholar
• Envision AI. Blind and visually impaired. Quest. 2019;15(4):17.
   Google Scholar
• Susanto S, Nanda DS. Teaching and learning English for visually impaired students: an ethnographic case study. Eng Rev: J Eng Educ. 2018;7(1):83–92.
   Google Scholar
• da Paixão Silva LF, de Faria Oliveira O, Freire ERCG, et al. (2017, October). How much effort is necessary for blind users to read web-based mathematical formulae? A comparison using task models with different screen readers. In Proceedings of the XVI Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 1–10).
   Google Scholar
• Aberdeen L, Fereiro D. Communicating with assistive listening devices and age-related hearing loss: perceptions of older Australians. Contemp Nurse. 2014;47(1–2):119–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanin J, Rance G. Functional hearing in the classroom: assistive listening devices for students with hearing impairment in a mainstream school setting. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(12):723–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perera Y, Jayalath N, Tissera S, et al. (2017, December). Intelligent mobile assistant for hearing impairers to interact with the society in Sinhala language. In 2017 11th International Conference on Software, Knowledge, Information Management and Applications (SKIMA) (pp. 1–7). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Tuteja M, Dubey G. A research study on importance of testing and quality assurance in software development life cycle (SDLC) models. Int J Soft Comput Engineering. 2012;2(3):251–257.
   Google Scholar
• Mahdizadeh H, Biemans H, Mulder M. Determining factors of the use of e-learning environments by university teachers. Computers & Education. 2008;51(1):142–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Njenga JK, Fourie LCH. The myths of e-learning in higher education. Br J Educ Technol. 2010;41(2):199–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutirrez-Santiuste E, Gallego-Arrufat MJ, Simone A. Barriers in computer-mediated communication: typology and evolution over time. J E-Learn Knowl Soci. 2016;12(1):107–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BellB, Federman JE. 2013. E-Learning works-Exactly how well depends on its unique features and barriers: CAHRS ResearchLink No. 1. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University (NJ1).
   Google Scholar
• Alshuwaier FA, Almutairi WA, Areshey AM. Smart search tools using named entity recognition. In 2013 International Conference on Information Technology and Applications; 2013 Nov 16; IEEE. p. 304–311.
   Google Scholar
• Reilly JR, Vandenhouten C, Gallagher-Lepak S, et al. Faculty development for e-learning: a multi-campus community of practice (COP) approach. J Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2012;16(2):99–110.
   Google Scholar
• Cahillane M, Smy V, MacLean P. 2016. A case study of the barriers and enablers affecting teaching staff e-learning provision. In Proceedings: International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education (ICICTE), p. 168–178.
   Google Scholar
• Nganji JT, Brayshaw M. Facilitating learning resource retrieval for students with disabilities through an ontology-driven and disability-aware virtual learning environment. Int J Informa Retr Res. 2015;5(3):75–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatzara K, Karagiannidis C, Stamatis D. 2012. Emotional interaction in e-learning. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education (pp. 253–265). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds K, Becker K, Fleming J.Contemporary challenges in e-learning. In Workforce Development (pp. 269–282). Singapore: Springer; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Digión LB, Sosa M. (2011, December). Communicability and usability for the interface in e-learning. In International Conference on Advances in New Technologies, Interactive Interfaces, and Communicability (pp. 165–175). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kwofie B, Henten A. The advantages and challenges of e-learning implementation: the story of a developing nation. In WCES-2011 3rd World Conference on Education Sciences. Istabul, Turkey: Bahcesehir University; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Marzilli C, Delello J, Marmion S, et al. Faculty attitudes towards integrating technology and innovation. Int J Inf Educ Technol . 2014;3(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Güllü F, Kuusik R, Shogenov K, et al. An analysis and comparison of adoption of e-learning systems in higher education by lecturers at largest universities in Estonia and Turkey. Baltic J Modern Comput. 2016;4(3):428–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kipsoi EJ, Chang'ach JK, Sang HC. Challenges facing adoption of information communication technology (ICT) in educational management in schools in Kenya. J Sociol Res. 2012;3(1):18–28.
   Google Scholar
• Teo T, Wong SL. Modeling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. J Educ Comput Res. 2013;48(1):71–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dogan TG.Integrating field of communication to the distance education (DE): a new perspective for DE Leadership. In Identification, evaluation, and perceptions of distance education experts (pp. 17–31). Pennsylvania: IGI Global; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• El-Masri M, Tarhini A. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Education Tech Research Dev. 2017;65(3):721–765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar