skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173892acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Speak Up: A Multi-Year Deployment of Games to Motivate Speech Therapy in India

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The ability to communicate is crucial to leading an independent life. Unfortunately, individuals from developing communities who are deaf and hard of hearing tend to encounter difficulty communicating, due to a lack of educational resources. We present findings from a two-year deployment of Speak Up, a suite of voice-powered games to motivate speech therapy, at a school for the deaf in India. Using ethnographic methods, we investigated the interplay between Speak Up and local educational practices. We found that teachers' speech therapy goals had evolved to differ from those encoded in the games, that the games influenced classroom dynamics, and that teachers had improved their computer literacy and developed creative uses for the games. We used these insights to further enhance Speak Up by creating an explicit teacher role in the games, making changes that encouraged teachers to build their computer literacy, and adding an embodied agent.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn2963.mp4

mp4

206.3 MB

References

  1. Rashid Al-Abri, Mustafa Al-Balushi, Arif Kolethekkat, Deepa Bhargava, Amna Al-Alwi, Hana Al-Bahlani, and Manal Al-Garadi. 2016. The accuracy of IOS device-based uHear as a screening tool for hearing loss: a preliminary study from the Middle East. Oman medical journal 31, 2 (2016), 142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mona A Azim, Nagwa L Badr, and Mohamed F Tolba. 2016. An Enhanced Arabic Phonemes Classification Approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Informatics and Systems. ACM, 210--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. L Bernstein, J Ferguson, and M Goldstein. 1986. Speech training devices for profoundly deaf children. In Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, IEEE International Conference on ICASSP'86., Vol. 11. IEEE, 633--636.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. David Calder. 2008. SpeechKit: a multimedia speech tool. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services. ACM, 647--650. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Madeleine Clute, Madelyn Gioffre, Poornima Kaniarasu, Aditya Kodkany, Vivek Nair, Shree Lakshmi Rao, Aveed Sheikh, Avia Weinstein, Ermine A. Teves, Mary Beatrice Dias, and M Bernardine Dias. 2016. iSTEP 2013: Development and Assessment of Assistive Technology for a School for the Blind in India. Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University-RI-TR-16--30. Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Andy Dearden. 2012. See no evil?: ethics in an interventionist ICTD. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. ACM, 46--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Compassionate Engineering. 2016a. The Braille Writing Tutor. (2016). https://compassionateengineering. wordpress.com/2016/02/26/the-braille-writing-tutor/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Compassionate Engineering. 2016b. Meet Ms. Muktha. (2016). https://compassionateengineering.wordpress. com/2016/03/03/meet-ms-muktha/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Santiago Fernández, Alex Graves, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2008. Phoneme recognition in TIMIT with BLSTM-CTC. arXiv preprint arXiv:0804.3269 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Voula C Georgopoulos. 1999. An investigation of audio-visual speech recognition as applied to multimedia speech therapy applications. In Multimedia Computing and Systems, 1999. IEEE International Conference on, Vol. 1. IEEE, 481--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. André Grossinho, Sofia Cavaco, and João Magalhães. 2014. An interactive toolset for speech therapy. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Thilina Halloluwa, Dhaval Vyas, Hakim Usoof, and KP Hewagamage. 2017. Gamification for development: a case of collaborative learning in Sri Lankan primary schools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2017), 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. iSTEPtbw. 2015a. VLOG 1: Welcome To Mathru! (2015). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASWics-VrJkGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. iSTEPtbw. 2015b. VLOG 2: Tour of the Mathru Center. (2015). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PIStgUCqWYGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Nidhi Kalra, Tom Lauwers, and M Bernardine Dias. 2007. A Braille Writing Tutor to Combat Illiteracy in Developing Communities. In AI in ICT for Development Workshop, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthew Kam, Akhil Mathur, Anuj Kumar, and John Canny. 2009. Designing digital games for rural children: a study of traditional village games in India. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 31--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Neha Kumar, Trevor Perrier, Michelle Desmond, Kiersten Israel-Ballard, Vikrant Kumar, Sudip Mahapatra, Anil Mishra, Shreya Agarwal, Rikin Gandhi, Pallavi Lal, and Richard Anderson. 2015. Projecting Health: Community-led Video Education for Maternal Health. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Maya Lassiter, Amal Nanavati, Erik Pintar, Minnar Xie, Ermine A. Teves, and M Bernardine Dias. 2016. iSTEP 2015: Cross-Cultural Technology Development Toward Language Access for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University-RI-TR-16--32. Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Shaimaa Lazem and Hussein Aly Jad. 2017. We Play We Learn: Exploring the Value of Digital Educational Games in Rural Egypt. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2782--2791. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Daniel Ling. 2002. Speech and the hearing-impaired child: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Alex Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Faheema Mahomed-Asmail, Robert H Eikelboom, Hermanus C Myburgh, James Hall III, and others. 2016. Clinical validity of hearScreenTM smartphone hearing screening for school children. Ear and hearing 37, 1 (2016), e11--e17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. James J Mahshie, Dianne Vari-Alquist, Betty Waddy-Smith, and Lynne E. Bernstein. 1988. Speech Training aids for hearing-impaired individuals: III. Preliminary observations in the clinic and children's homes. Journal of rehabilitation research and development 25, 4 (1988), 69--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Anne-Marie Mann, Uta Hinrichs, Janet C. Read, and Aaron Quigley. 2016. Facilitator, Functionary, Friend or Foe?: Studying the Role of iPads Within Learning Activities Across a School Year. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1833--1845. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. B McPherson, MMS Law, and MSM Wong. 2010. Hearing screening for school children: comparison of low-cost, computer-based and conventional audiometry. Child: care, health and development 36, 3 (2010), 323--331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jean S Moog and Karen K Stein. 2008. Teaching deaf children to talk. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 35 (2008), 133--142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Hafeni Mthoko and Caroline Khene. 2015. Assessing Outcome and Impact: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation Approach in ICT4D. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 50, 4 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Raymond S. Nickerson and Kenneth N. Stevens. 1973. Teaching speech to the deaf: Can a computer help? IEEE Transactions on audio and electroacoustics 21, 5 (1973), 445--455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Republic of India Parliament. 1995. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act. (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. World Health Organization. 2017. Deafness and hearing loss. (2017). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs300/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Becky Sue Parton, Robert Hancock, Jeff Oescher, and others. 2009. Interactive media to support language acquisition for deaf students. i-Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology 5, 1 (2009), 17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. United Nations Development Programme. 2009. Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer. (13 Oct 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Shree Lakshmi Rao, Aveed Sheikh, Avia Weinstein, Aditya Kodkany, Madeleine Clute, Madelyn Gioffre, Poornima Kaniarasu, Vivek Nair, Ermine A. Teves, Mary Beatrice Dias, and M Bernardine Dias. 2016. iSTEP 2013: Exploring the Feasibility and Suitability of Assistive Technology at the Mathru Center for Differently-Abled. Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University-RI-TR-16--31. Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadaf Abdul Rauf, Aatka Javed Butt, Aliza Zahid, Ayesha Jabeen, Abdul Rauf Siddiqi, and Hina Shafique. 2016. Urdu Language Learning Aid based on Lip Syncing and Sign Language for Hearing Impaired Children. International Journal of Computer Science & Information Security 14, 12 (2016), 478.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ovidiu Andrei Schipor, Stefan Gheorghe Pentiuc, and Maria Doina Schipor. 2012. Improving computer based speech therapy using a fuzzy expert system. Computing and Informatics 29, 2 (2012), 303--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Carnegie Mellon University Sphinx. 2017. Phoneme Recognition (caveat emptor). (2017). https://cmusphinx.github.io/wiki/phonemerecognition/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Fiona Ssozi-Mugarura, Ulrike Rivett, and Edwin Blake. 2016. Using Activity Theory to Understand Technology Use and Perception Among Rural Users in Uganda. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Rachel E Stark. 1972. Teaching/ba/and/pa/to deaf children using real-time spectral displays. Language and speech 15, 1 (1972), 14--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Chek Tien Tan, Andrew Johnston, Kirrie Ballard, Samuel Ferguson, and Dharani Perera-Schulz. 2013. sPeAK-MAN: towards popular gameplay for speech therapy. In Proceedings of The 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death. ACM, 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Chek Tien Tan, Andrew Johnston, Andrew Bluff, Samuel Ferguson, and Kirrie J Ballard. 2014. Retrogaming as visual feedback for speech therapy. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2014 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications. ACM, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Saurabh Varshney. 2016. Deafness in India. Indian Journal of Otology 22, 2 (2016), 73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Madan Vasishta, James Woodward, and Kirk Wilson. 1978. Sign language in India: regional variation within the deaf population. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, 2 (1978), 66--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Madan M Vasishta. 2011. Deaf around the World, The Impact of Language. Oxford University Press, New York, US, Chapter Social Situations and the Education of Deaf Children in India, 352--358.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Video Voice. 2017. Entertaining Games and Displays for Speech Therapy. (2017). http://www.videovoice.com/vv_fandg.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Akira Watanabe, Yuichi Ueda, and Akiyoshi Shigenaga. 1985. Color display system for connected speech to be used for the hearing impaired. IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing 33, 1 (1985), 164--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Speak Up: A Multi-Year Deployment of Games to Motivate Speech Therapy in India

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2018
          8489 pages
          ISBN:9781450356206
          DOI:10.1145/3173574

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          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 the author(s) 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].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 April 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader