Problems and Solutions in Researching Computer Game Assisted Dialogues for Persons with Aphasia

Ylva Backman; Viktor Gardelli; Peter Parnes

doi:10.16993/dfl.185

Problems and Solutions in Researching Computer Game Assisted Dialogues for Persons with Aphasia

Designs for Learning

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1

By: Ylva Backman , Viktor Gardelli and Peter Parnes

Open Access

|Mar 2022

Abstract

In this paper, we describe technological advances for supporting persons with aphasia in philosophical dialogues about personally relevant and contestable questions. A computer game-based application for iPads is developed and researched through Living Lab inspired workshops in order to promote the target group’s communicative participation during group argumentation. We outline some central parts of the background theory of the application and some of its main features, which are related to needs of the target group. Methodological issues connected to the design and use of Living Labs with persons with aphasia are discussed. We describe a few problems with researching development of communicative participation during group argumentation using an app assisted intervention for the target group and suggest some possible solutions.

References

Backman, Y., Gardelli, T., Gardelli, V., & Strömberg, C. (2020). Group Argumentation Development through Philosophical Dialogues for Persons with Acquired Brain Injuries. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(1), 107–123. DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1681377
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Backman, Y., Gardelli, V., & Parnes, P. (2021). Game Technologies to Assist Learning of Communication Skills in Dialogic Settings for Persons with Aphasia. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(03), 190–205. DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v16i03.17889
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Hoist, M., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach. 42nd Hawaii Int. Conf on System Sciences, USA, 2009, pp. 1–10.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brady, M. C., Kelly, H., Godwin, J., Enderby, P., & Campbell, P. (2016). Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 24(958), 314. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000425.pub4
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. OUP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K.-D., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In J. Schumacher and V. P. Niitamo (Eds.). European Living Labs – A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. pp. 1–14.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gardelli, V. (2016). To Describe, Transmit or Inquire: Ethics and technology in school. Luleå University of Technology.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gorard, S., Siddiqui, N., & See, B. H. (2015). Philosophy for Children. EEF.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, J. B., & Azios, J. H. (2020). Facilitator Behaviors Leading to Engagement and Disengagement in Aphasia Conversation Groups. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(1S), 393–411.20. DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJSLP-CAC48-18-0220
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. CUP. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840272
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Markopoulos, P., & Rauterberg, G. W. M. (2000). Living Lab: A White Paper. In IPO Annual Progress Report. pp. 53–65.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. (2017). The Most Reasonable Answer. HEP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reznitskaya, A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2021). The Argumentation Rating Tool. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106(October 2021), 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103464
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reznitskaya, A., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Oyler, J., Bourdage-Reninger, K., & Sykes, A. (2016). Using the Argumentation Rating Tool to support teacher facilitation of inquiry dialogue in elementary language arts classrooms. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007a). Collaborative philosophical enquiry for school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 271–288. DOI: 10.1348/000709906X105328
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Topping, K. J., & Trickey, S. (2007b). Impact of philosophical enquiry on school students’ interactive behaviour. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 73–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2007.03.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Trickey, S., & Topping, K. J. (2004). “Philosophy for children”: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 365–380. DOI: 10.1080/0267152042000248016
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
UNESCO. (2007). Philosophy: A school of freedom. Author.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/dfl.185 | Journal eISSN: 2001-7480

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 46 - 51

Submitted on: Aug 15, 2021

Accepted on: Feb 21, 2022

Published on: Mar 16, 2022

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Computer game technology,

philosophical dialogues,

aphasia,

special needs education,

philosophy,

digital technology

© 2022 Ylva Backman, Viktor Gardelli, Peter Parnes, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1