Help! How Big is That?

Toys to introduce mathematical concepts for visually impaired children.

Marta Dischinger, Professor Adjunto Departamento de Arquitetura e Urbanismo, MFA in Design, PhD in Architecture, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil

The Problem

Visually impaired children, and especially blind children, have difficulties to perceive, comprehend and to relate with their spatial environments. When pre-school children are introduced to mathematics one of their first activities is to compare amounts, forms, sizes, directions, and positions of objects in space. In the schoolbooks these activities are usually presented on a visual two-dimensional form representing familiar objects and situations.

Knowing that mathematical notions are formed from the integration of our perceptual information about the world, how can innovative design solutions support and stimulate the performance of such activities for children who cannot see? What toys and objects can we design to bring them playful opportunities to experiment and increase their own knowledge supporting the understanding of their surrounding world?

How mathematical notions can be obtained by sightless people?

According to Vygostky (1986), children's concept formation cannot be understood as a mere reproduction of verbal knowledge, or ready-made definitions. It is the perception and mental elaboration of the sensory material that gives birth to concepts. And it is the functional use of the word, or any other sign, as means of focusing one's attention, selecting distinct features and analysing and synthesizing them, that plays a central role in concept formation.

As we all perceive, and live in the world, we take for granted our abilities to understand our world and to operate in it. However, this implicit knowledge about our own capacities is not enough to support a deeper comprehension of how our senses work.. Nor is it sufficient to understand the interplay between our learning processes and our perception processes and how the latter influence our feelings and understanding.

In contrast, when we consider how to support the learning of mathematics for children who have their visual capacity severely reduced or absent this understanding emerge as fundamental. When pre-school children are introduced to mathematics their first activities are to distinguish and to compare forms, sizes, directions, positions and amounts of objects. Reflecting about how these activities are usually performed we realize that most of them involve the visual sense. However, even if more conscious of visual attributes we also employ the other senses to construct these basic notions. Spatial notions, as directions, distances and sizes which are basic to mathematical thinking, are deeply connected with our bodily position in the world and with our perception of movement and time in space.

Think about a baby playing with a rubber ball. The ball's form, weight and texture are explored by the hands. Its taste, form, finer texture and smell are further explored by the mouth and the nose. When the child throws the ball the strength that is needed, the weight of the ball, the vision of movement and distance, and the sound it makes while moving and reaching the floor, provides more information. When we, as adults, see a rubber ball, we take for granted all its other attributes, because we have already integrated our sensory knowledge about it.

The dominance of visual information is reaffirmed in almost all formal learning material produced. Mathematics books do not escape from the rule and most notions and concepts are taught and developed through activities based on visual perception only. Usually children have to select, link, mark, and count familiar objects and situations represented in two-dimensional drawings. But when vision is lacking or severely reduced none of these activities is accessible to them. To find design answers on how to support their learning we have to answer other previous questions. On which perceptual basis children can construct their mathematical notions? How can a blind child perceive and distinct forms, directions, positions and distances in space? Which senses make it possible to distinguish similarities and differences between different objects? How the perception of sizes and amounts is obtained?

Different sources of information

It is very important to consider that especially for congenitally blind persons the construction of mental representations is dependent on the extent of their bodily and spatial experience, their possibilities of receiving first hand information from the remaining perceptual systems, and on the verbal, or instrumental information, received always through mediation. There are several objects and notions that cannot be directly perceived by the blind. The sky and stars, the moon, the roofs or even the ceiling of their own houses are examples of such things.

To form mental representations of 'objects' that we cannot directly see (like the solar system) through drawings, films, maps, models, or descriptions, is a common experience of most people. However, persons who have never had access to visual information do not experience the same situation, as the concepts of 'objects' from which they cannot obtain any direct sensory information are only received through other people's conception of reality.

The Swedish psychologist, Gunnar Karlsson (1996), distinguishes three different modalities of spatial concepts' comprehension in the experience of spatiality of the congenitally blind. The first one is obtained through direct sensory experiences (comprehension in terms of image-experience). The second depends on partial sensory experiences complemented by cognitive processes (comprehension in terms of notions). And the third refers to comprehension in terms of knowledge, which is given always from another person point of view. What is very important in his proposals is that congenitally blind individuals are capable of constituting the wholeness of objects by synthesizing their different sensory impressions. However, the perception of the object context (or its 'outer horizon') will be always dependent on cognitive processes relating their previous experiences and /or knowledge obtained from other sources.

Perhaps our first impulse when designing for blind persons is to design on the basis of tactile attributes alone, the state of being blind equated to ones having eyes closed (and perceiving no visual attributes). It is subsequently assumed that blind children have to search to obtain other sensory attributes through another preferential channel, in this case 'touch'. However, this assumption disregards the fact that, as much as a normal seeing person integrates all senses to perceive, a blind child does the same.

Consequently, a deeper knowledge about visually impaired person's perception is necessary to support the investigation and reflection of the design procedures, which are necessary to use in such a complex design situation. Such a stance should be based on the understanding of how, and in which ways, information can be obtained from other attributes rather than solely from environmental visual attributes, thus affecting the way in which information itself is studied.

The senses working as perceptual systems

In 1966, James J. Gibson proposed a theory of senses based on an ecological approach. His theory can enhance the understanding of how perception of the world is possible when vision is absent, and can be used to explain the co-operative roles of the other senses in this case. One of the arguments of his theory is that perception is not based on having sensations but on detecting information from and about the world. The world where we live in is the world to be perceived and the source of all stimulation.

The perceptual systems as defined by Gibson are:

Basic Orientation system (responsible for body equilibrium and orientation - responds to forces of gravity and acceleration);
the Haptic system (responsible for perception of passive and active touch, for temperature distinction, and for distinction of ones owns movements - responds to skin thermoreceptors and deformation of tissues, joints configuration, stretching of muscles);
Visual system (responsible for the instantly and simultaneously perception of forms, depth and distance, variables of colour, and transformations in light. Vision also controls movements of objects and individuals in space, conveying information about the environment spatial layout and its changes - responds to variables of structure in ambient light);
Auditory system (responsible for listening, orienting towards sounds and detecting the nature of sounds - responds to vibratory events)
Taste/Smell system (responsible for detecting the nature of volatile and nutritive sources - responds to composition of the medium and of ingested objects.

Gibson distinguishes between two ways of obtaining information: passive and active. Passive sense impressions are independent of the observer attention or will. But, more often the individual pays attention and reacts to stimulus from the environment - we turn our head in the direction of sounds, we select information with our eyes, and we explore objects with our hands. Input information depends then on output reactions - movement, exploration, and orienting of the senses. This concept of an 'active' perception is central to our design task.

Considering Gibson's theory of the co-operation of the senses, why should the perception of the blind work differently? Understanding of the world is possible by different modalities of perception when vision is absent. But in principle, depending on the situation and the stimuli available, exploratory touch, selective listening and oriented locomotion are the main channels of getting information for the blind in a co-operative form. Without overlooking the importance of exploratory touch as basic source for the understanding of spatial forms in the absence of vision, it is possible to say that spatial understanding for blind individuals is also based on the combination of all systems. And that in a similar complex and interrelated process, as when the visual system is operating, final meaning depend on the redundancy or discrepancy between stimulus and resultant information obtained through the different senses.

Bibliographic references:

Gibson, James J. (1966), The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Karlsson, Gunnar (1996), The experience of spatiality for congenitally blind people: a phenomenological - psychological study. Human Studies 19, Kluver Academic Publishers, pp. 303-330.

Dischinger, Marta (2000), Designing for all senses: Accessible spaces for visually impaired citizens, Department of Space and Process, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.

Vygotsky, Lev (1986/1934), Tought and Language, revised and edited by Alex Kozulin, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.

Charrette Methodology

General approach:

The underlying strategy is to develop Universal Design concepts through practical design actions. As the time available is restricted, we propose a very defined design problem that should be supported by direct contact with the children and their teachers. These direct experiences plus theoretical information given during the work sessions provide a basic platform from which participants can propose innovative toys, interactive books, clothes or new learning objects.

Another important objective is to support the development of a Universal Design approach. One of the most difficult tasks when designing for impaired users is to understand the nature of their needs. At the same time, unknown situations bring with them the opportunity to search for new solutions. While creating toys for visually impaired children participants will need to understand a different process of perception and to emphasize usually disregarded design attributes and necessarily understand the problem from the user's need.

In these terms the learning strategy of the project, based on the engagement of design actions, fully meets a Universal Design perspective where all persons with their physical, mental and social differences have to be considered. The very situation of designing for the inclusion of diversity, naturally stresses for the participants the need of allying a deep understanding of the special human needs with a high standard of technical and formal quality. If the children who are our users present difficulties in perceiving, communicating, and understanding consequently the searched design has to be clear enough to be easily understood, it has to be attractive and to communicate for the difference senses, and it also has to be easily and safely manipulated.

Charrette Development:

Session 1

Morning:

A) Problem introduction developing the following subjects:

Importance of senses integration for perception and understanding of the world (based on Gibson's theory of perceptual systems);
How visually impaired and blind children can perceive meaningful information, relation between access to stimuli and action;
Body image, spatial notions, and their relation with mathematical concepts of directions, forms, dimensions and comparison between quantities.
Differences in knowledge acquisition in terms of direct experience and in terms of concepts

Technique: Power point presentation showing practical examples of interactive toys (1hour)

B) School visit where participants can meet visually impaired children and their teachers and observe their abilities and restrictions. (3 hours)

Afternoon:

C) The participants in groups of 3 or 4 members should examine different teaching and playing material to evaluate their restrictions and potentialities considering their use by blind children. Discussion and definition of a design program in each group. (2 hours)

Session 2

A) Making of models and prototypes, and drawings/ texts to present design ideas. Each group develops the ideas defined in the program through drawings, or construction of models (in paper, textiles, or other materials). The development is accompanied by the workshop leader aiming to increase knowledge about the problem through the proposed solution, the appropriateness of technical solutions and to verify how the initial program is evolving. (3 hours)

B) Exhibition, discussion and evaluation of the toys' perception, functioning and constructive/technical aspects with the participation of the children (if possible) and their teachers. (2 hours)

After the handling of the designed items each group presents the toy developing the following as:

Main objectives to attain with the project;
How the designed object fulfill the objectives considering its perception, functioning and constructive/technical aspects;
Design evolution and coherence between initial program and final results.

Suggested material: (to be offered by the organization/ or brought by participants)

Different kinds of paper and cardboards (colors, textures, resistance), textiles (different textures), glue, sewing material, different kinds of plastic/ plywood/ polyurethane boards, wood balls (different sizes), pearls (different sizes, textures), wires, etc. Each participant must bring his/hers own drawing material.

The use of wood and metal workshop should be possible.

About the Charrette Coordinator

Marta Dischinger, Architect and M.F.A in Design, Ph.D. in Architecture Associated Professor at the Department of Architecture and Urbanism, UFSC

1991/1993- HDK, Goteborg University - Study and design of rehabilitation toys and equipment for hospitalized and impaired children. "Blowing toys" produced and distributed by Laromedel, Hjalpmedelsinstitutet, Sweden.

1993/2001 - Chalmers University of Technology - Post graduation studies about spatial perception and accessibility of visually impaired children and adults. Thesis: "Designing for all senses: accessible spaces for visually impaired citizens."

1997 - Unesco Workshop, Germany, "Toys for Rehabilitation" - Design of an interactive book introducing notions of spatial directions for children with learning difficulties.

1999/2004 - "Universal Design Group," ARQ/UFSC - Coordinates with Vera Bins Ely different research and practical projects.

2000/2003 - Coordinates a cooperation project with FCEE, Special Education Foundation - architecture students developed toys for rehabilitation and inclusion. The project received the "IFI Provitae Diplom" for social design in 1991.

Top