Development of Mobile Application Prototype 'Jeninius' for Imagination and Creativity in Special Education

This study forms part of a larger research initiative focused on designing and developing a mobile application named 'JENINIUS' to facilitate teaching and learning among special education students through the cultivation of imagination and creativity. Imagination is widely recognised as the foundation for creativity, and both are considered essential competencies for students in the 21st century learning environment. However, creativity remains one of the most challenging elements to teach effectively, with difficulties arising from multiple sources including misconceptions about creativity being exclusive to certain students, and the challenges teachers face in planning lessons that foster creativity amidst demanding workloads. A significant gap exists in the development of mobile applications specifically designed to nurture creativity and imagination among students with special needs. This research addresses this gap by exploring and establishing a prototype design for mobile applications suited for special education contexts. The study involved two primary objectives: (1) identification of special education needs that can be addressed through the design and interaction enabled by mobile applications; and (2) development of a user interface and user experience prototype for a mobile application tailored to these needs. Employing the Rapid Prototyping (RP) methodology, this research progressed through five systematic phases: needs assessment and content analysis, objective setting, prototype construction, prototype utilisation, and evaluation/maintenance. Data were collected from 35 experts and practitioners in special education through focus group discussions and a 23-item online survey. The constant comparison analysis method was employed to analyse qualitative data, while descriptive statistics were used for survey responses. Findings revealed five key components pertinent to mobile application design for students with special needs: (1) consistency of colours for navigation, (2) contrasting colours to highlight importance, (3) iconography and font variants, (4) readability, and (5) positionality. Survey data showed high agreement levels (M > 4.0) for elements related to colour contrast, icon consistency, simplified language, and intuitive navigation. These findings align with existing literature on accessible user interface design while contributing new insights specific to the special education context. The research concludes with recommendations for establishing design standards for inclusive mobile applications, aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education.

special education, mobile application, user interface design, user experience, imagination, creativity, accessibility, inclusive design

1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azhar Abd. Hamid. (2004). Kreativiti: Konsep Teori & Praktis. UTM Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Beghetto, R. A. (2010). Creativity in the classroom. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 447-463). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dogan, H., & Delialioglu, O. (2020). A systematic review on use of mobile applications in special education. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 513-527. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Egan, K. (1999). Children's minds, talking rabbits and clockwork oranges: Essays on education. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gadsden, V. L. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 29-61. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Heikkinen, A. (2020). Kodinportti Mobile User Interface Usability Research and Redesign [Master's thesis, University of Oulu]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O'Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., ... & Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 147-156. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Martin, R. (2018). Developing a Complex User Interface for Mobile Data Collection Applications [Master's thesis, Ulm University]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ok, M. W., & Kim, W. (2017). Use of iPads and iPods for academic performance and engagement of PreK-12 students with disabilities: A research synthesis. Exceptionality, 25(1), 54-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Perrone, R. (2015). Integrating Fantasy Into the Creative Process. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (pp. 819-832). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Punchoojit, L., & Hongwarittorrn, N. (2017). Usability studies on mobile user interface design patterns: A systematic literature review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2017, Article 6787504, 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ribot, T. (1906). Essay on the creative imagination. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative (2nd ed.). Capstone Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Schirrmacher, R. (2002). Art and creative development for young children (4th ed.). Delmar Thomson Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sommerville, I. (2016). Software Engineering (10th ed.). Pearson Education Limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Susan, W. (2010). Understanding Creativity in Early Childhood. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood (M. E. Sharpe Inc., Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7-97. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Wei, X., & Wang, Y. (2020). Research on the application of pixel style in UI (User Interface) design. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 515, 557-559. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study