María Libertad Aguilar Carlos, Jaime Muñoz Arteaga, Gabriela Citlalli López Torres, José Eder Guzmán Mendoza
pp. 122 – 146, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-060-005)
Abstract
Traditional intervention models for children’s rehabilitation services do not fully integrate technology and partakers such as parents, therapists, and managers. Due to children’s particular needs and the new reality after COVID-19, it was identified as necessary to co-design an integrative model to improve these services. This research proposes a novel technological ecosystem model using a mixed approach of agile methodologies and design thinking tools by developing a digital learning ecosystem tailored to children with disabilities. The research ensures active involvement of users, fostering a user-centric design with three iterations that were carried on in practice with a Rehabilitation Center and a School for Special Needs in a case study underscoring the effectiveness with a measurement scale based on information success; in addition to health, education and service quality models that gave findings of how emphasize the potential of agile methodologies in future interventions for this vulnerable demographic population.
Keywords: Co-design, Digital Learning Ecosystem, Children with disabilities, Family with Special Needs, Agile approach.
References
1. S. A. Samadi, C. A. Biçak, N. Osman, and B. Abdalla, “Organizational Challenges in Healthcare Services Providers for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) Considering Personnel Turnover Rate,” Brain Sci, vol. 13, no. 4, Apr. (2023), doi: 10.3390/brainsci13040544.
2. A. Bjorn Thota et al., “Inclusive Interventions for Children with Disabilities An evidence and gap map from low-and middle-income countries inclusion matters,” (2022). [Online]. Available: www.unicef-irc.org
3. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, “WHO Rehabilitation need estimator,” Tutorial: Rehabilitation need estimator [Online] https://www.healthdata.org/data-tools-practices/interactive-visuals/who-rehabilitation-need-estimator.
4. D. R. Anaby et al., “Recommended practices to organize and deliver school-based services for children with disabilities: A scoping review,” Child Care Health Dev, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 15–27, Jan. (2019)
doi: 10.1111/cch.12621.
5. Dirección General de Desarrollo Curricular, “Marco Curricular y Plan de Estudios 2022 de la Educación Básica Mexicana Dirección General de Desarrollo Curricular,” (2022). Accessed: Oct. 27, 2022. [Online]. Available: sep.gob.mx/marcocurricular/docs/1_Marco_Curricular_ene2022.pdf
6. Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (SNTE), “La Nueva Escuela Mexicana,” La Nueva Escuela Mexicana. Accessed: Apr. 04, (2024). [Online]. Available: https://snte.org.mx/nem/
7. A. Sanina, E. Kutergina, and A. Balashov, “The Co-Creative approach to digital simulation games in social science education,” Comput Educ, vol. 149, May (2020), doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103813.
8. Interaction Design Foundation (IxDF), “What is Co-design.” Accessed: Apr. 12, (2024). [Online]. Available: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/codesign
9. L. T. Nguyen and K. Tuamsuk, “Digital learning ecosystem at educational institutions: A content analysis of scholarly discourse,” Cogent Education, vol. 9, no. 1. Taylor and Francis Ltd., (2022). doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2111033.
10. S. Magistretti, D. Trabucchi, S. Magistretti, and D. Trabucchi, “Agile-as-a-tool and agile-as-a-culture: a comprehensive review of agile approaches adopting contingency and configuration theories,” Review of Managerial Science, (2024) doi: 10.1007/s11846-024-00745-1.
11. E. Chibuike Daraojimba, C. Nnamdi Nwasike, A. Oluwatoyin Adegbite, C. Alex Ezeigweneme, and J. Osheyor Gidiagba, “Comprehensive review of agile methodologies in project management,” Computer Science & IT Research Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 190–218, (2024), doi: 10.51594/csitrj.v5i.717.
12. E. B. N. Sanders, Staging co-design within healthcare:lessons from practice. Edward Elgar Publishing, (2020). doi: 10.4337/9781839103438.
13. Can Child Foundation, “P4C Model.” Accessed: Apr. 04, (2024). [Online]. Available: https://www.partneringforchange.ca/what-is-p4c/model/
14. G. Pearce et al., “Co-creation of a complex, multicomponent rehabilitation intervention and feasibility trial protocol for the PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise (PULSE) study,” Pilot Feasibility Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, Dec. (2023), doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01365-4.
15. S. and C. O. United Nations Educational, “Designing Inclusive Digital Solutions and Developing Digital Skills Guidelines,” (2018). [Online]. Available: http://www.unesco.com
16. E. P. dos Santos Nunes, V. A. da Conceição Júnior, L. V. Giraldelli Santos, M. F. L. Pereira, and L. C. L. de Faria Borges, “Inclusive Toys for Rehabilitation of Children with Disability: A Systematic Review,” (2017), pp. 503–514. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58706-6_41.
17. Half Double Institute, “Co-existence between Half Double and Scrum How the Half Double Methodology (HDM 1.0) can co-exist and interact with the Scrum Framework (version 5.0, 2020) Second edition, version 2.0,” (2022).
18. H. B. Seta, T. Wati, A. Muliawati, and A. N. Hidayanto, “E-learning success model: An extention of delone & mclean is’ success model,” Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 281~291, (2018), doi: 10.11591/ijeei.v6i3.505.
19. S. Nambisan, S. A. Zahra, and Y. Luo, “Global platforms and ecosystems: Implications for international business theories,” J Int Bus Stud, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1464–1486, Dec. (2019),
doi: 10.1057/s41267-019-00262-4.
20. D. Plekhanov, H. Franke, and T. H. Netland, “Digital transformation: A review and research agenda,” European Management Journal, (2022), doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.007.
21. S. Belling, Succeeding with Agile Hybrids. Apress, (2020). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4842-6461-4.