IntelliTools, developer of technologies to help struggling students, posed a key question that no one has attempted to answer for students with physical disabilities:

“How can software accurately detect mathematical automaticity?”

With the determination to get to an answer, Ed Murphy who leads strategic technology initiatives at Intellitools worked in collaboration with verteran inventor Arjan Khalsa, and researcher David Chard to learn how a product might sense that a student really knows a math fact immediately – without calculation, for example, the answer to “What is 8+5?”

If a software product like Intellitools could accurately detect automaticity, the underlying algorithms could keep students in their learning zone. Beyond the potential for delivering a vastly improved product, this collaboration spotlights an effective partnering model for vendors and researchers. The work of the Intellitools and University of Oregon partnership also resulted in the production of a more robust SBIR Phase 2 proposal.

The Intellitools Problem: Discrete and Important

The problem for the project team was uncovered in an SBIR Phase 1 project. While the Intellitools software had shown encouraging results for students who are able to use a computer mouse, it had not worked well with students who could not effectively use a mouse.

Discussing and probing further, the Intellitools / University of Oregon team found an underlying problem. The product could not distinguish failure to achieve automaticity from physical latency. Intellitools could not determine which part of the delay in answering a question came from students having difficulty in operating the switch, mouse, or other machinery or from having to switch from cognitive to physical activity, and which part of the delay came from students’ lack of automaticity, or not immediately knowing the answer to the question. This question is especially important because once automaticity is established, underlying algorithms are able to move the software to the next level of questioning or instruction.

The Intellitools / University of Oregon team formulated the discrete and important question above, making this project ideal for the short-term and focused NCTI Technology in the Works competition.

Building Trust

One of the most challenging components of the study was identifying qualified subjects to administer the Intellitools software. Murphy and Chard revisited past contacts and called upon established relationships with schools and service organizations. They asked teachers to nominate possible student candidates, but in the end, finding students who fit the criteria of having achieved automaticity with +1 addition problems proved more difficult than they had anticipated.

On Establishing Trust and Community Relationships

Murphy notes that in order to nurture a relationship with a school or service provider, you must build trust. He said, “The experts are the ones in the classroom delivering services, not the vendor.” Murphy explains that IntelliTools, Inc. relies on strong relationships with teachers and advocates who provide detailed feedback on how students perform with their tools to continually improve their product development. It is crucial that researchers and developers solicit feedback from teachers and advocates and act on it, to show that they are listening.

IntelliTools has organized its product development processes to directly support this. The product management group, which determines product requirements and features, includes both the technical support team and the quality assurance team. The knowledge gained from hundreds of technical support calls is brought directly into the product requirements and design. The requirements are then delivered to the product engineering team. The resulting product is then given back to the product management group, where it is tested against the requirements and design by the quality assurance team. This keeps the customer requirements at the center of the product development process.

Immediate Impact

The work funded through NCTI directly fed back to the design of the tool. According to Murphy, “Observations taken during administration of the software suggest that changes funded by this grant have resulted in tremendous improvements in usability for students who use switches and the IntelliKeys keyboard.” For example, the team moved from a direct select interface that required a lot of physical movement, to a scanning interface that required must less movement and could be easily configured for two-button or one-button scanning.This change makes the software accessible to a wider range of users and AT input devices.

An Eye Toward the Future

This study uncovered additional possibilities for analyzing the data from the Phase 1 SBIR project, which in turn has resulted in a much stronger Phase 2 proposal. If the Phase 2 proposal is funded, the team will connect the assessment format that the Tech in the Works grant funded with interactive instruction and concept building. There is a large research component built into the proposal which would allow for extensive efficacy testing of the resulting software.

Attempts to Answer One Question Raises Another

Because Tech in the Works provided a small grant award and a brief time period, the project was designed to maintain a tight focus. It proved difficult to find students for the study, raising another issue worth exploring in the future: Why are there so few students with physical, cognitive, and/or hearing impairments, who were familiar with using a computer, and who fit the criteria for automaticity with +1? This realization was “disturbing” to the research team and will continue to intrigue them as they work with students.

A Few Words of Advice to Future Tech in the Works Applicants

Be flexible in your timelines! When Human Subjects approvals are involved, a great deal of schedule risk is involved. You have to be willing to adapt to unexpected changes.

Be very focused about the questions that you are asking in order to achieve a manageable project with high impact within the timeframe and parameters.

Tech in the Works Strengthens the Partnership and Delivers Benefits to Both

Through the Tech in the Works grant, the relationship between vendor and researcher has been strengthened and both sides achieved important goals. As a result:

IntelliTools, Inc. has taken important steps in the design of software that can adjust instructional levels appropriately for students with physical latency, improving access for students with disabilities.

The project improved the Intellitools / University of Oregon team’s relationship. In their first meeting, an in-depth discussion exploring the problem, they determined that they would need to coordinate more closely than in previous collaborations to find a solution. The collaboration funded by NCTI facilitated that collaboration and a deeper relationship was formed between Intellitools and Dr. Chard which has resulted in a more coordinated, cohesive Phase 2 SBIR proposal.

Cameos of Featured Collaborators

DAVID CHARD, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the University of Oregon, College of Education where he serves as Associate Dean for Curriculum and Academic Programs and Major Director of Special Education. Dr. Chard’s research and teaching interests are in the instruction of early literacy and mathematics skills for students at-risk for school failure. Chard has presented nationally and internationally on effective instructional strategies for improving schools for all children. He is a member of the International Academy for Research on Learning Disabilities and the author of several children’s textbooks in mathematics and literacy.

ARJAN KHALSA was the lead inventor of IntelliKeys, the most commonly used and highly awarded computer access device of its kind. He has been Principle Investigator on federal curriculum grants through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He has reviewed SBIR proposals for both departments and has been twice given the Tibbetts Award for SBIR excellence. Arjan helped found ATA and ATIA. He is currently a board member of CoSN, contributor to CoSN’s Accessible Technologies for All Students Initiative, and member of the Heller Reports’ 2005 Industry Advisory Board.

ED MURPHY is responsible for leading strategic technology initiatives at IntelliTools. Prior to joining the company in early 2003, Ed held technology and executive management positions with Talking Fingers, Inc., Sapient Corp., and Humancode, Inc. Prior to that, Ed served as President of Presage Software Development where he developed award winning educational software and technology for 10 years. He graduated cum laude with a B.S. in Chemistry and Biology from Bridgewater State College and compiled a 3.75 GPA while earning a Graduate Certificate in Advanced Studies in Software Engineering from Harvard University.

For More Information

Visit the IntelliTools Web site.

   Visit the University of Oregon Web site.