Engaging Students with Profound and Multiple Disabilities Using Humanoid Robots

Engagement is the single best predictor of successful learning for children with intellectual disabilities yet achieving engagement with pupils who have profound or multiple disabilities (PMD) presents a challenge to educators. Robots have been used to engage children with autism but are they effective with pupils whose disabilities limit their ability to control other technology? Learning objectives were identified for eleven pupils with PMD and a humanoid robot was programmed to enable teachers to use it to help pupils achieve these objectives. These changes were evaluated with a series of eleven case studies where teacher-pupil dyads were observed during four planned video recorded sessions. Engagement was rated in a classroom setting and during the last session with the robot. Video recordings were analysed for duration of engagement and teacher assistance and number of goals achieved. Rated engagement was significantly higher with the robot than in the classroom. Observations of engagement, assistance and goal achievement remained at the same level throughout the sessions suggesting no reduction in the novelty factor.

[1]  J. Johnson,et al.  Children, robotics, and education , 2003, Artificial Life and Robotics.

[2]  Luc de Witte,et al.  Evaluation of short term effects of the IROMEC robotic toy for children with developmental disabilities , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.

[3]  Aude Billard,et al.  Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? , 2005, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[4]  David J. Brown,et al.  Supporting students with learning and physical disabilities using a mobile robot platform , 2011 .

[5]  Nirbhay N. Singh,et al.  Microswitch-Based Programs for Persons with Multiple Disabilities: An Overview of Some Recent Developments , 2008, Perceptual and motor skills.

[6]  Mark F. O’Reilly,et al.  A new microswitch to enable a boy with minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation with eye blinks , 2005 .

[7]  María Fernanda Cabrera-Umpiérrez,et al.  3rd Generation accessibility: information and communication technologies towards universal access , 2014, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[8]  G. Dunlap,et al.  Effective Educational Practices for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders , 2003 .

[9]  Bradley S. Barker,et al.  Robotics as Means to Increase Achievement Scores in an Informal Learning Environment , 2007 .

[10]  Tonya N. Davis,et al.  Using iPods(®) and iPads(®) in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: a systematic review. , 2013, Research in developmental disabilities.

[11]  Liz Croot,et al.  A study to define: profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD) , 2010, Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID.

[12]  François Michaud,et al.  Going into the wild in child–robot interaction studies: issues in social robotic development , 2008, Intell. Serv. Robotics.

[13]  David J. Brown,et al.  A brain–computer interface for the Dasher alternative text entry system , 2014, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[14]  Anthony Lewis Brooks,et al.  SOUNDSCAPES: THE EVOLUTION OF A CONCEPT, APPARATUS AND METHOD WHERE LUDIC ENGAGEMENT IN VIRTUAL INTERACTIVE SPACE IS A SUPPLEMENTAL TOOL FOR THERAPEUTIC MOTIVATION , 2011 .

[15]  G E Lancioni,et al.  A microswitch for vocalization responses to foster environmental control in children with multiple disabilities. , 2001, Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR.