Examining engagement and achievement in learners with individual needs through robotic-based teaching sessions

Research suggests that robotics can provide an engaging learning experience for learners with special educational needs. However, further work is required to explore the impact of robots within the classroom, particularly for learners with intellectual disabilities (ID). This paper seeks to further explore the potential effects of robots on such learners through examining engagement and goal achievement within teaching sessions. Eleven participants with ID were recruited from two countries to take part in the study using an ABAB design where the participants acted as their own controls. An appropriate learning goal for each participant was selected by the teacher and equivalent control sessions designed seeking to achieve the same learning goal but without the robot. Engagement, using eye‐gaze, learning goal achievement with and without help and goals not achieved provided the outcome measures from the sessions. This study found no significant difference between the robot and the control sessions for any of the outcome measures utilized suggesting robots are as effective as teaching tools as traditional methods. Through an increased sample size and a rigorously applied experimental protocol, this study provides new data and methodological considerations for further work based on the techniques applied in this study. Practitioner NotesWhat we already know about this topic Robots can encourage engagement in the learning process for students with intellectual disabilities.There is a lack of work examining the potential use of robots within formal learning.There is a lack of work utilizing experimental protocols to study the use of robots.What this paper adds Knowledge of the impact of robots on learner engagement using eye‐gaze as an outcome measure.Knowledge of the impact of robots on goal achievement in pursuit of structured learning objectives.Knowledge of the experimental protocol and suggestions for refinement of the outcome measures in future trials.Implications for practice and/or policy Robots can be as effective as traditional teaching methods in promoting engagement in learning for students with intellectual disabilities.Robots can be as effective as traditional teaching methods in the pursuit of learning goals for students with intellectual disabilities.The effect of robots on learning appears to be variable depending on individual learner characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  S. Baron-Cohen,et al.  LEGO® Therapy and the Social Use of Language Programme: An Evaluation of Two Social Skills Interventions for Children with High Functioning Autism and Asperger Syndrome , 2008, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[2]  S. Porges,et al.  Emotion Recognition in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Relations to Eye Gaze and Autonomic State , 2010, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[3]  Lauren M. Schmitt,et al.  The Clinical Use of Robots for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Critical Review. , 2012, Research in autism spectrum disorders.

[4]  Myra A. Fernandes,et al.  Interfering with remembering and knowing: effects of divided attention at retrieval. , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[5]  Yukiko I. Nakano,et al.  Estimating user's engagement from eye-gaze behaviors in human-agent conversations , 2010, IUI '10.

[6]  Matt Tincani,et al.  Race, Culture, and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Understanding the Role of Diversity in Successful Educational Interventions , 2009 .

[7]  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.

[8]  Penny Standen,et al.  Evaluating the role of a humanoid robot to support learning in children with profound and multiple disabilities , 2014 .

[9]  Abdulkafi Albirini,et al.  Teachers' attitudes toward information and communication technologies: the case of Syrian EFL teachers , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Therapeutic and educational objectives in robot assisted play for children with autism , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[11]  C. Hatton,et al.  The adaptive behavior scale-residential and community (part I): towards the development of a short form. , 2001, Research in developmental disabilities.

[12]  Ricardo B. Duque,et al.  Digital Video as Research Practice: Methodology for the Millennium , 2005 .

[13]  B. Scassellati,et al.  Robots for use in autism research. , 2012, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[14]  Alessandro G. Di Nuovo,et al.  A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[15]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  A Cross-cultural Study: Effect of Robot Appearance and Task , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[16]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study , 2010, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[17]  Alexander Libin,et al.  Person-robot interactions from the robopsychologists' point of view: the robotic psychology and robotherapy approach , 2004, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[18]  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.

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

[20]  Björn W. Schuller,et al.  Measuring Engagement in Robot-Assisted Autism Therapy: A Cross-Cultural Study , 2017, Front. Robot. AI.

[21]  Anibal Gutierrez,et al.  Development of an ABA Autism Intervention Delivered by a Humanoid Robot , 2016, ICSR.

[22]  Andy Burton,et al.  A Comparison of Humanoid and Non-humanoid Robots in Supporting the Learning of Pupils with Severe Intellectual Disabilities , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games (ITAG).

[23]  Erkki Sutinen,et al.  Can Robots Teach? Preliminary Results on Educational Robotics in Special Education , 2006 .

[24]  Chris Lankford,et al.  Pre‐schoolers, print and storybooks: an observational study using eye movement analysis , 2005 .

[25]  David J. Brown,et al.  Engaging Students with Profound and Multiple Disabilities Using Humanoid Robots , 2014, HCI.

[26]  Adriana Tapus,et al.  Impact of sensory preferences of individuals with autism on the recognition of emotions expressed by two robots, an avatar, and a human , 2016, Autonomous Robots.

[27]  Alessandro G. Di Nuovo,et al.  Robots in Education and Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Study on Acceptance by Experienced and Future Professionals , 2016, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[28]  Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti,et al.  Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[29]  M. Scherer,et al.  Matching Person & Technology (MPT) assessment process , 2002 .