Can working with a robot enhance learning

in children with intellectual disabilities?

Joseph Hedgecock1, Penny Standen1, Charlotte Beer1, David Brown2, David Stewart3 1.University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK 2.Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK 3.Oak Field School and Sports College, Wigman Road, Nottingham, UK

Why Robots? Robots shown to be effective in teaching

both typically developing and intellectually disabled children

Increases motivation and engagement – important factors in learning

BUT ◦ Small number of studies ◦ Focus mostly on autism, little research on PMLD/severe LD ◦ Wide variation in capabilities of “Robots”

The NAO Humanoid Robot Produced by Aldebaran

robotics Aesthetic appeal Programmable ◦ New behaviours ◦ “Out the box” Sitting and standing Walking Dancing Playing sound files

Capable of autonomous behaviour sequences

Aims To investigate the views of teaching staff

regarding the use of a robot ◦ What type of pupils they think might benefit from working with the robot ◦ Which learning goals they would target ◦ Which methods they would use to achieve them

To carry out a series of case studies to identify potential teaching strategies and possible outcome measures for a future evaluation.

Methods - Interviews

Semi-structured interviews conducted with all 8 participants

Audio-recordings of interviews transcribed verbatim

Transcripts read and re-read

Manual coding of transcripts

Repeated reading and refinement of transcripts and codes

Final codebook produced, containing both inductive and deductive themes

All transcripts coded according to codebook

Independent researcher calculated inter-rater reliability (71.4%)

8 Members of teaching staff recruited

Results - interviews Numerous themes found, both deductive

(i.e. expected prior to interviews) and inductive (i.e. derived from the interviews)

Broadly able to be divided into 3 categories, although some overlap: ◦ “Teacher factors” ◦ “Pupil factors” ◦ “Robot factors”

Teacher factors Motivation of the gatekeepers to work

with the robot ◦ Perceived benefit ◦ Personal interest

The importance of training gatekeepers ◦ Practicalities of using the robot ◦ Effective teaching methods ◦ Delivery of training

How individual gatekeepers’ attitudes and skills may influence the use of the robot ◦ Time commitment ◦ Perseverance

Pupil Factors “Our students aren’t like other students” ◦ Need to “tailor make” sessions ◦ Similarities

“The thing is they always surprise you”

Robot Factors The importance of “Productive learning” ◦ Threats to “Productive learning”

Empowerment The importance of accessibility Motivating and engaging students “It’s like a little person” Concerns about damage Concerns about the cost

Pilot Study methods Used information from the interviews to

guide the design Learning goals tailored to each pupil Robot controlled using “Wizard of Oz”

technique 5 pupils, 5 sessions, 3 weeks Video recorded and analysed using

Obswin for 3 factors ◦ Engagement ◦ Assistance from teacher ◦ Goal achievement

Pilot Study methods Teachers asked to complete “Engagement

Profile Scale” twice ◦ In class (standard lesson, without the robot) ◦ Looking at video of session 5 (with the robot)

This is an assessment tool developed by the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT)

Rates 7 domains of engagement on a scale of 0-4, giving a total out of 28

Specific to the activity

Pupil 1 – Age 12 Aims: To learn the meaning of symbols through

interaction with the robot To recognise there must be an order to

some actions (e.g. Must stand up before walking)

To put together sequences of up to 4 actions

Pupil 2 – Age 10 Aims: To identify numerals up to ten, and

choose the correct one using a switch

Pupil 3 – Age 11 Aims: To encourage vocalisation by repeating

what the robot says (using her own voice to increase engagement)

Pupil 4 – Age 17 Aims: To correctly steer the robot from a start point to

an end point using a Smartphone’s accelerometer as a steering wheel.

To correctly answer questions about the direction travelled

Pupil 5 – Age 9 Aims: To deliberately trigger the robot to

perform a desired behaviour To refrain from attempting to retrigger the

behaviour until the previous behaviour has finished completely.

Results A significant (p=0.04) increase in

engagement when working with the robot

Results No significant changes in engagement,

teacher assistance or goal achievement over the 5 sessions ◦ Engagement sustained ◦ Changes in difficulty?

Results Engagement profile scale correlates

closely to engagement measured by video analysis

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Eng

agem

ent

scal

e sc

ore

Per

cen

tag

e en

gag

emen

t

Pupil

% engagement (session 5)

Engagement Scale Score (Session 5)

Limitations Lack of a closely matched control Small size Short duration Limitations of video analysis measures

Conclusions Robot shown to increase engagement and

therefore learning This engagement was sustained

throughout the study Pupils able to have control using a wide

range of input devices Use of robots in education of children with

intellectual disabilities has enormous potential for the future

Future directions Further studies (longer, more participants) Refine methods Assess use in other situations (Adult

learners, medical education)