Implementing a Robot-Based Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial Results from Stakeholder Interviews

Hughes-Roberts, Thomas; Brown, David J.

doi:10.1109/itag.2015.18

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suggested robot activities and roles built on existing classwork (e.g., practicing turn-taking in a small group) and staff roles. Respondents' emphases on cause-and-effect and turn-taking, plus the specification that adults must be present to support robot use, echo the teacher-proposed robot learning activities in Hughes-Roberts and Brown ( 2015 ) and indicate that social skills practice with robots has wider relevance for special education populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…The “stepping stone” strategy (see also Vygotsky, 1978 ; or “social bridge” in Hughes-Roberts and Brown, 2015 ; Huijnen et al, 2016 ) assumes that children would successfully generalise skills from a robot interaction context to a human one, after sufficient practice. Yet, supporting autistic children to generalise, or transfer, their skills from the lab/intervention setting to a more real-world context is notoriously difficult (e.g., Schreibman et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings from Hughes-Roberts and Brown ( 2015 ) and Huijnen et al ( 2016 , 2017 ) suggest that many educators seem to be broadly receptive—albeit cautious—toward at least some purposes of robots in autism or special education [though see (Diep et al, 2015 ), for more negative or mixed sentiments]. Educator interviews provide a valuable starting point for understanding whether and how robots might be integrated into existing educational practices, and might transition into being teacher- (not researcher-)managed tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Although their results make some reference to autistic learners, they do not primarily focus on this group. In a larger study, Hughes-Roberts and Brown ( 2015 ) conducted interviews and focus groups with 20 teachers in special (though not autism-specific) education settings in the UK, incorporating a demonstration of a humanoid robot, NAO. Teachers stressed sustained engagement as a key indicator of success for many of their SEND pupils, and thus considered facilitating engagement as a key robot requirement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greater knowledge is needed about the utility of robot-based programmes for these particular children in their own specific, specialist contexts. Second, these and other existing studies have frequently asked educators to answer questions or discuss ideas in relation to demonstrations of existing robots (e.g., Hughes-Roberts and Brown, 2015 ; Coeckelbergh et al, 2016 ; Huijnen et al, 2016 ; as in Cheng et al, 2018 ). This approach can be useful if the goal is to generate or assess applications for those specific robots, but it is necessarily limiting with respect to discussing perceptions and applications of robots as a category of tools, or for generating novel use cases, as it primes participants to think of that specific robot when developing their ideas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Educators' Views on Using Humanoid Robots With Autistic Learners in Special Education Settings in England

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers, industry, and practitioners are increasingly interested in the potential of social robots in education for learners on the autism spectrum. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with educators in England to gain their perspectives on the potential use of humanoid robots with autistic pupils, eliciting ideas, and specific examples of potential use. Understanding educator views is essential, because they are key decision-makers for the adoption of robots and would directly facilitate future use with pupils. Educators were provided with several example images (e.g., NAO, KASPAR, Milo), but did not directly interact with robots or receive information on current technical capabilities. The goal was for educators to respond to the general concept of humanoid robots as an educational tool, rather than to focus on the existing uses or behaviour of a particular robot. Thirty-one autism education staff participated, representing a range of special education settings and age groups as well as multiple professional roles (e.g., teachers, teaching assistants, speech, and language therapists). Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts identified four themes: Engagingness of robots, Predictability and consistency, Roles of robots in autism education, and Need for children to interact with people, not robots. Although almost all interviewees were receptive toward using humanoid robots in the classroom, they were not uncritically approving. Rather, they perceived future robot use as likely posing a series of complex cost-benefit trade-offs over time. For example, they felt that a highly motivating, predictable social robot might increase children's readiness to learn in the classroom, but it could also prevent children from engaging fully with other people or activities. Educator views also assumed that skills learned with a robot would generalise, and that robots' predictability is beneficial for autistic children-claims that need further supporting evidence. These interview results offer many points of guidance to the HRI research community about how humanoid robots could meet the specific needs of autistic learners, as well as identifying issues that will need to be resolved for robots to be both acceptable and successfully deployed in special education contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%