Robots in special education: reasons for low uptake

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the main reasons for low uptake of robots in special education (SE), obtained from an analysis of previous studies that used robots in the area, and from interviewing SE teachers about the topic. Design/methodology/approach An analysis of 18 studies that used robots in SE was performed, and the conclusions were complemented and compared with the feedback from interviewing 13 SE teachers from Spain and the UK about the reasons they believed caused the low uptake of robots in SE classrooms. Findings Five main reasons why SE schools do not normally use robots in their classrooms were identified: the inability to acquire the system due to its price or availability; its difficulty of use; the low range of activities offered; the limited ways of interaction offered; and the inability to use different robots with the same software. Originality/value Previous studies focussed on exploring the advantages of using robots to help children with autism spectrum conditions and learning disabilities. This study takes a step further and looks into the reasons why, despite the benefits shown, robots are rarely used in real-life settings after the relevant study ends. The authors also present a potential solution to the issues found: involving end users in the design and development of new systems using a user-centred design approach for all the components, including methods of interaction, learning activities and the most suitable type of robots.

Engaging Learners in Educational Robotics: Uncovering Students’ Expectations for an Ideal Robotic Platform

“…Of Relevance to Morph. Morphology [26] Abstract [43] Quadruped [38] Puppet-like and Humanoid [44] Multimodal [27] Abstract-Insect-Like [29] Abstract-Soft [35] Humanoid [45] Multimodal [21] Machine-Like, Humanoid and Cartoon-Like [46] Humanoid and Abstract [23] Wheeled [25] Wheeled [31,32] Zoomorphic-Parrot-Like [30] Toy-Like and Machine-Like [47] Abstract-DIY [48] Machine-Like [39] Humanoid, Zoomorphic and Machine-Like [49] Humanoid [50] Wheeled and Drone [33] Humanoid…”

“…The literature revealed [23,46] that educators and teachers (both conventional and Special Education) do not feel confident in using and incorporating ER in their classes or lessons. That is either because they lack prior experience or luck on the market of commercialized products that make use of a common (or identical) interface system for controlling the robots and the interactive activities, or even students (children) tend to continue what they are doing as long as it motivates and stimulates their interest; that is, they are bored easily.…”

The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review

“…Although the strong motivation of individuals with autism to use new technologies is broadly recognized, little is known concerning their participation in educational robotics (Chatzara et al 2014;Galvez Trigo et al 2019;Prummer et al 2022). More attention has been received regarding the research on social robot interventions (Papakostas et al 2021;Prummer et al 2022).…”

Teachers’ Perception for Integrating Educational Robots and Use as Teaching Assistants in Thai Primary Schools

“…The problem of interface design was difficult to use and content and activities design was not appropriate with learners either. Instructors are therefore not able to use robots to help with teaching in schools in a broad manner [11]. In the present study, the researcher developed a gamification robot combined with online lessons to support learner achievement and engagement by developing cheap and effective robots and organizing new teaching and learning trends to enhance engagement through gamification.…”