This study investigated whether working with a robot could enhance learning for children with intellectual disabilities. Interviews with teaching staff identified potential benefits of using robots, including increased student motivation and engagement. A pilot study was then conducted with 5 students over 5 sessions to explore potential teaching strategies. Results showed a significant increase in student engagement when working with the robot compared to typical lessons. No significant changes in engagement or goal achievement were observed across the 5 sessions, indicating engagement was sustained. The study provides initial evidence that robots may increase learning for students with intellectual disabilities and identifies directions for future research.

1. 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

2. 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”

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Methods - Interviews
8 Members of teaching staff recruited
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%)

6. 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”

7. 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

8. Pupil Factors

“Our students aren’t like other students”
◦ Need to “tailor make” sessions
◦ Similarities

“The thing is they always surprise you”

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

13. 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

15. Pupil 2 – Age 10
Aims:
 To identify numerals up to ten, and
choose the correct one using a switch

16. Pupil 3 – Age 11
Aims:
 To encourage vocalisation by repeating
what the robot says (using her own voice
to increase engagement)

17. 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

18. 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.

20. Results

A significant (p=0.04) increase in
engagement when working with the robot

21. Results

No significant changes in engagement,
teacher assistance or goal achievement
over the 5 sessions
◦ Engagement sustained
◦ Changes in difficulty?

22. Results
Engagement profile scale correlates
closely to engagement measured by video
analysis
30
100
90
70
20
60
15
50
40
30
20
10
0
% engagement (session 5)
Engagement Scale Score
(Session 5)
Pupil
10
5
0
Engagement scale score
25
80
Percentage engagement


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

24. 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

25. Future directions



Further studies (longer, more participants)
Refine methods
Assess use in other situations (Adult
learners, medical education)