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

Abstract

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.

Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs

“…The decentralisation of education systems is a highly relevant topic in policymaking across and within countries as it can influence policies and practices of inclusive education (Agency for Special Needs and Education, 2017 [184]). Several education systems have increasingly strengthened the autonomy of school districts or schools with the aim of achieving greater efficiency and better meeting local needs (OECD, 2018 [185]).…”

“…In this respect, decentralising education systems can contribute to improving the quality of education provision and academic outcomes, while potential side effects such as local and regional inequalities and conflicting policies are carefully considered in the policy-making process (UNESCO, 2018 [186]). Thus, the effectiveness of SEN policy reforms often resides in getting the right equilibrium between centralisation and decentralisation (Agency for Special Needs and Education, 2017 [184]). For these reasons, the design of regulatory frameworks for SEN policy governance arrangements should consider the advantages and disadvantages of having more or less decentralised systems in place (Table 4.2).…”

“…Acknowledging such potential risks, solid co-ordination and monitoring across the ministries involved in the provision of services for students with SEN and sub-regional bodies need to be in place for decentralised systems to be effective and efficient (Agency for Special Needs and Education, 2017 [184]). The OECD (2018 [190]) suggests that greater school autonomy can lead to successful outcomes if backed with strong national co-ordination and accountability frameworks, well-designed school-level interventions, and positively competitive inter-school environments.…”

“…Decentralisation is a term employed to describe the shift of responsibility and decision-making power to sub-national units and schools (Agency for Special Needs and Education, 2017[184]). This involves changing the relationships between national and local authorities (schools, communities, teachers, parents and other local actors) in terms of decentralising responsibility and accountability for the management of education provision for students with SEN.…”

Understanding and facilitating predictability for engagement in learning

“…We conducted interviews and focus groups with educators in England, working in specialised settings for autistic children, to assess how they view the use of a humanoid robot in their schools -the second source 6 The third source that we use relates to a small set of interviews that we conducted with autism professionals in the Netherlands and Serbia to assess their needs for monitoring and reporting the progression of autistic children (Schadenberg et al, 2020a). To distinguish the second and third source from the literature found through our systematic literature search, we refer to Alcorn et al (2019) as the ALCORN ET AL. STUDY and Schadenberg et al (2020a) as the SCHADENBERG ET AL.…”