Social Robots

Diep, Lucy; Cabibihan, John-John; Wolbring, Gregor

doi:10.1145/2838944.2838983

Cited by 19 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current findings suggest that autism educators at special schools in England have notably different expectations and priorities for humanoid robots than many existing HRI research projects, though share many points of agreement with other SEND and autism educators (Hughes-Roberts and Brown, 2015; Huijnen et al, 2017; though see Diep et al, 2015) and autism specialists working with other technologies (King et al, 2017). Educators expected that if they could access humanoid robots in the future, these would be flexible tools for them and their teams.…”

Section: What Type Of Tools Are Robots? Educator Views Vs Current Rementioning

confidence: 50%

“…They expressed a willingness to find out more about them, or to try interacting with them for themselves to see what their capabilities might be. These respondents from autism education settings shared many basic perceptions of robots with both the mainstream, UK-based educators in Kennedy et al (2016), including robots as having "simplistic interactions" and being "primarily seen as a scripted, reactive machine" (p. 5), and with the Canada-based special educators in Diep et al (2015), who felt that robots might "[provide] structure and repetitiveness in a consistent fashion" (p. 2). Yet, the same qualities that our participants saw as potentially so promising for meeting the needs of autistic learners were perceived as obstacles to adoption by the Kennedy et al (2016) mainstream sample (see also Serholt et al, 2017); an illustration that "educators, " "autistic children" and "schools" are not homogenous groups and will have different needs-which need to be fully understood to inform future robotics work.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, as with other robot characteristics, human-ness and social capacity were also perceived as pedagogically important (subthemes 3D, 4A). These concerns about overly close and important social relationships with robots are diametrically opposed to some of the Canadian special educators' opinions in Diep et al (2015), where "face-to-face interaction was seen as an important task they felt the robot could not provide" and that robots "cannot perform the task of providing emotional comfort or communication" (p. 2). These divergent views may indicate both differences of opinion between groups of educators, but also views of robots shifting over time (data from Diep et al were collected from six teachers in 2012) as technology becomes more sophisticated and is increasingly publicised.…”

Section: Robots Are Novel But Not Different From Existing Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have sought teachers and professionals' views to explore implementing robots within regular educational settings (Fridin and Belokopytov, 2014;Kennedy et al, 2016;Serholt et al, 2017;Cheng et al, 2018) but only a handful have done so within special education settings. Diep et al (2015) interviewed six teachers from a Canadian school for children with multiple and complex needs about their perceptions of social robots, in relation to an anticipatory governance framework (Guston, 2014). Although their results make some reference to autistic learners, they do not primarily focus on this group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The findings from Hughes-Roberts and Brown (2015) and Huijnen et al (2016Huijnen et al ( , 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: 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: What Type Of Tools Are Robots? Educator Views Vs Current Rementioning

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Robots Are Novel But Not Different From Existing Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%