Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Implementing a Robot-Based
Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial
Results from Stakeholder Interviews
Tom Hughes-Roberts
David...
The EduRob Project
• Examine the use of robots as a mediated learning tool in special
education
• Develop a robotic-based ...
Why Robots?
• Research suggest they can provide an engaging learning experience
for learners with special education needs ...
The problem
• Current teaching practice must first be explored in order to assess
how a robot based-pedagogy can be applie...
Methodology
• Interviews and focus groups conducted with teachers of SEN
learners in the UK.
• Interview protocol aiming t...
Current practice
• Very diverse student group – a range of learning needs that can be
very different from student to stude...
Current Practice (2)
• Need adaptable learning outcomes to the needs of the student
• For some, maintaining engagement for...
Current practice (3)
• The use of hands-on, practical teaching is favoured in order to
encourage engagement.
• Group-based...
Suggested use of the robot
So, robotic activities need to be adaptable to the learning needs of
the student while maintain...
Task 2
Activity Title: Giving sequential orders to the robot or receiving
orders from the robot.
Description: Program the ...
Task 3
Activity Title: Turn taking exercise
Description: Turn taking exercises. Playing a conversational game
with the rob...
Barriers
• Need for versatility in the robot.
• Accuracy of sensors.
• Control scheme must be accessible to teacher and st...
Further Work
• Expand the interview across partner countries
• Use findings to inform the development of the robot based
p...
Thank You
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Implementing a Robot-Based Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial Results from Stakeholder Interviews (Thomas Hughes-Roberts, David Brown)

294 views

Published on

Implementing a Robot-Based Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial Results from Stakeholder Interviews (Thomas Hughes-Roberts, David Brown)

Interactive Technologies and Games (ITAG) Conference 2015
Health, Disability and EducationDates: Thursday 22 October 2015 - Friday 23 October 2015 Location: The Council House, NG1 2DT

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Implementing a Robot-Based Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial Results from Stakeholder Interviews (Thomas Hughes-Roberts, David Brown)

  1. 1. Implementing a Robot-Based Pedagogy in the Classroom: Initial Results from Stakeholder Interviews Tom Hughes-Roberts David Brown
  2. 2. The EduRob Project • Examine the use of robots as a mediated learning tool in special education • Develop a robotic-based pedagogy for implementation within current teaching practice across 6 partner countries: UK, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Turkey. • Trial and assess the validity of the intervention through user trials.
  3. 3. Why Robots? • Research suggest they can provide an engaging learning experience for learners with special education needs (SEN). • Providing a point of interaction for social skill development. • They therefore can be a social bridge for learners who find it difficult to interact with their teachers or peers. • However, there is a need for trials within existing curriculum and for longitudinal studies of the robotic intervention.
  4. 4. The problem • Current teaching practice must first be explored in order to assess how a robot based-pedagogy can be applied within it. • How diverse are the classes that teachers tackle? • How do they approach that diversity? • How do they see a robot-based intervention being adapted to their teaching? • What are the barriers to their implementation?
  5. 5. Methodology • Interviews and focus groups conducted with teachers of SEN learners in the UK. • Interview protocol aiming to explore the current teaching practice (class, approach, learning outcomes), suggested use of the robot and the perceived barriers to adoption. • For this particular approach the NAO robot was used to encourage discussion for the suggested use of the robot. • 20 teachers were interviewed in total.
  6. 6. Current practice • Very diverse student group – a range of learning needs that can be very different from student to student. “To keep them engaged you plan activities according to their abilities; some would react better to tactile, explorations of material, textures”. “For the children who struggle more, I present the same material in a different way to keep them interested”.
  7. 7. Current Practice (2) • Need adaptable learning outcomes to the needs of the student • For some, maintaining engagement for an extended period of time is a clear success measure. “I see the session as successful if there is a high level of engagement from the children and if they would behave”. “For students who can’t write or read it is about how much engagement they have shown”. 22 October 2015 7
  8. 8. Current practice (3) • The use of hands-on, practical teaching is favoured in order to encourage engagement. • Group-based teaching utilised in order to manage larger class sizes. “Small group work based on the abilities of the student and educational targets” • Robot intervention well suited – tactile input, ability to act as a social mediator and multi-modal input to deal with range of needs. 22 October 2015 8
  9. 9. Suggested use of the robot So, robotic activities need to be adaptable to the learning needs of the student while maintaining engagement at a minimum. Activity Title: Cause and effect Description: The robot will execute certain movements , dances and say things after the students give it the command by pressing a button (in the tablet), by voice command or any other input that could trigger the robot’s action(symbols, pictures, sounds). Student Profile/Involvement: Students with low cognitive abilities, conceived as an individual activity or as a group activity where other students can observe and learn from their peers. Teacher Involvement: Facilitator. Make sure the students are engaged and leading the group. 22 October 2015 9
  10. 10. Task 2 Activity Title: Giving sequential orders to the robot or receiving orders from the robot. Description: Program the robot to give it sequential orders following a set of instructions given to them or receive sequential orders from the robot. The robot would give instructions to the children. Such as” sit down, lift your pencil”. It will progressively increase the number of instructions they have to carry out. Student Profile/Involvement: Conceived as an individual or group activity Teacher Involvement: Facilitating the activity: “Be there for support but let them interact” 22 October 2015 10
  11. 11. Task 3 Activity Title: Turn taking exercise Description: Turn taking exercises. Playing a conversational game with the robot where the student has to respect turn taking to interact successfully with the robot. Student Profile/Involvement: High functional students, students with no patience. It would also help students that have problems with clear speech and will have to make an effort to be understood by the robot. Teacher Involvement: Facilitator. Lead the interaction, modelling the interaction and then hand it over to the children. Generally, controlling problematic behaviour’s during the session. 22 October 2015 11
  12. 12. Barriers • Need for versatility in the robot. • Accuracy of sensors. • Control scheme must be accessible to teacher and student. • Pre-defined learning templates required for quick execution of scenarios 22 October 2015 12
  13. 13. Further Work • Expand the interview across partner countries • Use findings to inform the development of the robot based pedagogy including tasks and learning scenarios. • Conduct a longitudinal trial of the intervention to ascertain its effectiveness as a teaching tool in SEN learning. • Development of adaptable robotic interface.
  14. 14. Thank You

×