Robots as Learning Material in Education of Individuals with Special Needs

Öz

As an up-to-date instructional technology, robots are increasingly finding place in learning settings. Providing students at all levels of education with the opportunity for interesting learning experiences, these tools have the same potential for individuals with special needs. This research examines studies in which robotics is used as learning materials in the education of individuals with special needs. In this scope, 25 papers addressing the use of robotics as a learning material published on ScienceDirect, Springer, ERIC, TR Index and IEEE Xplore between the years 2012 and 2021 were analyzed by using descriptive content analysis. It was found out that yield robots showed positive results as a learning material in special education settings. Studies on this topic have been seen gained momentum especially lately. The majority of the reviewed studies addressed the children/individiuals with autism, but there were also studies involving individuals with hearing and mental disability, cerebral palsy, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and Down syndrome. Lastly, it was understood that the authors of the studies usually employed humanoid robots as teaching materials, and attention was placed on skills such as social development and interaction, communication and emotional development.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Individuals with special needs
• robotic
• material

Özel Gereksinimli Bireylerin Eğitiminde Bir Öğrenme Materyali Olarak Robotlar

Öz

Robotlar, güncel bir öğretim teknolojisi olarak öğrenme ortamlarında giderek daha fazla yer bulmaktadır. Eğitimin her kademesindeki öğrencilere ilgi çekici öğrenme deneyimleri için fırsat sunan bu araçlar, özel gereksinimli bireyler için de aynı potansiyele sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, özel gereksinimli bireylerin eğitiminde robotiğin öğrenme materyali olarak kullanıldığı çalışmalar incelenmiştir. ScienceDirect, Springer, ERIC, TR Dizin ve IEEE Xplore veri tabanlarında 2012-2021 yılları arasında yayımlanmış, öğrenme materyali olarak robotiğin kullanımını ele alan 25 makale, betimsel içerik analizi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular, robotların bir öğrenme materyali olarak özel eğitimde olumlu sonuçlar ortaya koyduğunu göstermiştir. Konuyla ilgili çalışmaların özellikle son yıllarda ivme kazandığı görülmüştür. Ağırlıklı olarak otizmli bireylerlerin katıldığı araştırmalar yapılmakla birlikte işitme ve zihinsel yetersizliği, serebral palsi, dikkat eksikliği ve hiperaktivite bozukluğu ve down sendromu olan bireyleri kapsayan çalışmalar da bulunmaktadır. İncelenen makalelerde öğretim materyali olarak genellikle insansı robotların tercih edildiği, sosyal gelişim ve etkileşim, iletişim, duygusal gelişim gibi beceriler üzerine odaklanıldığı görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Özel gereksinimli bireyler
• robotik
• materyal

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, A. (2015). Bilgisayar destekli otizm terapi sistemi tasarımı. 7 Eylül 2021 tarihinde http://www.biyoklinikder.org/TIPTEKNO15_Bildiriler/009.pdf adresinden erişildi.
2. Akdem, F. ve Akel, B. S. (2014). Otizmli bireylerin bakım verenlerinin yaşam kalitesi ve zaman yönetimini etkileyen faktörlerin incelenmesi. Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, 2(3), 121-129.
3. Alemi, M. ve Behramipur, Ş. (2019). An innovative approach of incorporating a humanoid robot into teaching EFL learners with intellectual disabilities. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(10).
4. Anzalone, S. M., Xavier, J., Boucenna, S., Billeci, L., Narzisi, A., Muratori, F., Cohenb, D. ve Chetouani, M. (2018). Quantifying patterns of joint attention during human-robot interactions: An application for autism spectrum disorder assessment. Pattern Recognition Letters, 118, 42-50.
5. Arora, M. (2008). Design and development of friction compensator algorithm for one link robot (Unpublished master’s thesis). Thapar University, Patıala.
6. Arshad, N. I., Hashim, A. S., Ariffin, M. M., Aszemi, N. M., Low, H. M. ve Norman, A. A. (2020). Robots as assistive technology tools to enhance cognitive abilities and foster valuable learning experiences among young children with autism spectrum disorder. IEEE Access, 8, 116279-116291.
7. Aslanoglou, K., Papazoglou, T. ve Karagiannidis, C. (2018). Educational robotics and down syndrome: Investigating student performance and motivation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-Exclusion (pp. 110-116).
8. Aziz, A. A., Moganan, F. F. M., Ismail, A. ve Lokman, A. M. (2015). Autistic children’s kansei responses towards humanoid-robot as teaching mediator. Procedia Computer Science, 76, 488-493. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.322

9. Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., Di Lieto, M. C. , Inguaggiato, E., Martinelli, A., Pecini, C. ve Sgandurra, G. (2019). Educational robotics in down syndrome: a feasibility study. Technology, knowledge and learning, 24(2), 315-323.
10. Bauml, B., Schmidt, F., Wimböck, T., Birbach, O., Dietrich, A., Fuchs, M. ve Eiberger, O. (2011). Catching flying balls and preparing coffee: Humanoid rollin'justin performs dynamic and sensitive tasks. 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3443-3444.
11. Behnke, S. (2008). Humanoid robot. From Fiction to Reality, 4(8), 5.
12. Berrezueta-Guzman, J., Pau, I., Martín-Ruiz, M.L. ve Máximo-Bocanegra, N. (2020). Smart-home environment to support homework activities for children. IEEE Access, 8, (160251–160267).
13. Berrezueta-Guzman, J., Pau, I., Martín-Ruiz, M. L. ve Máximo-Bocanegra, N. (2021). Assessment of a robotic assistant for supporting homework activities of children with ADHD. IEEE Access Digital Object Identifier.
14. Bharatharaj, J., Huang, L., Krägeloh, C., Elara, M. R. ve Al-Jumaily, A. (2018). Social engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder in interaction with a parrot-inspired therapeutic robot. Procedia Computer Science 133, 368–376.
15. Bilgilisoy, F. M., Toraman, N. F., Çiftçi, C. M. A., Çakır, T., Koldaş Doğan, Ş. ve Arslan, H. (2018). Effects of robotic rehabilitation on motor functions in children with cerebral palsy. 6 Eylül 2021 tarihinde http://meandrosmedicaljournal.org/archives/archive-detail/article-preview/effects-of-robotic-rehabilitation-on-motor-functio/19762 adresinden erişildi.
16. Charlop, M. H., Dennis, B., Carpenter, M. H. ve Greenberg, A. L. (2010). Teaching socially expressive behaviors to children with autism through video modeling. Education and Treatment of Children 33(3), 371-393.
17. Chevalier, P., Kompatsiari, K., Ciardo, F. ve Wykowska, A. (2020). Examining joint attention with the use of humanoid robots-A new approach to study fundamental mechanisms of social cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27 (2), 217–236.
18. Costa, S., Soares, F., Santos, C., Ferreira, M. J., Moreira, F., Pereira, A. P. ve Cunha, F. (2011). An approach to promote social and communication behaviors in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Robot based intervention. Paper presented at the 20th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Atlanta, GA. doi:10.1109/ROMAN.2011.6005244.
19. Dautenhahn, K. ve Werry, I. (2004). Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: Background, motivation and challenges. Pragmatics and Cognition, 12(1), 1-35
20. DeMatthews, D., Edwards, Jr. D. B. ve Nelson, T. (2014). Identification problems: US special education eligibility for Englisih language learners. International Journal for Educational Research, 68, 27-34. Diehl, J. J., Schmitt, L. M., Villano, M. ve Crowell, C. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in autism spectrum disorders, 6(1), 249-262.
21. Dunst, C. J., Prior, J., Hamby, D. W. ve Trivette, C. M. (2013). Influences of a socially interactive robot on the affective behavior of young children with disabilities. Social Robots Research Reports, 3, 1-10.
22. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Hamby, D. W., Prior, J. ve Derryberry, G. (2013a). Effects of child-robot interactions on the vocalization production of young children with disabilities. Social Robots Research Reports, 4, 1-10.
23. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Hamby, D. W., Prior, J. ve Derryberry, G. (2013b). Effects of a socially interactive robot on the conversational turns between parents and their young children with autism. Social Robots Research Reports, 6, 1-8.
24. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Hamby, D. W., Prior, J. ve Derryberry, G. (2013c). Vocal production of young children with disabilities during child-robot interactions. Social Robots Research Reports, 5, 1-7.
25. Erlandson, R. F. (1995). Applications of robotic/mechatronic systems in special education, rehabilitation therapy, and vocational training: A paradigm shift. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 3(1), 22-34.
26. Fridhi, A., Benzarti, F., Frihida, A. ve Amiri, H. (2018). Application of virtual reality and augmented reality in psychiatry and neuropsychology, in particular in the case of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). Neurophysiology, 50(3), 222–228.
27. Fisher, K. M., Gallegos, B. ve Bousfield, T. (2019) Students with autism spectrum disorders who participate in FIRST Robotics. Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary STEM Teaching and Learning Conference, 3, 5. doi: 10.20429/stem.2019.030105
28. Goulart C., Valadão, C., Caldeira, E. ve Bastos, T. (2019). Brain signal evaluation of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the interaction with a social robot. Biotechnology Research and Inoovation, 3, 60-68.
29. Horákowá, J. ve Kelemen, J. (2003). Čapek, Turing, von Neumann, and the 20th Century Evolution of the Concept of Machine. 7 Eylül 2021 tarihinde http://conf.uni-obuda.hu/Neumann/Kelemen.pdf adresinden erişildi.
30. Huijnen, C. A. G. J., Lexis, M. A. S. ve De Witte, L. P. (2017). Robots as new tools in therapy and education for children with autism. International Journal of Neurorehabilitation, 4(4), 1-4.
31. Huijnen, C. A. G. J., Lexis, M. A. S., Jansens, R. ve Witte, L. P. (2017). How to implement robots in interventions for children with autism? A co-creation study involving people with autism, parents and professionals. J Autism Dev Disord, 47, 3079–3096.
32. Hyon, S.-H., Hale, J. ve Cheng, G. (2007). Full-body compliant human-humanoid interaction: Balancing in the presence of unknown external forces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 23(5), 884- 898.
33. Karakosta, E., Dautenhahn, K., Syrdal, D. S., Wood, L. J. ve Robins, B. (2019). Using the humanoid robot Kaspar in a Greek school environment to support children with Autism Spectrum Condition. Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 298-317.
34. Karasar, N. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi kavramlar teknikler ilkeler. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
35. Karna-Lin, E., Pihlainen-Bednarik, K., Sutinen, E. ve Virnes, M. (2006). Can robots teach? Preliminary results on educational robotics in special education. In Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT'06), 319-321, IEEE.
36. Kashyap, A. K., Parhi, D. R., Muni, M. K. ve Pandey, K. K. (2020). A hybrid technique for path planning of humanoid robot NAO in static and dynamic terrains. Applied Soft Computing, 96, 106581.
37. Keren, G. ve Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten Social Assistive Robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 400- 412.
38. Kubilinskienė, S., Žilinskienė, I., Dagienė, V. ve Sinkevičius, V. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. Baltic journal of modern computing, 5(1), 50-69.
39. Liu, G. Z., Wu, N. W. ve Chen, Y., W. (2013). Identifying emerging trends for implementing learning technology in special education: A state-of-the-art review of selected articles published in 2008–2012. Research in Developmental Disabilities 34, 3618–3628.
40. Miguel Cruz, A., Rincón, A.M.R., Dueñas,W.R.R., Torres, D.A.Q. ve Bohórquez-Heredia, A.F. (2017). What does the literature say about using robots on children with disabilities? Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(5), 429-440, DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2017.131830.
41. Özdemir, D. ve Karaman, S. (2017). Hafif düzeyde zihinsel engelli öğrencilerin insansı robot ile etkileşimlerinin dönüt türleri açısından incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 42 (191), 109-138.
42. Özdemir, Ö. G. D., Karaman, S., Özgenel, C. ve Özbolat, A. R. (2015). Zihinsel engellilere yönelik robot destekli öğrenme ortamlarinda etkileşim alternatiflerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(1), 332-343.
43. Özdoğru, M. (2021). Özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin okul öncesi eğitiminde karşılaşılan sorunlar. Temel Eğitim, (11), 6-16.
44. Panek, P. E. ve Jungers, M. K. (2008). Effects of age, gender, and causality on perceptions of persons with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(2), 125-132.
45. Papakostas, G. A., Sidiropoulos, G. K., Papadopoulou, C. I., Vrochidou, E., Kaburlasos, V. G., Papadopoulou, M. T., Holeva, V., Nikopoulou, V.A. ve Dalivigkas, N. (2021). Social robots in special education: A systematic review. Electronics, 10(12), 1398.
46. Patterson, D. (2009). Molecular genetic analysis of Down syndrome. Hum Genet, 126(1), 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00439-009-0696-8.
47. Piranda, B., Laurent, G. J., Bourgeois, J., Clévy, C., Möbes, S. ve Le Fort-Piat, N. (2013). A new concept of planar self-reconfigurable modular robot for conveying microparts. Mechatronics, 23(7), 906-915.
48. Pivetti, M., Di Battista, S., Agatolio, F., Simaku, B., Moro, M. ve Menegatti, E. (2020). Educational Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Heliyon, 6(10), 1-11.
49. Pliasa, S. ve Fachantidis, N. (2019a). Can a robot be an efficient mediator in promoting dyadic activities among children with autism spectrum disorders and children of typical development? 9th Balkan Conference on Informatics (BCI’19). September 26–28, 2019, Sofia, Bulgaria.
50. Pliasa, S. ve Fachantidis, N. (2019b). Using Daisy robot as a motive for children with ASD to participate in triadic activities. Themes in eLearning, 12, 35-50.
51. Povian, C. M., Gurza, V. G. ve Dumitrescu, C. (2014). Special education tools, concepts and design for children in need. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 996 – 1002.
52. Raptopoulou, A., Komnidis, A., Bamidis, P. D. ve Astaras, A. (2021). Human–robot interaction for social skill development in children with ASD: A literature review. Healthcare Technology Letters.
53. Robins, B. ve Dautenhahn, K. (2014). Tactile interactions with a humanoid robot: Novel play scenario implementations withc witha. Int J of Soc Robotics, 6, (397–415).
54. Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K. ve Boekhorst, R.T. (2005). Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: Can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills? Univ Access Inf Soc 4, 105–120. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0116-3
55. Rosenbaum, P., Paneth, N., Leviton, A., Goldstein, M., Bax, M., Damiano, D., Dan, B. ve Jacobsson B. A (2007). A report: The definition and classification of cerebral palsy. 13 Temmuz 2021 tarihinde https://www.bobathterapistleri.org/resimekleme/Belge/1762019153827457.pdf adresinden erişildi.
56. Saruhan, Ş.C. ve Özdemirci, A. (2016). Bilim, felsefe ve metodoloji. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayın Dağıtım.
57. Selçuk, Z., Palancı, M., Kandemir, M. ve Dündar, H. (2014). Eğitim ve bilim dergisinde yayınlanan araştırmaların eğilimleri: İçerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(173), 430-453.
58. Serdaroglu, A., Cansu, A., Ozkan, S. ve Tezcan, S. (2006). Prevalence of cerebral palsy in Turkish children between the ages of 2 and 16 years. Dev Med Child Neurol, 48(6):413–6. doi: 10.1017/S0012162206000910.
59. Serter, S. S. ve Yıldız, S. (2021). Sosyal medya kampanyası aracılığıyla otizm farkındalığının ölçümlenmesi ve arttırılmasına yönelik bir iletişim çalışması. Selçuk İletişim, 14(4), 1844-1878.
60. Shamsuddin, S., Yussof, H., Ismail, L. I., Mohamed, S., Hanapiah, F. A. ve Zaharid, N. I. (2012a). Initial response in HRI- a case study on evaluation of child with autism spectrum disorders interacting with a humanoid robot NAO. Procedia Engineering, 41, 1448-1455.
61. Shamsuddin, S., Yussof, H., Ismail, L. I., Mohamed, S., Hanapiah, F. A. ve Zahari, N. I. (2012b). Humanoid robot NAO interacting with autistic children of moderately impaired intelligence to augment communication skills. 2nd International Symposium on Robotics)and Intelligent Sensors 2012 (IRIS 2012). 4-6 September 2012, Sarawak, Malaysia.
62. Simons, J. ve Dedroog, I. (2009). Body awareness in children with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(6), 1343-1353.
63. So, W. C., Wong, M. K. Y., Lam, W. Y., Cheng, C. H., Yang, J. H., Huang, Y., Ng, P., Wong, W. L., Ho, C. L., Yeung, K. L. ve Lee, C. C. (2018). Robot-based intervention may reduce delay in the production of intransitive gestures in Chinese-speaking preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Molecular Autism, 9, 34.
64. Şişman, B. ve Küçük, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının robotik programlamada akış, kaygı ve bilişsel yük seviyeleri. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram Ve Uygulama, 8 (2), 125-156.
65. Taheri, A., Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., PourEtemad, H. R. ve Holderread, S. (2015). Clinical application of humanoid robots in playing imitation games for autistic children in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 898 – 906.
66. Takacs, A., Eigner, G., Kovács, L., Rudas, I. J. ve Haidegger, T. (2016). Teacher’s kit: Development, usability, and communities of modular robotic kits for classroom education. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23 (2), 30-39.
67. Tarakçı, D., Emir, A., Avcıl, E. ve Tarakçı, E. (2019). Effect of robot assisted gait training on motor performance in cerebral palsy: A pilot study. J Exerc Ther Rehabil. 6(3),156- 162.
68. Thien, N. D., Terracina, A., Iocchi, L. ve Mecella, M. (2016). Robotic teaching assistance for the “tower of hanoi” problem. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 14 (1), 64-76.
69. Tlili, A., Lin, V., Chen, N.-S., Huang, R. ve Kinshuk. (2020). A systematic review on robot-assisted special education from the activity theory rerspective. Educational Technology & Society, 23 (3), 95–109.
70. Van den Heuvel, R. J., Lexis, M. A., Gelderblom, G. J., Jansens, R. M. ve de Witte, L. P. (2016). Robots and ICT to support play in children with severe physical disabilities: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(2), 103-116.
71. Wainer, J., Dautenhahn, K., Robins, B. ve Amirabdollahian, F. (2014). A pilot study with a novel setup for collaborative play of the humanoid robot KASPAR with children with Autism. Int J Soc Robot, 6, 45–65.
72. Wallard, L., Dietrich, G., Kerlirzin, Y. ve Bredin, J. (2017). Effect of robotic assisted gait rehabilitation on dynamic equilibrium control in the gait of children with cerebral palsy. Gait Posture, 60, 55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.11.007
73. Willemse, C. ve Wykowska, A. (2019). In natural interaction with embodied robots we prefer it when they follow our gaze: A gaze-contingent mobile eyetracking study. PsyArXiv preprint, 1-24. doi:https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bnmvt
74. World Health Organization (2011). World health statistics 2011. 10 Temmuz 2021 tarihinde https://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/EN_WHS2011_Full.pdf adresinden erişildi.
75. Yaman, Y. ve Şişman, B. (2018). Robot assistants in education of children with autism: Interaction between the robot and the child. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 2148-7510.
76. Yazıcı, M., Livanelioğlu, A., Gücüyener, K., Sümer, E. ve Yakut, Y. (2017). An investigation of the effects of robotic gait training on gait in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy. J Exerc Ther Rehabil. 4(1), 1-8.
77. Yener, İ. ve Geçer, E. (2021). Televizyon dizileri, toplumsal farkındalık ve otizm:“Mucize Doktor” dizisi örneği. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 16(1), 146-162.
78. Zaraki, A., Khamassi, M., Wood, L. J., Lakatos, G., Tzafestas, C., Amirabdollahian, F., Robins, B. ve Dautenhahn, K. (2019). A Novel reinforcement-based paradigm for children to teach the humanoid Kaspar robot. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12, 709–720.
79. Zhang, Y., Song, W., Tan, Z., Zhu, H., Wang, Y., Lam, C. M., Weng, Y., Hoi, S. P., Lu, H., Chan, B. S. M., Chen, J. ve Yi, C. Y. (2019). Could social robots facilitate children with autism spectrum disorders in learning distrust and deception? Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 140-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.008.