Cover not available
Article published In:
Child-Robot Interaction: Design, Evaluation, and Novel Solutions
Edited by Marta Couto, Shruti Chandra, Elmira Yadollahi and Vicky Charisi
[Interaction Studies 23:2] 2022
► pp. 204–242

Co-designing a social robot in a special educational needs school

Listening to the ambitions of autistic children and their teachers

| University of Florida
| University of the West of England
| University of the West of England
| University of the West of England
| Joint Research Centre, European Commission
| The Mendip School

Social robots have the potential to support autistic school children with their wellbeing. This research reveals how a co-design approach with autistic children and their teachers was undertaken. Focus groups with autistic children and teachers collaboratively identified user requirements for the social robot and robot behaviours within the school ecosystem in order to improve student wellbeing. The results reveal the importance of including autistic children in the co-design process to ensure their voices are heard and also that the role of the robot is appropriate and targeted to the users’ needs and requirements. Autistic children and their teachers report multiple potential benefits for social robots supporting emotional wellbeing in the school. Autistic children were supportive of the introduction of a social robot in their school, mostly expressing positive attitudes towards the robot. The research is significant in revealing how a user-centred co-design approach involving autistic children and social robots may support emotional wellbeing.

Keywords: autistic children, social robot, emotion, well-being, school, co-design
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Overview
    • 1.2Autism
    • 1.3Research with autistic groups
    • 1.4Social robots and autism
    • 1.5Participatory design methodologies and social robots
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Ethics and procedures for engagement
    • 2.2Setting and participants – Autistic children’s focus group
      • 2.2.1Procedure – autistic children’s focus group
      • 2.2.2 Data collection – Autistic children’s focus group
      • 2.2.3 Data analysis – Autistic children’s focus group
    • 2.3Procedure – Teacher’s focus group
      • 2.3.1Setting and participants – Teacher’s focus group
      • 2.3.2 Data collection – Teacher’s focus group
      • 2.3.3 Data analysis – Teacher’s focus group
  • 3.Findings
    • 3.1Focus group (children)
      • 3.1.1Part 1: Transcriptions; quantitative data and themes
        • 3.1.1.1Code 1: Children’s social skills
        • 3.1.1.2Code 2: Attitudes towards pepper
        • 3.1.1.3Code 3: Speaking to Pepper
        • 3.1.1.4Code 4: Locations for Pepper in school
        • 3.1.1.5Emotional wellbeing of children
    • 3.2Part 2: Mind maps and speech bubbles
    • 3.3Focus group (teachers)
      • 3.3.1Part 1: Transcriptions of quantitative data
      • 3.3.2Part 2: Mind maps
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Implications
    • 4.2Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.21031.new
References
Alves-Oliveira, P., Arriaga, P., Paiva, A., & Hoffman, G.
(2021) Children as Robot Designers. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 399–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association Division of Research
(2013) Highlights of changes from dsm-iv to dsm-5: Somatic symptom and related disorders. Focus, 11(4), 525–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arevalo Arboleda, S., Pascher, M., Baumeister, A., Klein, B., & Gerken, J.
(2021) Reflecting upon Participatory Design in Human-Robot Collaboration for People with Motor Disabilities: Challenges and Lessons Learned from Three Multiyear Projects. The 14th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference, 147–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azenkot, S., Feng, C., & Cakmak, M.
(2016) Enabling building service robots to guide blind people a participatory design approach. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Begum, M., Serna, R. W., & Yanco, H. A.
(2016) Are Robots Ready to Deliver Autism Interventions? A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8 (2), 157–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., de Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., Neerincx, M., Baroni, I., & Zelati, M. C.
(2013) Child-Robot Interaction: Perspectives and Challenges. In G. Herrmann, M. J. Pearson, A. Lenz, P. Bremner, A. Spiers, & U. Leonards (Eds.), Social Robotics (Vol. 82391, pp. 452–459). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertel, L. B., Rasmussen, D. M., & Christiansen, E.
(2013) Robots for real: Developing a participatory design framework for implementing educational robots in real-world learning environments. In Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT 2013: 14th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 2–6, 2013, Proceedings, Part II 14 (pp. 437–444). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Björling, E., & Rose, E.
(2019) Participatory Research Principles in Human-Centered Design: Engaging Teens in the Co-Design of a Social Robot. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 3 (1), 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S. K., Lester, J. N., Sasson, N. J., & Hand, B. N.
(2021) Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood, 3(1), 18–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brady, R., Maccarrone, A., Holloway, J., Gunning, C., & Pacia, C.
(2020) Exploring Interventions Used to Teach Friendship Skills to Children and Adolescents with High-Functioning Autism: a Systematic Review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 7(4), 295–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bron, J., & Veugelers, W.
(2014) Why we need to involve our students in curriculum design: Five arguments for student voice. Curriculum and teaching dialogue, 16(1/2), 125.Google Scholar
Cascio, M. A., Weiss, J. A., & Racine, E.
(2020) Making Autism Research Inclusive by Attending to Intersectionality: A Review of the Research Ethics Literature. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
(2019) Signs and Symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 02/20/2022, from: [URL]
Conner, C. M., White, S. W., Beck, K. B., Golt, J., Smith, I. C., & Mazefsky, C. A.
(2019) Improving emotion regulation ability in autism: The Emotional Awareness and Skills Enhancement (EASE) program. Autism, 23(5), 1273–1287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danker, J., Strnadová, I., & Cumming, T. M.
(2016) School experiences of students with autism spectrum disorder within the context of student wellbeing: A review and analysis of the literature. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 59–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Darriba Frederiks, A., Octavia, J. R., Vandevelde, C., & Saldien, J.
(2019) Towards Participatory Design of Social Robots. In D. Lamas, F. Loizides, L. Nacke, H. Petrie, M. Winckler, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019 (Vol. 117471, pp. 527–535). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Druin, A.
(2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and information technology, 21(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fletcher-Watson, S., Adams, J., Brook, K., Charman, T., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Leekam, S., Milton, D., Parr, J. R., & Pellicano, E.
(2019) Making the future together: Shaping autism research through meaningful participation. Autism, 23 (4), 943–953. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galvez Trigo, M. J., Standen, P. J., & Cobb, S. V. G.
(2019) Robots in special education: Reasons for low uptake. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 13 (2), 59–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hadwin, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Howlin, P., & Hill, K.
(1997) Does Teaching Theory of Mind Have an Effect on the Ability to Develop Conversation in Children with Autism? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27 (5), 519–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E.
(2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277–1288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huijnen, C. A. G. J., Lexis, M. A. S., Jansens, R., & de 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. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47 (10), 3079–3096. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. L., Hart, L., Brown, J. T., & Volkmar, F. R.
(2018) Brief report: Self-reported academic, social, and mental health experiences of post-secondary students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(3), 643–650. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E.
(2016) Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4), 442–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. R., Šabanović, S., Chang, W.-L., Nagata, S., Piatt, J., Bennett, C., & Hakken, D.
(2017) Steps Toward Participatory Design of Social Robots: Mutual Learning with Older Adults with Depression. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 244–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loomes, R., Hull, L., & Mandy, W. P. L.
(2017) What is the male-to-female ratio in autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(6), 466–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maenner, Shaw K. A., Bakian, A. V., Bilder, D. A., Durkin, M. S., Esler, A., Furnier, S. M., Hallas, L., Hall-Lande, J., Hudson, A., Hughes, M. M., Patrick, M., Pierce, K., Poynter, J. N., Salinas, A., Shenouda, J., Vehorn, A., Warren, Z., Constantino, J. N., … Cogswell, M. E.
(2021) Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2018. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 70(11), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matson, J. L., Matson, M. L., & Rivet, T. T.
(2007) Social-Skills Treatments for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: An Overview. Behavior Modification, 31 (5), 682–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newbutt, N. A.
(2013) Exploring communication and representation of the self in a virtual world by young people with autism. University College Dublin (Ireland)Google Scholar
Newbutt, N.
(2019) Assisting people with Autism Spectrum Disorder Through technology. In A. Tatnall (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies (pp. 1–15). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özerk, K.
(2016) The Issue of Prevalence of Autism/ASD. 2 1, 44.Google Scholar
Parsons, S.
(2016) Authenticity in Virtual Reality for assessment and intervention in autism: A conceptual review. Educational Research Review, 19 1, 138–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S., Yuill, N., Good, J., & Brosnan, M.
(2020) “Whose agenda? Who knows best? Whose voice?” Co-creating a technology research roadmap with autism stakeholders. Disability & Society, 35 (2), 201–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S. & Cobb, S. P.
(2011) State-of-the-art of virtual reality technologies for children on the autism spectrum. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ., 26 (3), 355–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pellicano, L., Dinsmore, A., & Charman, T.
(2013) A Future Made Together: Shaping autism research in the UK.Google Scholar
Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D.
(1999) Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27 (3), 258–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, W. A., Kadylak, T., & Bayles, M. A.
(2021) Maximizing the Benefits of Participatory Design for Human–Robot Interaction Research With Older Adults. Human Factors, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Russell, G., Rodgers, L. R., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Ford, T.
(2014) Prevalence of Parent-Reported ASD and ADHD in the UK: Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study. J Autism Dev Disord, 101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šabanović, S.
(2010) Robots in Society, Society in Robots: Mutual Shaping of Society and Technology as a Framework for Social Robot Design. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2 (4), 439–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saleh, M. A., Hashim, H., Mohamed, N. N., & Almisreb, A. A.
(2020) Robots and autistic children: A review. 8 (3), 16.Google Scholar
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J.
(2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4 (1), 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, M.
(2013) Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination. Design Issues, 29 (2), 16–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N.
(2014) Focus groups: Theory and practice (Vol. 201). Sage publications.Google Scholar
Stimpson, N. J., Hull, L., & Mandy, W.
(2021) The association between autistic traits and mental well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(1), 287–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Termeer, C. J., Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, R.
(2019) A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice. Policy and Society, 38(2), 167–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tung, F.-W.
(2016) Child Perception of Humanoid Robot Appearance and Behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32 (6), 493–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNICEF
(2020) Policy Guidance on AI for Children, Draft for consultation, recommendations for building AI policies and systems that uphold child rights. [URL]
Varughese, T.
(2011) Social Communication Cues for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Related Conditions: How to give great greetings, pay cool compliments and have fun with friends. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Walmsley, J., Strnadová, I., & Johnson, K.
(2018) The added value of inclusive research. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31 (5), 751–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkle, K., Caleb-Solly, P., Turton, A., & Bremner, P.
(2020) Mutual Shaping in the Design of Socially Assistive Robots: A Case Study on Social Robots for Therapy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 12 (4), 847–866. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkle, K., Senft, E., & Lemaignan, S.
(2021) LEADOR: A Method for End-to-End Participatory Design of Autonomous Social Robots. ArXiv:2105.01910 [Cs]. [URL]. DOI logo