Using a NAO humanoid robot to

enhance the learning of children

with learning disabilities Jessica Peter Roscoe

Penny Standen

Rationale for the study…

Learning disabilities affect 1-2% of the population

Delays in intellectual and social functioning,

Communication barriers

need high levels of support with activities of daily living

may have additional sensory or physical disabilities, complex health

needs or mental health difficulties

may have challenging behaviours

Rationale for the study…

Minimal research using the NAO robot with children with learning

disabilities.

The research which does exist using NAO focuses on children with

autism who have different needs than children with learning

disabilities.

“supressing a child's autistic behaviour”1

The opportunity to bypass the need for assistive technology.

Robots have captured public imagination.

Research plan

What did the teachers want the

robot to do?

To produce a behaviour that acted

as a reward

To perform behaviours that were appealing to the pupil or enjoyable in their

own right.

To do something instrumental in

achieving a learning objective.

To give commands or prompts so the pupil responds with the required behaviour

Demo for teachers

Initial interview

Classroom

engagement profile

Programming

Initial session

Four video recorded

sessions

Video analysis

Participants

Eleven students

Varying degrees of learning disabilities

P-stage one to level three of the National Curriculum

Nine male, two female

In Each Session…

Overarching goal

Encouragement/rewards

The goal was to encourage the participant to interact with

technology using micro-switches and make choices

NAO would encourage interaction by dancing to the participants

chosen song

For example…

Video example

Another example….

The goal was to teach the participant to use a joystick to control NAO

This knowledge would then hopefully help him to use his new joystick

controlled motorised wheelchair

Enable increased independence

NAO can be used with a variety of different input devices

Micro-switches

Tablets

Joysticks

Games console controllers

SSATrust engagement profile

SSATrust engagement scale Engagement

Indicators

Score

(0–4) What happened? What happened / what didn’t happen and why?

Next actions What will I do next time and why? How will I

make the activity more appealing (see Inquiry

Framework)?

Awareness

Curiosity

Investigation

Discovery

Anticipation

Initiation

Persistence

Total score NB NOW CIRCLE TOTAL SCORE ON SCALE (previous page)

Key for scoring

0 1 2 3 4

No focus Low and

minimal levels –

emerging /

fleeting

Partly sustained Mostly sustained Fully sustained

Engagement is the

single best predictor of

successful learning

Allows teachers to

focus on the child’s

engagement

Used originally to

create personalised

learning pathways

Adapted for use with

NAO

Video analysis

Goal achievement

Assistance required

Duration of engagement

Findings

Significantly more engagement when working with the robot

than when working without (using the engagement scale)

10% Increase in engagement (using video analysis)

Small decrease in assistance required by pupils throughout the

study

Small decrease in pupil attainment of goals throughout the

study

Conclusions

Higher level of engagement associated with the use of a Nao

humanoid robot

Rating scale results potentially open to bias as it was not possible to

carry them out without knowing which condition the pupil was in.

Video analysis also showed high levels of engagement and these did

not decline over time suggesting that the novelty factor of working

with a robot had not waned at least for the duration of the study.

Further research required, some evidence was non statistically

significant due to the small sample size

Acknowledgements