| How children's individual needs challenge the design of educational robotics |
| Full text |
Pdf
(2.88 MB)
|
| Source
|
Interaction Design and Children
archive
Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children
table of contents
Chicago, Illinois
Pages 274-281
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-59593-994-4
|
|
Authors
|
|
| Publisher |
|
| Bibliometrics |
Downloads (6 Weeks): 23, Downloads (12 Months): 145, Citation Count: 0
|
|
|
ABSTRACT
Educational robotics has the potential for improving special needs education and for eliminating barriers to learning if it can be focused squarely on the special needs of children. This case study examines a variety of special needs that have the potential to enrich educational robotic design. Educational robotics should be used to meet the individual needs of children and to expose them to the possibilities of various forms of self-expression and exploration. It should facilitate advanced hands-on programming, increase the rate of two-directional communication between child and robot, and improve the quality of instruction and intervention. We designed this study as a qualitative action research project with eight special needs education children who worked with LEGO® Mindstorms® NXT and Topobo robots over a nine-month period. The research convinced us that properly adapted educational robotics can be suited to a variety of users who have different individual needs.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories and methods. United States of America: Pearson.
|
| |
2
|
Kutscher, M. L. (2006). Kids in the syndrome mix of ADHD, LD, Asperger's, Tourette's, bipolar, and more!: the one stop guide for parents, teachers, and other professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley.
|
| |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
LEGO. http://mindstorms.lego.com/
|
| |
5
|
Legoff, D. B., and Sherman, M. (2006). Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive LEGO© play. Autism, 10 (4), 317--329.
|
| |
6
|
Lund, H. H., and Marti, P. (2005). Designing manipulative technologies for children with different abilities. Artificial Life and Robotics, 9, 175--187.
|
| |
7
|
McCauley, R. J., and Fey, M. E. (Eds.) (2006). Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes.
|
| |
8
|
|
| |
9
|
O'Malley, C. and Fraser, D. S. (2004). Report 12: Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. Futurelab series. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Tangible_Review.pdf
|
| |
10
|
|
 |
11
|
|
| |
12
|
Resnick, M., Berg, R., and Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7--30.
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
Selikowitz, M. (2004). ADHD. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
| |
15
|
Statistics Finland. Number of pupils increased in full-time but decreased in part-time special education. http://www.stat.fi/til/erop/2006/erop_2006_2007-06-15_tie_001_en.html.
|
| |
16
|
Woodward, J., and Rein, H. (1997). A Historical Review of Technology Research in Special Education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 503--536.
|
|