This study examines the levels of social interaction of students with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders during collaborative robotics projects. An alternating treatments design was used to observe the duration of social interaction of two middle school children with autism spectrum disorders across robotics and nonrobotics instruction as well as structured versus nonstructured activities. Results show that both participants with autism spectrum disorders engaged in higher levels of social interaction during robotics instruction when compared with nonrobotics instruction sessions. However, one participant displayed significantly higher levels of social interaction during nonstructured activities, indicating that the instructional setting may serve as a conditioned punisher for the student's social interactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarlowD. H.HayesS. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
2.
BowenC. (2000). A quantitative literature review of cooperative learning effects on high school and college chemistry achievement. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(1), 116–119.
3.
BruffeeK. A. (1995). Sharing our toys. Change, 27(1), 12.
4.
CannonK.LapointM. A.BirdN.PancieraK.VeeraraghavanH.PapanikolopoulosN.GiniA. M. (2007). Using robots to raise interest in technology among underrepresented groups. Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, 14(2), 73–81.
5.
Committee on K–12 Engineering Education (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
DillenbourgP. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In DillenbourgP. (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
8.
DoymusK.KaracopA.SimsekU. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students' understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58, 671–691.
9.
GokhaleA. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22–30.
10.
GredlerM. (2012). Understanding Vygotsky for the classroom: Is it too late?Educational Psychology Review, 24, 113–131.
11.
HuangK. H.HuangP. L. (2011, May). Lego robotics and group learning: Exploring the effects of gender, age, and family background. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), Xi'an, China.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 34 CFR §300 et seq. (2004).
13.
JohnsonH.HydeJ. (2003). Towards modeling individual and collaborative construction of Jigsaws using Task Knowledge Structures (TKS). ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 10, 339–387.
14.
Karna-LinE.Pihlainen-BednarikK.SutinenE.VirnesM. (2006). Can robots teach? Preliminary results on educational robotics in special education. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Kerkrade, The Netherlands.
15.
LeGoffD. (2004). Use of LEGO as a therapeutic medium for improving social competence. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 557–571.
16.
LeGoffD. B.ShermanM. (2006). Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive LEGO play. Autism, 4, 317–329.
17.
McDowellC.WernerL.BullockH.FernaldJ. (2002). The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34, 38–42.
18.
MehrlD.PartenM. E.VinesD. L. (1997, November). Robots enhance engineering education. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
19.
PalincsarA. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.
20.
PuntambekarS.HübscherR. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed?Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.
21.
RamdassD. J.ZimmermanB. J. (2011). Developing self-regulation skills: The important role of homework. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(2), 194–218.
22.
RobinsonM. (2005). Robotics-driven activities: Can they improve middle school science learning?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84.
23.
RogersS. J. (1996). Brief report: Early intervention in autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 26, 243–246.
24.
RoschelleJ.TeasleyS. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'MalleyC. (Ed.), Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 66–197). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
25.
Ruiz-Del-SolarJ. (2010). Robotics-centered outreach activities: An integrated approach. Education, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 53(1), 38–45.
26.
Ruiz-Del-SolarJ.AvilesR. (2004). Robotics courses for children as a motivation tool: The Chilean experience. Education, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 47(4), 474–480.
27.
SchwartzI. S.SandallS. R.GarfinkleA. N.BauerJ. (1998). Outcomes for children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 132–143.
28.
SpringerL.StanneM. E.DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
29.
StumpG.HilpertJ.HusmanJ.ChungW.KimW. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 475–497.
30.
VirnesM. (2008, June). Robotics in special needs education. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Chicago, IL.
31.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (LuriaA., trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1935.)
32.
WainerJ.FerrariE.DautenhahnK.RobinsB. (2010). The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14(5), 445–455.
33.
WalkerH. M.McConnellS.HolmesD.TodisB.WalkerJ.GoldenN. (1988). The Walker social skills curriculum: The ACCEPTS program. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
34.
WeinbergJ. B.EngelG. L.GuK.KaracalC. S.SmithS. R.WhiteW. W. (2001, June). A multidisciplinary model for using robotics in engineering education. Paper presented at the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Albuquerque, NM.
35.
YuenT.BoeckingM.StoneJ.ArreguinA.TigerE. PriceGomezA.GuillenA.Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Manuscript submitted for review.
