robotics and education – edurob project results launch

Co-funded by the Lifelong Learning programme of the European Union [project ref: 543577-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP] The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Educational Robotics for students with learning disabilities

• Robots can have a beneficial effect on the learning of children with special needs

• Robots are predictable, engaging and can encourage experiential learning, an approach that can increase the independence of learners in terms of their ability to seek out and assimilate new knowledge.

• No research on how teachers might incorporate robotics into their teaching plans in order to meet their learners’ objectives

• This is the first project to look at this and in several European countries

2

Background

Project Goals EDUROB is a European funded project to help teachers introduce robotics into special education by developing: • a suite of learning scenarios that can be adapted and used by SEN

teachers to enhance lessons, teaching a range of core curriculum subjects. • The EduRob Robot Controller app to initiate sets of pre-programmed

robot behaviours eg encouragement, instructions which can be fired either using the robot's sensors, by inputs on the app.

• dedicated training material to guide teachers through the learning scenarios that can impact on the specific learning targets for their students

The consortium

• Nottingham Trent University Interactive Systems Research Group

• VSI Hiteco from Vilnius Lithuania

• AIAS Bologna Onlus

• Interprojects Bulgaria

• Süleyman Şah University Istanbul

• Polo Europeo della Conoscenza, IC Lorenzi

• Pedagogical University of Kraków

Summary of User needs what the teachers wanted

Information collected from 272 questionnaires and interviews or focus groups with a further 82 teachers – Allow for a range of learning outcomes that are required

for the student cohort. – Maintain engagement across all ranges of ability. – Activities which are customisable by age, SEN and

difficulty required. – Be able to “plug-in” to existing curriculum in both special

and mainstream school as well as provide quick informal sessions

– Encourage interaction through a variety of tactile stimuli.

Summary of User needs what learning areas could be addressed

Information collected from interviews with 125 teachers identified a range of learning activities which could be classified within 5 areas of learning: – Imitation – reinforcing behaviour. – Cause and Effect – associating action with behaviour. – Problem solving – through spatial reasoning, coordination. – Speech – improving speaking and listening through robot interaction. – Social Learning – how to act, appropriate behaviour.

These cut across several subject areas eg imitation could be used in physical education, music, learning numbers in mathematics

Pedagogic framework curricula to be followed

• Identify the learning needs of the student including their level of capability.

• Match these needs to an appropriate learning area. • Identify the learning objectives to be achieved within the appropriate

curriculum. • Identify the potential learning scenarios derived from that robotic

learning area that allows the learning objective to be achieved. • Map the curriculum requirements to the learning scenario (i.e. if

necessary customise learning scenario elements to meet learning requirements).

• Utilise within a standardised lesson plan for implementation into everyday teaching activity.

Pedagogic framework barriers to implementation

– Teachers limited experience of technology, none of robots

– Lack of financial resources for expensive technology

– Need technical support to keep robots in work

– No existing training materials

– Teachers need time to plan how they might use robots

– Not all teachers able to run one to one sessions

Pedagogic framework

• Organisational includes wider organisation in which teachers work and can often be the biggest barrier to implementation.

• The technical: factors related to availability, access, accessibility, implementation and maintenance of the tools and services.

• Educational: learning goals, what have they achieved so far, engagement, personalisation.

• The Social nature of the interactions between learner and teacher, learner and robot and learner to learner.


Robotic Learning Demos Dr Andy Burton and Nick Shopland


The Edurob robots

NAO Lego Mindstorms EV3

The Edurob robots - NAO • Cost – around £4000 • Humanoid form • Sensors:

– 2 x camera – 4 x microphone – Sonars – Tactile (head/hands/feet) – Pressure sensor (feet)

• Technology: – Image recognition (requires training) – Face recognition (requires training) – Voice recognition – Reaction to voice commands – Text to speech voice simulation

The Edurob robots – EV3

• Cost – around £300 per kit • Multiple possible builds from different kits • Sensors:

– Ultrasonic sensor – Infra red sensor – Gyroscope – Touch sensor – Colour sensor

• Technology: – Display screen

– Quiet speakers

– LEDs

– Programmable

Controlling Edurob robots

• Developed custom Android apps for both NAO and EV3

• Enable connection to the robots - via Bluetooth (EV3) and Wi-Fi (NAO)

• Easy running of prebuilt programs on the robots

• Can act as remote control for robots

5 Identified Learning Areas

Learning Areas

Imitation Cause and

Effect Problem Solving Communication Social Learning

The learning areas where robotics could be useful which came out of the survey and teacher interviews.

12 Identified Robotic Interactions

Student Commands

Robot

By speech

By use of sensor

By button press

By correct choice of

card

In a correct

sequence

From a range of actions

Robot

Commands

Student

Follow robot instruction

Follow sequence of instructions

Copy what robot does

Copy sequence of

actions

Respond appropriately

through speech

Recognise robot action

Materials • http://edurob.eu/resources.html

• Full curriculum document contains 22 identified Example Learning

Scenarios, – Each scenario has editable associated robotic interactions – Scalable interactions allows them to be tailored to specific student needs – Each linked to p-scale learning targets in specific curriculum subjects – Maths, English (listening and speaking), PE, Music, PSHE, Science, Computing

• Teachers Guide – full guide on use of the apps and materials provided in your teaching

• Quick Guides – to get you up and running quickly

http://edurob.eu/resources.html

http://edurob.eu/resources.html

Example Learning Scenarios • ELS 01 - Geometrical shapes – count

and learn shapes with the robot • ELS 02 - Evoking a spontaneous request • ELS 03 - Chatting • ELS 04 - Gross-motor imitation • ELS 05 - Robot Question and Answer • ELS 06 - Mimic Game (NAO) • ELS 07 - Card/object recognition • ELS 08 - Closer to me! (EV3 Only) • ELS 09 - Let’s do some exercise! • ELS 10 - Recognise and say the

object/animal/colour • ELS 11 - Help me to find the red ball!

• ELS 12 - Navigate the bee to the flower • ELS 13 - Classify objects • ELS 14 - Recognise patterns • ELS 15 - Comparative sizes • ELS 16 - Mimic sequences of sounds and actions • ELS 17 - Recognise actions • ELS 18 - Tell me a story • ELS 19 - Understand and communicate

directions • ELS 20 - Move the robot using verbal

instructions • ELS 21 - Improve Listening Skills by robot

navigation • ELS 22 - Interact with the robot and make

choices

Demonstration

• Summarise the example learning scenarios created with live demo examples

• Create some videos for use here too?


Robots in Schools – initial findings Joanna Kossewska, Lorenzo Desideri

Co-fundeby the Lifelong Learning programme of the European Union [project ref: 543577-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP] The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and d the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Aim of the pilots

• The aim of the pilot assessment is to validate the effectiveness of robotic mediated teaching and learning strategies.

• Single-case research approach combined with qualitative analysis

• The experiment design followed an ABAB methodology

– 16 sessions per case (8 without robot and 8 with robot)

• Outcome measures derived from video/observations analysis of the session

• participants observed with regards to

– Their learning goal achievement

– their general level of engagement with the learning material

– the amount of prompting that is provided to them during their course of the sessions

Methodology Overview

• 77 students involved so far (final target=75) – Different health conditions: ASD, intellectual disability, sensory

impairment, learning disability, communication disorders, others

– Different levels of severity (mild to severe)

– Age range: 4-16

• Pilot settings: Mainstream schools, Special schools, Clinical services

• Robot type: – Non-humanoid: Lego Mindstorms EV3, KRAZ3

– Humanoid: NAO

Pilot site characteristics

• Activities should be carefully prepared; Robot works in highly structured settings

• Children had different reactions towards the robot

• Increased engagemet was observed

Insights from Italy

Insights from Italy

«Hello!» without robot «Hello!» with robot

• Participant: A., male, 5 years old, ASD • Learning objective: say «Hello»

• Initial analysis indicates that robot led progress towards goal varies

• Teachers mostly choose robot-based activities related to imitation and problem solving.

• Robot-based activities have positive impact on students engagement, while some children couldn’t follow robotic activities because of hyper sensitivity to sound;

• In the majority of cases reduced need for teacher help and assitance during the sessions was observed.

Insights from Lithuania

Insights from Lithuania

• Focus their attention on the behaviour of the robot, creating a model of this behaviour to replicate with their own abilities. Able to navigate the surrounding space, detect the presence and the movement of the robot and autonomously move through the space.

• Good achievements in Maths – understanding different shapes, concepts of time and space as well as in simple calculations.

• Good achievements in Literature & Language learning – learning of a particular short verse, encouraging the student to process short sentences or a short story.

• Good achievements in Music / Dance – recognition of popular melodies. • Appropriate for Biology/Geography – understanding new concepts,

learning a sequence of elements

Insights from Bulgaria

• Confirmed enhanced level of development of the students in terms of: – Memory; – Perception; – Engagement; – Communication and Cooperation – Executive functions; – Problem solving; – Following sequence of particular

tasks; – Mental persistence; – Intellectual growth.

• Considerable improvement of social competencies: – Communication; – Problem solving; – Prioritizing; – Motivation for learning; – Self-control; – Self-confidence; – Self-esteem and believe in own

success; – Self-efficacy; – Self-care.


Students involvement: • All students focused their attention on the behaviour of the robot. • Sound and actions of NAO robot was an attractive tool for students learning. • Students listened and watched the robot actions. • Students listened the robot speech. • Students gave answer of the questions colors and shapes and listened robot's feedback

(as “YES,thank you” or “NO,try again”). • Students listened and watched robot’s dance with music. • Student touched the robot hand and walked together. If she/he couldn’t navigate right

way, robot stopped and tried again. • Students started conversation (according to robot’s program), asked 5 different

questions to robot and listened the answers.

Insights from Turkey

Teachers involvement: • Special education teachers motivated and encouraged students to

start to work witih robot. • Students started to try, repeat and do according to the voice

command. • Special education teachers followed student's speaking, reactions

and answers. There were a lot of repeat because of the articulation problems (Note: Turkish language package is a bit hard than English version of the software)

• Special education teachers controlled student's speaking, reactions and answers.

Insights from Turkey

• Engagement was statistically higher with the robot for two out of six different learning objectives

• Prompt significantly lower for one of six learning objectives

• To assess success, it is important to select the right kind of teaching scenario.

Insights from UK

Three patterns of children NAO interaction:

• Avoidance - fear, escaping

• Semi-interest in NAO robot but more in contact with the teacher

• Higher-interest in NAO than in the teacher

Insights from Poland

Insights from Poland

• Overall encouraging results: Robot-mediated learning approach seem to lead to positive outcomes (e.g., goal achievement)

• In general, teachers have been positive about the impact the use of robot had on the teaching effectiveness

• One-to-one sessions seem to be more effective than group/class activities

• Video analyses are necessary to support our preliminary observations for which students' engagement increases when a robot is part of the interaction

Preliminary conclusions


Interactive Hands-On session


• Need a plan for which interactions we will fire and on which robots.


Open discussion of use of robots in SEN Education

• Co-funded by the Lifelong Learning programme of the European Union [project ref: 543577-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-KA3-KA3MP]

• The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

• A set of ideas/questions/prompts in order to trigger useful discussion??

• Recording of the session will be useful. Could this act as a steering group meeting?


Thank you

•Any questions?