Alcorn Alyssa M, Ainger Eloise, Charisi Vicky, Mantinioti Stefania, Petrović Sunčica, Schadenberg Bob R, Tavassoli Teresa, Pellicano Elizabeth
Centre for Research in Autism and Education, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Front Robot AI. 2019 Nov 1;6:107. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2019.00107. eCollection 2019.
Researchers, industry, and practitioners are increasingly interested in the potential of social robots in education for learners on the autism spectrum. In this study, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with educators in England to gain their perspectives on the potential use of humanoid robots with autistic pupils, eliciting ideas, and specific examples of potential use. Understanding educator views is essential, because they are key decision-makers for the adoption of robots and would directly facilitate future use with pupils. Educators were provided with several example images (e.g., NAO, KASPAR, Milo), but did not directly interact with robots or receive information on current technical capabilities. The goal was for educators to respond to the general concept of humanoid robots as an educational tool, rather than to focus on the existing uses or behaviour of a particular robot. Thirty-one autism education staff participated, representing a range of special education settings and age groups as well as multiple professional roles (e.g., teachers, teaching assistants, speech, and language therapists). Thematic analysis of the interview transcripts identified four themes: Engagingness of robots, Predictability and consistency, Roles of robots in autism education, and Need for children to interact with people, not robots. Although almost all interviewees were receptive toward using humanoid robots in the classroom, they were not uncritically approving. Rather, they perceived future robot use as likely posing a series of complex cost-benefit trade-offs over time. For example, they felt that a highly motivating, predictable social robot might increase children's readiness to learn in the classroom, but it could also prevent children from engaging fully with other people or activities. Educator views also assumed that skills learned with a robot would generalise, and that robots' predictability is beneficial for autistic children-claims that need further supporting evidence. These interview results offer many points of guidance to the HRI research community about how humanoid robots could meet the specific needs of autistic learners, as well as identifying issues that will need to be resolved for robots to be both acceptable and successfully deployed in special education contexts.
研究人员、业界人士和从业者越来越关注社交机器人在为自闭症谱系学习者提供教育方面的潜力。在本研究中,我们对英国的教育工作者进行了半结构化访谈和焦点小组讨论,以了解他们对于在自闭症学生中使用类人机器人的潜在看法,征集相关想法以及潜在用途的具体示例。了解教育工作者的观点至关重要,因为他们是决定是否采用机器人的关键决策者,并且会直接推动未来在学生中使用机器人。我们向教育工作者提供了几张示例图片(如NAO、KASPAR、Milo),但他们没有直接与机器人互动,也未获取有关当前技术能力的信息。目的是让教育工作者对类人机器人作为一种教育工具的总体概念做出回应,而非关注特定机器人的现有用途或行为。31名自闭症教育工作人员参与其中,他们代表了一系列特殊教育环境、年龄组以及多个专业角色(如教师、教学助理、言语和语言治疗师)。对访谈记录的主题分析确定了四个主题:机器人的吸引力、可预测性和一致性、机器人在自闭症教育中的角色以及儿童与人类而非机器人互动的必要性。尽管几乎所有受访者都接受在课堂上使用类人机器人,但他们并非不加批判地认可。相反,他们认为随着时间推移,未来使用机器人可能会带来一系列复杂的成本效益权衡。例如,他们觉得一个极具激励性、可预测的社交机器人可能会提高孩子在课堂上的学习准备度,但也可能会阻碍孩子与他人或其他活动充分互动。教育工作者的观点还假定通过机器人学到的技能能够迁移,并且机器人的可预测性对自闭症儿童有益——这些说法需要进一步的支持证据。这些访谈结果为HRI研究界提供了许多指导要点,涉及类人机器人如何满足自闭症学习者的特定需求,同时也指出了机器人要在特殊教育环境中被接受并成功应用需要解决的问题。