Teaching Digital, Block-Based Coding of Robots to High School Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Challenging Behavior
The use of robots to teach students with autism spectrum disorder communication skills has basis in the literature; however, research investigating the effects of teaching coding or programming of robotics to promote learning in STEM to this population has not yet been conducted. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of teaching one code explicitly, using model-lead-test on the following dependent variables: (a) acquisition of the explicitly-taught code (i.e., robotic movement); (b) generalization of the explicitly-taught code to other novel codes (i.e., robotic sounds, light effects, complex movements), and (c) self-generated novel sets of codes. Results of the multiple probe across participants design demonstrate that all three students with ASD and challenging behaviors were able to acquire the initial code, generalize the initial code to novel codes, and self-generate (i.e., create, test, and evaluate) their own coding. Implications for practitioners, study limitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.
KeywordsRobotics Programming Coding Autism spectrum disorder Emotional behavior disorder STEM
We would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in this research.
VK and JW conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination and drafted the manuscript; JW conducted the intervention and probe trials, performed the measurement, and helped to draft the manuscript. JW also led the research team and created the initial graphs. AH gathered demographic data for the project and assisted in writing the participants section. KW assisted with the draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
This research was carried out with funding from Vanderbilt University Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Seed Grant.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors declare a potential conflict of interest (financial nor non-financial).
Informed consent and assent were obtained for all of the participants in the study after the Institutional Review Board approved of the study.
- Barton, E., Lloyd, B., Spriggs, A., & Gast, D. (2018). Visual analysis of graphic data. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
- Chen, X., & Weko, T. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. NCES #2009-161. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf.
- Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
- English, C. (2015). Parents, students want computer science education in school. Gallup Education. https://news.gallup.com/poll/184637/parents-students-computer-science-education-school.asp.
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub.L. 114-95 (2015).Google Scholar
- Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Gülbahar, Y., & Kalelioglu, F. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13, 33–50.Google Scholar
- Karp, T., & Maloney, P. (2013). Exciting young students in grades K-8 about STEM through an afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4, 39–54.Google Scholar
- Kim, E. S., Berkovits, L. D., Bernier, E. P., Leyzberg, D., Shic, F., Paul, R., et al. (2013). Social robots as embedded reinforcers of social behavior in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1038–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1645-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (2006). Pivotal response treatments for autism: Communication, social, & academic development. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lottero-Perdue, P., Lovelidge, S., & Bowling, E. (2010). Engineering for all: Strategies for helping all students succeed in the design process. Science and Children, 47, 24–27.Google Scholar
- Miller, B., Doughty, T., & Krockerover, G. (2015). Using science inquiry methods to promote self-determination and problem-solving skills for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 356–368.Google Scholar
- National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2017). National center for science and engineering statistics. In Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2017. Special Report NSF 17-310. Arlington, VA: NSF.Google Scholar
- National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf.
- Saadatzi, M. N., Pennington, R. C., Welch, K. C., & Graham, J. H. (2018). Effects of a robot peer on the acquisition and observational learning of sight words in young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418778506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schreibman, L., & Koegel, R. L. (2005). Training for parents of children with autism: Pivotal responses, generalization, and individualization of interventions. In E. D. Hibbs & P. S. Jensen (Eds.), Psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent disorders: Empirically based strategies for clinical practice (2nd ed., pp. 605–631). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education. Plan No. ED-04-CO-0040/0010. Washington, DC: National Education Technology. http://tech.ed.gov.
- Vilorio, D. (2014). STEM 101: Intro to tomorrow’s jobs (Occupational Outlook Quarterly; p. 12). Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/ooq.
- Wei, X., Christiano, E. R., Yu, J. W., Blackorby, J., Shattuck, P., & Newman, L. A. (2014). Postsecondary pathways and persistence for STEM versus non-STEM majors: Among college students with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 1159–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wei, X., Yu, J. W., Shattuck, P., McCracken, M., & Blackorby, J. (2013). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) participation among college students with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1539–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1700-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar