Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 49, Issue 8, pp 3113–3126 | Cite as

Teaching Digital, Block-Based Coding of Robots to High School Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Challenging Behavior

  • Victoria F. KnightEmail author
  • John Wright
  • Kalli Wilson
  • Ashton Hooper
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Robotics Programming Coding Autism spectrum disorder Emotional behavior disorder STEM 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in this research.

Author Contributions

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.

Funding

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

Informed consent and assent were obtained for all of the participants in the study after the Institutional Review Board approved of the study.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: Fifth edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Begum, M., Serna, R. W., & Yanco, H. A. (2016). Are robots ready to deliver autism interventions? A comprehensive review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 157–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0346-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  6. Cabibihan, J., Javed, H., Ang, M., Jr., & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5, 593–618.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-013-0202-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  9. Dautenhahn, K., & Werry, I. (2004). Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: Background, motivation and challenges. Pragmatics & Cognition, 12, 1–35.  https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.12.1.03dau.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diehl, J. J., Schmitt, L. M., Villano, M., & Crowell, C. R. (2012). The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A critical review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(1), 249–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub.L. 114-95 (2015).Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Geist, E. (2016). Robots, programming and coding, oh my! Childhood Education, 92, 547–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Harlow, D., & Leak, A. E. (2014). Mapping students’ ideas to understand learning in a collaborative programming environment. Computer Science Education, 24, 229–247.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2014.963360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Israel, M., Maynard, K., & Williamson, P. (2013). Promoting literacy-embedded, authentic STEM instruction for students with disabilities and other struggling learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Knight, V., & Sartini, E. (2014). A comprehensive literature review of comprehension strategies in core content areas for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 1213–1229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2280-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight, V., Wood, A. L., McKissick, B., & Kuntz, E. (2019a). Teaching science content and practices to students with intellectual disability and autism. Remedial and Special Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03888-3.Google Scholar
  22. Knight, V. F., Wright, J., & DeFreese, A. (2019b). Teaching robotics coding to a student with ASD and severe problem behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03888-3.Google Scholar
  23. Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (2006). Pivotal response treatments for autism: Communication, social, & academic development. Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. Pennington, R., Saadatzi, M. N., Welch, K. C., & Scott, R. (2014). Using robot-assisted instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to use personal narrative in text messages. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pennisi, P., Tonacci, A., Tartarisco, G., Billeci, L., Ruta, L., Gangemi, S., et al. (2016). Autism and social robotics: A systematic review. Autism Research, 9, 165–183.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 23, 691–702.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9210-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, 105–128.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor, M. S. (2018). Computer programming with pre-K through first-grade students with intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 78–88.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918761120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, M. S., Vasquez, E., & Donehower, C. (2017). Computer programming with early elementary students with down syndrome. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32, 149–159.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417704439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationPeabody College of Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Peabody College of Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Metropolitan Nashville Public SchoolsNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations