Özel Eğitimde İnsansı Robotlar

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 32, 832 - 842, 31.12.2021

Nihal Şen

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.1047564

Cited By: 1

Öz

Robotlar, insanları ve çevrelerini algılama yeteneğinden, insanların durumlarını ve duygularını rasyonalize etme yeteneğine kadar çeşitli yetenekleriyle eğitim ekosisteminin faydalı bir parçası haline gelmektedir. İnsansı robotlar, insansı görünümleriyle, insan benzeri beden diline ve sosyal sinyalleşme yeteneklerine başka bir boyut ekleyerek eğitimde daha doğal ve sezgisel insan-robot etkileşimi sunmaktadır. Robotların hayatımıza girmesiyle birlikte özellikle insansı sosyal robotlar eğitimde sıklıkla kullanılmaktadır. Eğitimin hemen hemen her kademesinde birçok fayda sunan insansı robotlar son yıllarda özel eğitim alanında da artan bir ilgi görmüştür. Bu makalenin amacı insansı robotların özel eğitimdeki uygulamalarını tanıtmak ve bu uygulamalar hakkında farkındalık yaratmaktır. Kapsamlı bir literatür araştırmasına dayanarak, özel eğitimde sıklıkla kullanılan insansı robotlara yer verilen bu çalışmada ayrıca bu robotların özel eğitim alanında kullanıldığı araştırmaların detaylarına da yer verilmiştir. Çalışma, son yıllarda özellikle otizm spektrum bozukluğu olmak üzere farklı yetersizliklere sahip bireylerin de eğitiminde çok sayıda insansı robotun kullanıldığını ve bu sayının giderek artmaya başladığını göstermektedir. Bu çalışmadaki bilgilerin gelecekte özel eğitimde robotları kullanmayı planlayan eğitimcilere ve araştırmacılara yol gösterici nitelikte olacağı beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsansı robotlar, Eğitim robotları, Robot destekli öğretim, İnsan-robot etkileşimi, Özel eğitim

Humanoid Robots in Special Education

Öz

Robots are becoming a useful part of the education ecosystem, with abilities ranging from the ability to perceive people and their environment to the ability to rationalize people's situations and emotions. Humanoid robots, with their humanoid appearance, add another dimension to their human-like body language and social signaling abilities, offering more natural and intuitive human-robot interaction in education. With the introduction of robots into our lives, especially humanoid social robots are frequently used in education. Humanoid robots, which offer many benefits at almost every level of education, have received increasing attention in the field of special education in recent years. The purpose of this article is to introduce the applications of humanoid robots in special education and to raise awareness about these applications. Based on a comprehensive literature review, this study, which includes humanoid robots that are frequently used in special education, also includes the details of researches in which these robots are used in the field of special education. The study shows that in recent years, a large number of humanoid robots have been used in the education of individuals with different disabilities, especially autism spectrum disorder, and this number is gradually increasing. It is expected that the information in this study will guide educators and researchers who plan to use robots in special education in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Humanoid robots, Educational robots, Robot-assisted teaching, Human-robot interaction, Special education

Kaynakça

• Akalin, N., Uluer, P., Kose, H., & Ince, G. (2013, November). Humanoid robots communication with participants using sign language: An interaction based sign language game. In 2013 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (pp. 181-186). IEEE.
• Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., & Ghazisaedy, M. (2015). The impact of social robotics on L2 learners’ anxiety and attitude in English vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 523-535.
• Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In TERECoP Project: Teacher education on roboticsenhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. Athens, GR: School of Pedagogical and Technological Education, ASPETE.,pp. 11–26.
• Alkhalifah, A., Alsalman, B., Alnuhait, D., Meldah, O., Aloud, S., Al-Khalifa, H. S., & Al-Otaibi, H. M. (2015, July). Using NAO humanoid robot in kindergarten: a proposed system. In 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 166-167). IEEE.
• Barakova, E. I., Bajracharya, P., Willemsen, M., Lourens, T., & Huskens, B. (2015). Long‐term LEGO therapy with humanoid robot for children with ASD. Expert Systems, 32(6), 698-709.
• Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21). URL http://robotics.sciencemag.org/content/3/21/eaat5954
• Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 13-24.
• Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334-352.
• Chin, K. Y., Wu, C. H., & Hong, Z. W. (2011, May). A humanoid robot as a teaching assistant for primary education. In 2011 Fifth International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (pp. 21-24). IEEE.
• Costa, A. P., Charpiot, L., Lera, F. R., Ziafati, P., Nazarikhorram, A., Van Der Torre, L., & Steffgen, G. (2018, August). More attention and less repetitive and stereotyped behaviors using a robot with children with autism. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 534-539). IEEE.
• Costa, S., Santos, C., Soares, F., Ferreira, M., & Moreira, F. (2010, August). Promoting interaction amongst autistic adolescents using robots. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology (pp. 3856-3859). IEEE.
• Curto, B., & Moreno, V. (2016). Robotics in education. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 3-4.
• Deshmukh, A., Jones, A., Janarthanam, S., Foster, M. E., Ribeiro, T., Corrigan, L. J., ... & Castellano, G. (2015, March). Empathic robotic tutors: map guide. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 311-311).
• Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P. R., & Lin, X. (2018). I, teacher: using artificial intelligence (AI) and social robots in communication and instruction. Communication Education, 67(4), 473-480.
• García-Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M. Á., Gonçalves, J., & Lima, J. (2019, October). Computational thinking and robotics in education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 2-5).
• Ghallab, M., & Ingrand, F. (2020). Robotics and artificial ıntelligence. a guided tour of artificial ıntelligence research: Volume III: Interfaces and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 389.
• Han, J. H., Jo, M. H., Jones, V., & Jo, J. H. (2008). Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4(4), 159-168.
• Hockstein, N. G., Gourin, C. G., Faust, R. A., & Terris, D. J. (2007). A history of robots: from science fiction to surgical robotics. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 1(2), 113-118.
• Huijnen, C. A., Lexis, M. A., & de Witte, L. P. (2016). Matching robot KASPAR to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) therapy and educational goals. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(4), 445-455.
• Huskens, B., Verschuur, R., Gillesen, J., Didden, R., & Barakova, E. (2013). Promoting question-asking in school-aged children with autism spectrum disorders: Effectiveness of a robot intervention compared to a human-trainer intervention. Developmental neurorehabilitation, 16(5), 345-356.
• Iacono, I., Lehmann, H., Marti, P., Robins, B., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011, August). Robots as social mediators for children with Autism-A preliminary analysis comparing two different robotic platforms. In 2011 IEEE international conference on development and learning (ICDL) (Vol. 2, pp. 1-6). IEEE.
• Ismail, L. I., Verhoeven, T., Dambre, J., & Wyffels, F. (2019). Leveraging robotics research for children with autism: a review. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(3), 389-410.
• Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1-2), 16-21.
• Jordan, K., King, M., Hellersteth, S., Wirén, A., & Mulligan, H. (2013). Feasibility of using a humanoid robot for enhancing attention and social skills in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 36(3), 221-227.
• Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human–Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 61-84.
• Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2014, July). Evaluating the impact of robotics in education on pupils’ skills and attitudes. In Proceeding of the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics. Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 101-9).
• Kozyavkin, V., Kachmar, O., & Ablikova, I. (2014, May). Humanoid social robots in the rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (pp. 430-431).
• Köse, H., Uluer, P., Akalın, N., Yorgancı, R., Özkul, A., & Ince, G. (2015). The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 537-548.
• Kubilinskienė, S., Žilinskienė, I., Dagienė, V., & Sinkevičius, V. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. Baltic journal of modern computing, 5(1), 50-69.
• Lee, H., & Hyun, E. (2015). The intelligent robot contents for children with speech-language disorder. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 100-113.
• Lewis, L., Charron, N., Clamp, C., & Craig, M. (2016). Co-robot therapy to foster social skills in special need learners: three pilot studies. In Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 131-139). Springer, Cham.
• Lin, P., Abney, K., & Bekey, G. (2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175(5-6), 942-949.
• Lindsay, S., & Hounsell, K. G. (2017). Adapting a robotics program to enhance participation and interest in STEM among children with disabilities: a pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(7), 694-704.
• López-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., & Parra-González, M. E. (2021). Robotics in education: a scientific mapping of the literature in web of science. Electronics, 10(3), 291.
• Lytridis, C., Vrochidou, E., Chatzistamatis, S., & Kaburlasos, V. (2018, June). Social engagement interaction games between children with Autism and humanoid robot NAO. In The 13th international conference on soft computing models in industrial and environmental applications (pp. 562-570). Springer, Cham.
• Masson, O., Baratgin, J., Jamet, F., Ruggieri, F., & Filatova, D. (2016, July). Use a robot to serve experimental psychology: Some examples of methods with children and adults. In 2016 International Conference on Information and Digital Technologies (IDT) (pp. 190-197). IEEE.
• Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for Education. Springer handbook of robotics, 1283, 1301.
• Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1(209-0015), 1-7.
• Mwangi, E., Diaz, M., Barakova, E., Catala, A., & Rauterberg, M. (2017, October). Can children take advantage of nao gaze-based hints during gameplay?. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human agent interaction (pp. 421-424).
• Pachidis, T., Vrochidou, E., Kaburlasos, V. G., Kostova, S., Bonković, M., & Papić, V. (2018, June). Social robotics in education: State-of-the-art and directions. In International Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria Danube Region (pp. 689-700). Springer, Cham.
• Palestra, G., Varni, G., Chetouani, M., & Esposito, F. (2016, November). A multimodal and multilevel system for robotics treatment of autism in children. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Social Learning and Multimodal Interaction for Designing Artificial Agents (pp. 1-6).
• Pandey, A. K., & Gelin, R. (2017). Humanoid robots in education: a short review. Humanoid robotics: a reference, 1-16.
• Papakostas, G. A., Sidiropoulos, G. K., Papadopoulou, C. I., Vrochidou, E., Kaburlasos, V. G., Papadopoulou, M. T., ... & Dalivigkas, N. (2021). Social Robots in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Electronics, 10(12), 1398.
• Pop, C. A., Simut, R., Pintea, S., Saldien, J., Rusu, A., David, D., ... & Vanderborght, B. (2013). Can the social robot Probo help children with autism to identify situation-based emotions? A series of single case experiments. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 10(03), 1350025.
• Pour, A. G., Taheri, A., Alemi, M., & Meghdari, A. (2018). Human–robot facial expression reciprocal interaction platform: case studies on children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(2), 179-198.
• Rakhymbayeva, N., Seitkazina, N., Turabayev, D., Pak, A., & Sandygulova, A. (2020, March). A long-term study of robot-assisted therapy for children with severe autism and ADHD. In Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 401-402).
• Robins, B., Dautenhahn, K., Te Boekhorst, R., & Billard, A. (2005). Robotic assistants in therapy and education of children with autism: can a small humanoid robot help encourage social interaction skills?. Universal Access in The Information Society, 4(2), 105-120.
• Shimaya, J., Yoshikawa, Y., Kumazaki, H., Matsumoto, Y., Miyao, M., & Ishiguro, H. (2019). Communication support via a tele-operated robot for easier talking: case/laboratory study of individuals with/without autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(1), 171-184.
• Silva, V., Soares, F., Esteves, J. S., & Pereira, A. P. (2018, November). Building a hybrid approach for a game scenario using a tangible interface in human robot interaction. In Joint International Conference on Serious Games (pp. 241-247). Springer, Cham.
• Silvera-Tawil, D., Bradford, D., & Roberts-Yates, C. (2018, August). Talk to me: The role of human-robot interaction in improving verbal communication skills in students with autism or intellectual disability. In 2018 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
• Simut, R. E., Vanderfaeillie, J., Peca, A., Van de Perre, G., & Vanderborght, B. (2016). Children with autism spectrum disorders make a fruit salad with Probo, the social robot: an interaction study. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 46(1), 113-126.
• Syriopoulou-Delli, C., & Gkiolnta, E. (2021). Robotics and inclusion of students with disabilities in special education. Research, Society and Development, 10(9), e36210918238-e36210918238.
• Taheri, A. R., Alemi, M., Meghdari, A., PourEtemad, H. R., & Basiri, N. M. (2014, October). Social robots as assistants for autism therapy in Iran: Research in progress. In 2014 Second RSI/ISM International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM) (pp. 760-766). IEEE.
• Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., & Pouretemad, H. (2018). Human–robot interaction in autism treatment: a case study on three pairs of autistic children as twins, siblings, and classmates. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(1), 93-113.
• Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., & Pouretemad, H. (2019). Teaching music to children with autism: a social robotics challenge. Scientia Iranica, 26(Special Issue on: Socio-Cognitive Engineering), 40-58.
• Taheri, A., Meghdari, A., Alemi, M., Pouretemad, H., Poorgoldooz, P., & Roohbakhsh, M. (2016, November). Social robots and teaching music to autistic children: myth or reality?. In International conference on social robotics (pp. 541-550). Springer, Cham.
• Tanaka, F., & Matsuzoe, S. (2012). Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 78-95.
• Tuna, G., Tuna, A., Ahmetoglu, E., & Kuscu, H. (2019). A survey on the use of humanoid robots in primary education: Prospects, research challenges and future research directions. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(3), 361-373.
• van den Heuvel, R. J., Lexis, M. A., & de Witte, L. P. (2017). Robot ZORA in rehabilitation and special education for children with severe physical disabilities: a pilot study. International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation, 40(4), 353.
• Van Der Drift, E. J., Beun, R. J., Looije, R., Henkemans, O. A. B., & Neerincx, M. A. (2014, March). A remote social robot to motivate and support diabetic children in keeping a diary. In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 463-470). IEEE.
• Vanderborght, B., Simut, R., Saldien, J., Pop, C., Rusu, A. S., Pintea, S., ... & David, D. O. (2012). Using the social robot probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 348-372.
• Westlund, J. K., Dickens, L., Jeong, S., Harris, P., DeSteno, D., & Breazeal, C. (2015). A comparison of children learning new words from robots, tablets, & people. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on social robots in therapy and education.
• Wood, L. J., Robins, B., Lakatos, G., Syrdal, D. S., Zaraki, A., & Dautenhahn, K. (2019). Developing a protocol and experimental setup for using a humanoid robot to assist children with autism to develop visual perspective taking skills. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 10(1), 167-179.
• Yadollahi, E., Johal, W., Paiva, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2018, June). When deictic gestures in a robot can harm child-robot collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 195-206).
• Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2017). A review on the studies about the use of robotic technologies in education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127-139.