Exploring types of play in an adapted robotics program for children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Play is an important occupation in a child's development. Children with disabilities often have fewer opportunities to engage in meaningful play than typically developing children. The purpose of this study was to explore the types of play (i.e., solitary, parallel and co-operative) within an adapted robotics program for children with disabilities aged 6-8 years. METHOD: This study draws on detailed observations of each of the six robotics workshops and interviews with 53 participants (21 children, 21 parents and 11 programme staff). RESULTS: Our findings showed that four children engaged in solitary play, where all but one showed signs of moving towards parallel play. Six children demonstrated parallel play during all workshops. The remainder of the children had mixed play types play (solitary, parallel and/or co-operative) throughout the robotics workshops. We observed more parallel and co-operative, and less solitary play as the programme progressed. Ten different children displayed co-operative behaviours throughout the workshops. The interviews highlighted how staff supported children's engagement in the programme. Meanwhile, parents reported on their child's development of play skills. CONCLUSIONS: robotics programs for developing their play skills. Clinicians should consider how the extent of their involvement in prompting and facilitating children's engagement and play within a robotics program may influence their ability to interact with their peers. Educators and clinicians should incorporate both structured and unstructured free-play elements within a robotics program to facilitate children's social development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".