An Initial Investigation into the Use of Social Robots within an Existing Educational Program for Students with Learning Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students with a learning disability (LD) generally require supplementary one-to-one instruction and support to acquire the foundational academic skills learned at school. Because learning is more difficult for students with LD, students can frequently display off-task behaviours to avoid attempting or completing challenging learning tasks. Re-directing students back to their learning task is a frequent strategy used by educators to support students. However, there have been limited studies investigating the use of assistive technology to support student re-direction, specifically in a "real-world" educational setting. In this in situ study, we investigate the impact of integrating socially assistive robot to provide re-direction strategies to students. A social robot, QT, was employed within the existing learning program during one-to-one remedial instruction sessions. The study comprised two phases, "Instruction as usual" (IAU) and "Robot-mediated instructions" (RMI). Both followed the students' one-to-one instructional program where students get personalised learning support from their instructors, except for the RMI phase which included a social robot as a tool. We investigated the impact of the robot on students' on-task behaviours and progress towards learning goals. The results of our mixed method analysis suggest that the robotic intervention supported students in staying on-task and completing their learning goal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".