Next Article in Journal
Digital Activism Masked―The Fridays for Future Movement and the “Global Day of Climate Action”: Testing Social Function and Framing Typologies of Claims on Twitter
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Affect on the Perception of Fake News on Social Media: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/socsci12120675
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review

by
Andromachi Nanou
and
Dimitris Karampatzakis
*
Department of Computer Science, International Hellenic University, 65404 Kavala, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(12), 675; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120675
Submission received: 23 October 2023 / Revised: 20 November 2023 / Accepted: 23 November 2023 / Published: 6 December 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Educational robotics (ER) is a growing interdisciplinary field that is attracting increasing attention in inclusive or special education settings. It provides a suitable educational environment for the participation of students with autism, through which they can utilize their main strengths and interests. Strengths-based vs. deficits-based approaches recognize the strengths and interests of autistic children as the starting point for their inclusion in school and the community. The scoping review was developed as the best knowledge-synthesis method for summarizing the pertinent research on the participation of students with autism in educational robotics for their successful inclusion. Forty-five studies were included and analyzed to address the main objectives, the mapping of contextual dimensions, and the specific characteristics of the educational robotic activities where the participation of students with autism occurred. The data were extracted into a charting framework, and a narrative analysis was adopted for the knowledge synthesis. According to the results, the research on the participation of children with autism is limited and has focused primarily on educational robotic activities, failing to adequately explore other dimensions that affect the successful participation and inclusion of students with autism in educational robotics.

1. Introduction

Educational robotics (ER) is an interdisciplinary field of study that has attracted the interest of researchers from different fields. In a pedagogical context, ER introduces students to coding by constructing and programming educational robots (ERs), which thus evolves their learning into interactive, multidisciplinary, and collaborative experiences. ERs are tangible resources that interface with simple electronic systems to be constructed and programmed by students (Benitti 2012; García-Tudela and Marín-Marín 2023; Pivetti et al. 2020). Papert has argued that coding through ER in the early years of learning enhances student interest in computer programming, thus encouraging students to reflect on their own thinking (Papert 1993).
Research findings have highlighted the positive influence of ER in computational thinking (García-Tudela and Marín-Marín 2023; Govender and Govender 2023; Montuori et al. 2023; Pellas and Tzafilkou 2023) mathematical, geometry, and science concepts (Baccaglini-Frank et al. 2020), machine learning (Karalekas et al. 2023), STEM (Kalaitzidou and Pachidis 2023), and mechatronic concepts (Habib et al. 2021). Several research findings have demonstrated that ER learning experiences positively affect the development of social and cognitive skills (Caci 2004), creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving (Gubenko et al. 2021), and collaborative behavior, thus encouraging engagement, autonomy, and initiative-taking (Demetroulis et al. 2023; Gubenko et al. 2021).
Because of their positive outcomes in psychological and deductive dimensions, ER activities engage students from preschool through to graduate level in formal or non-formal learning environments of school classes, as well as in after-school activities, volunteer groups, robotics course units, or activities in specific educational settings (Antonelli et al. 2023; Chatzara et al. 2014; Gubenko et al. 2021; Jung and Won 2018; Montuori et al. 2023; Piedade et al. 2020; Zúñiga Muñoz et al. 2023).
ER has proven valuable for motivating and encouraging learning in not only regular but also special or inclusive education. In the creation of successful inclusive educational environments for autistic students, strengths-based vs. deficit-oriented approaches are increasingly being adopted (White et al. 2023). According to strengths-based approaches, students with autism are included on the basis of their positive characteristics and strengths. Although there are notable individual differences in the autistic spectrum, there are common characteristics that people with autism share. Some of these broadly recognized characteristics are strong attention to detail, deep focus on specific interests, and strong abilities in specific domains (Baron-Cohen 2004). The main learning-style characteristics are a preference for visual over verbal communication and more effective functioning in a predictable and structured learning environment with clear expectations and visual instructions, learning through repetition, and enjoying the use of computers and new technological developments in learning and entertainment (David Moore and Thorpe 2000; Hume and Reynolds 2010).
By taking advantage of their strengths and interests, ER creates a suitable environment for students with autism (especially those that have a special interest in using new technologies) in terms of bringing out their potential, recognizing their abilities, and building their self-esteem, as well as becoming accepted by their peers. Evidence-based research highlights the potential of programming ERs not only for individuals with high-functioning autism but also for mid-functioning individuals who need substantial support (Lahav et al. 2019; Nanou et al. 2022; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020).
Although the strong motivation of individuals with autism to use new technologies is broadly recognized, little is known concerning their participation in educational robotics (Chatzara et al. 2014; Galvez Trigo et al. 2019; Prummer et al. 2022). More attention has been received regarding the research on social robot interventions (Papakostas et al. 2021; Prummer et al. 2022). The cyber-physical systems that have given rise to social assistive robots (SAR) have been integrated into everyday life and are applied in education and autism rehabilitation (Chung 2021; Papakostas et al. 2021). SARs have taken on the role of presenters, teaching assistants, peers, or tutors, and they provide several benefits in social skills development—especially when SARs are carefully selected (Alhaddad et al. 2023; Costa et al. 2010; Dautenhahn and Werry 2004; Golestan et al. 2017; Kaburlasos et al. 2018; Moorthy and Pugazhenthi 2017; Papakostas et al. 2018, 2021; Pennisi et al. 2016; Yun et al. 2014). Literature reviews have synthesized the previous knowledge of SAR or ER interventions with regard to different types of disabilities. More specifically, previous literature reviews have been conducted on the following domains: (a) robot-based interventions for autism with the utilization of both SAR and ERs (Damianidou et al. 2020; Saleh et al. 2021), (b) robot-based interventions that encompass both SARs or ERs intended for a wide range of disabilities, including motor, sensory, and intellectual disabilities (Miguel Cruz et al. 2017), or (c) ER activities in several, but not exclusively, autistic and neurodevelopmental disabilities (Nanou and Karampatzakis 2022; Pivetti et al. 2020).
While ER offers an authentic environment conducive to the inclusion of students with autism, there is a lack of clearly defined knowledge regarding the qualified and quantified characteristics of their engagement in ER. This knowledge gap extends to both formal and non-formal educational settings, and there is also limited understanding of the factors influencing their participation. Participation is the best predictor for learning progress in individuals with autism (Froehlich et al. 2012; Iovannone et al. 2003). According to the family of participation-related constructs model, participation is affected by complex transactions between individual characteristics, as well as by contextual settings or the environment of the activities where the participation occurs. As such, apart from intrinsic individual characteristics, participation depends on cultural and social constructions such as tools, methodologies, and skills, which the individual activates. For participation to become satisfactory in terms of quality and quantity, individual characteristics interact with cultural and social constructions (Imms et al. 2017).
Our research aims to collect and synthesize the existing knowledge on the individual and contextual dimensions that affect the participation of students with autism in ER.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review was chosen as the most suitable methodology for systematically gathering, comprehending, and summarizing current knowledge regarding the participation of students with autism in ER. This approach aims to provide recommendations, evidence-based practices, and decision-making while identifying research evidence gaps (Kastner et al. 2012; Peters et al. 2020; Xiao and Watson 2019). Scoping reviews effectively map expansive research domains, encompassing all the relative research irrespective of the quality of the publications (Peters et al. 2020).

2.1. Methodology

The literature search for relevant studies was conducted in August 2023 in four electronic databases—IEEE Xplore, Scopus, WoS, and Google Scholar—in all types of publications and without any publication date limitation. The search terms used were the synonyms of autism (“Autism” OR “ASD” OR ”Autism Spectrum Disorders” OR “Developmental Disabilities” OR “ASC” OR “Asperger” OR “disabilities”) AND (“Educational Robots” OR “Educational Robotics” OR “Robots for Education” OR “Toy Robots” OR “LEGO-type robots”) AND (“education” OR “teaching” OR “intervention” OR “school” OR “support” OR training OR attitudes OR “participation” OR “collaboration” OR “involvement” OR “integration” OR “inclusion” OR “inclusive”).
To incorporate relevant studies, three basic eligibility criteria were applied:
  • The study should be written in English;
  • The study should refer to autism;
  • The study should be dedicated to ER experiments, educational activities, evaluated educational methods, attitudes or opinions of stakeholders, educators, therapists, or literature reviews on the participation of students with autism in ER.
The selection process for this scoping review is depicted in Figure 1. Initially, a total of 1720 references (n = 1720) were identified across all electronic databases. Following the elimination of 524 duplicates (n = 524), 1196 (n = 1196) underwent a thorough assessment for eligibility. To ensure the efficacy of the eligibility criteria, a random sample of the included references (n = 200/1196, 16.7%) was screened and evaluated by two reviewers. Cohen’s kappa statistic criterion was computed to gauge the agreement between two raters. With a calculated Cohen’s kappa value of k= 0.77, signifying substantial agreement, the reviewers independently screened the remaining references. Any discrepancies were deliberated with a third rater to determine the inclusion status for each reference.
Following the screening and evaluation of the 1196 references (n = 1196) based on the three eligibility criteria in topic (title, abstract, keywords), 1109 (n = 1109) were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the 87 references that received three points from both raters were selected for full-text screening (n = 87). After a thorough examination of the full text, 42 (n = 42) studies were excluded, with 26 (n = 26) not pertaining to ER and 16 (n = 16) not addressing to autism. Ultimately, 45 (n = 45) studies were included for analysis. The flow diagram in Figure 1 succinctly outlines this process.

2.2. Research Objectives and Questions

As presented in Figure 2, the relevant analyzed studies address two main objectives and specific research questions.
The data have been extracted into a charting framework containing descriptive entries and specific thematic information (Peters et al. 2020). A narrative synthesis of the knowledge approach was adopted to combine evidence and draw conclusions across studies organized into a charting table containing author year, country, participants, context, outcome measures, and outcome areas.

3. Results

3.1. Mapping the Contextual Dimensions That Affect the Participation of Students with Autism in ER and Have Been Investigated by the Included Studies

3.1.1. Year and Country of Publication

The oldest among the 45 (n = 45) included studies dates to 1984, originating from the USA (Kimbler 1984). This scientific essay explored the utilization of robots for students with special needs in the classroom and referred to autism under the term “developmental disorders”. Since then, research in this area has progressed at a slow pace. The next studies were published in 2004, two decades later, and from 2016 to 2023, only 11 (n = 11, 24.5%) studies were published. However, there has been a substantial increase in publication rate in the past six years, with 34 (n = 34, 75.5%) of the included studies published from 2016 to 2023, surpassing the cumulative output of the previous 34 years. Nonetheless, the findings underscore the limited extent of research on ER in educational settings for individuals with autism Pennisi et al. (2016), as highlighted in Figure 3.
Although the first published essay that includes references to ER for developmental disorders was in the USA, most research has been conducted in European countries, especially in Italy in 2004 and Portugal in 2009. These two countries have published most of the included studies on ER for autism (n = 8, 17% and n = 5, 11%, respectively), as highlighted in Figure 4.

3.1.2. The Investigated Educational Robotic Technologies

Research has delved into 23 different educational robots, each garnering varying degrees of attention in the included studies, as illustrated in Figure 5. Notably, LEGO Mindstorms NXT held the highest frequency (n = 16, 25%), followed by EV3 (n = 10, 16%), Ozobots (n = 3, 5%), NAO (n = 4, 6%), LEGO WeDo (n = 2, 3%), and Bee/Blue-Bot (n = 8, 13%). Additionally, some studies have explored the application of DOC, Thymio, littleBits, and other affordable yet highly sophisticated robots capable of being controlled by children and meeting their needs (Kimbler 1984). The choice of specific ER technologies varies across studies, depending on the distinct research focuses and objectives.
The cost of ER kits and the humanoid robots examined in these research articles varies widely, spanning from a few tens of USD to more expensive solutions offering diverse functions and capabilities. Specifically, in the first cost tier, ranging from USD 50 to USD 200, we found Mio, DOC, Makeblock, LEGO WeDo 2.0, ArcBotics Sparki, Zowi, Ozobots, Wonder Workshop Dash, Sphero, Thymio, and Bee-Bot/Blue-Bot. In the second tier, priced between USD 201 and USD 600, we have ProBot, Tinkerbots, KIBO, littleBits, and EZ-Robot JD. Humanoid robots represent an advanced class, with RQ-HUNO costing USD 1300 and NAO USD 6500. It is noteworthy that the most widely recognized kits—ER kits LEGO Mindstorms WeDo, NXT, and EV3—have been discontinued and replaced by the LEGO Education SPIKE Prime set at an initial cost of USD 480.

3.1.3. The Investigated ER Participation Dimensions

The included studies shed light on four different dimensions of the participation of students with autism in ER: (1) Training methods on ER for autism (n = 7, 15.5%), (2) Attitudes or opinions about ER for autism (n = 5, 11%), (3) ER activities for autism (n = 31, 69%), and (4) Accessibility of ER for autism (n = 2, 4.5%). Most of the included research focuses on ER activities. The other dimensions—training methods, attitudes, and especially the accessibility of ER technologies for students with autism—remain extremely limited. It has been documented that the research on training methodology is in its infancy (Karademir Coşkun 2022; Schina et al. 2021), and the relevant research on attitudes and intentions for ER usage in special education and autism is especially limited (Di Battista et al. 2022). There is a commonly expressed difficulty concerning the accessibility and adaptability of ER for autistic or other disability needs (Di Battista et al. 2022, 2020; Karademir Coşkun 2022).
Despite the highly limited research within each category, the spectrum of these categories reflects the multilevel dimensions that influence the participation of students with autism in ER. Notably, in the early part of 2022, the published studies focused on all dimensions—opinions (n = 2), training (n = 1), accessibility (n = 1), and intervention (n = 4)—as illustrated in Figure 6. An exploration of several interrelated dimensions is imperative for the successful participation of students with autism in ER. These dimensions encompass the training of teachers and special educators, the accessibility of the interface, and the intentions of teachers to use ER in the context of autism, as highlighted in various studies (Amante et al. 2023; Baccaglini-Frank et al. 2020; Kats 2021; Schina et al. 2021; Silva et al. 2023).

3.2. Mapping the Nature of ER Activities in Relation to the Characteristics of Students with Autism That Participate

A thematic analysis was employed across the 31 studies (n = 31, 69%) to map the nature of the ER activities for autism and the psychoeducational methods that have been suggested and explored in the included studies. The analysis focused on discerning the goal, context, ER, participants involved, and the outcomes of the ER activity or intervention.

3.2.1. The Goal of ER Activities

Most of the included studies leveraged ER to enhance the social skills (42%), cognitive skills (19%), or both (19%) of students with autism. A smaller portion of activities focused on improving social status (n = 2, 7%), STEM (n = 2, 7%), learning inclusion (n = 2, 7%), and coding skills (n = 1, 3%), as depicted in Figure 7. In particular, over half of the ER activities (n = 61%) were directed towards improving social skills. This aligns with the recognized educational needs of individuals with autism (Papazoglou et al. 2021; Weiss and Harris 2001).

3.2.2. The Collaboration Context in Relation to the Goal of ER Activities

The ER activities implemented in the included studies were executed in two different collaboration contexts: inclusive (IER) and special (SER). Most ER social skills activities were designed and implemented in an inclusive collaboration context (IER) with typical peers (n = 10, 32%), followed by a smaller portion (n = 2, 6.5%) in a special collaboration context. Similarly, ER social status activities were entirely implemented in an inclusive collaboration context within an inclusive school (n = 2, 6.5%), along with STEM ER activities (n = 2, 6.5%). By contrast, ER cognitive skills activities were predominantly implemented in special collaboration contexts (n = 5, 16%) as were ER coding activities (n = 1, 3.25%), as illustrated in Figure 8. Activities aimed at developing cognitive skills or coding were mainly realized in SER contexts.

3.2.3. ER Technologies That Have Been Used in ER activities

In the included studies, researchers employed specific ER and interfaces tailored to achieve their intervention goals. Notably, LEGO Mindstorms was chosen to address not only social and cognitive skills but also social status and STEM education objectives. This is consistent with the widespread positive attitudes towards the use of LEGO-type robots, as they are regarded as particularly popular in educational settings (Arís and Orcos 2019; Silva et al. 2012; Souza et al. 2018; Wang 2001). LEGO Mindstorms was often utilized in combination with specific programming software, such as Choregraphe for the NAO robot, GeoGebra with LEGO Mindstorms, and ScratchJr software. In the specific domain of ER intervention for teaching coding to high-functioning autism (HFA) children aged 10.5 years old, kinder bot software was employed. Furthermore, an adaptive ER platform, the AI Jansen mechanism, utilized software as an instructor during assembly. Virtual educational robotic simulators, as exemplified by the Tselegaridis et al. study (Tselegkaridis and Sapounidis 2021), offer students the opportunity to work without hardware restrictions, as illustrated in Figure 9.
LEGO-type robots have been consistently employed in ER activities with the goal of developing social skills and social status in all studies conducted in various countries except for one in Portugal, where the Ozobots robot was utilized. Additionally, LEGO-type robots, accompanied by different software, have been utilized for STEM and coding development in research conducted in Italy and Brazil, respectively. The Bee or ProBot has predominately been used for cognitive skills development in studies in Greece and the UK. Furthermore, the NAO robot has been employed to foster social skills in research conducted in Portugal, as illustrated in Figure 10.

3.2.4. The Recommended Psychoeducational Methodologies and Strategies That Support the Participation of Students with Autism in ER Activities

A total of 267 subjects participated in selected ER research activities, including individuals, children, and adolescents. Specific adaptations characterized the nature of these ER activities to encourage participation. In the included studies (n = 31), although general strategies for ER were suggested, only 15 (50%) of these strategies were explicitly based on the strengths of autistic students. These strategies included elements such as visualization, clear routines, written rules or pictures outlining expectations of behavior in the classroom, turn-taking techniques, and social stories. The nature of the ER activities incorporating specific autism adaptations was based on the main learning characteristics of the autistic students, as described by the authors in (Barry and Burlew 2004; Hume and Reynolds 2010; Karagiannidis et al. 2014). These specific strategies were primarily applied in activities with the goal of social skills development, and half of them (n = 7) applied these strategies specifically for autism participation in an inclusive context, as illustrated in Figure 11.
Universal design methodologies (Kats 2016, 2021), along with other specific psychoeducational methodologies and strategies, are recommended to enhance the participation of individuals with autism in the learning process within a collaborative environment and engage them in programming (Fachantidis et al. 2020; Hansbøl 2015).
Cooperation scenarios (Kollar et al. 2006) recommend structuring the interaction process to facilitate the participation of students with autism in the ER learning environment. This structure is guided by specific collaboration scripts and rules defined to support teamwork (Caci 2004; De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Di Lieto et al. 2020; Fachantidis et al. 2020; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Perez-Vazquez et al. 2022; Peribañez et al. 2023).
Teamwork strategies and rules are strongly recommended to be visualized and presented with visual stimuli or prompts to enhance the effective participation of children with autism (Albo-Canals et al. 2013; De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Fachantidis et al. 2020; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020).
Specific roles assigned to participants during group work in ER activities include the rotating roles of builder (builder, brick supplier, PC/tablet user) and coder (PC/tablet user, programmer, driver). These roles can be either rotated or permanent (Fachantidis et al. 2020; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020). To teach participation processes and interaction with peers, specific strategy training with visual prompts is employed (Ludi and Reichlmayr 2011; Nanou et al. 2022; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020).
ER activities have shown positive impacts in various domains, including: a) the improvement of social status (Di Lieto et al. 2020; Fachantidis et al. 2020; Papazoglou et al. 2021), b) the enhancement of participation and collaboration (Costa et al. 2010; Di Lieto et al. 2020; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Peribañez et al. 2023; Prummer et al. 2022; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020; Wainer et al. 2010), c) inclusion (De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Di Lieto et al. 2020; Fachantidis et al. 2020; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Poletti 2023), and d) cognitive improvement (Albo-Canals et al. 2013; Arias and Madrid 2017; Arshad et al. 2020; Caci 2004; De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Lindsay 2011; Silva et al. 2012).

4. Discussion

This scoping review comprehensively maps the literature concerning the participation of students with autism in ER. The analysis encompassed 45 studies, achieving two primary objectives: (1) elucidating the contextual dimensions influencing the participation of students with autism in ER, and (2) elucidating the nature of ER activities with respect to the main learning characteristics of students with autism.
According to the first objective, research on the participation of students with autism in ER is acknowledged to be limited based on the selected studies. This research is distributed across four distinct yet interconnected dimensions that impact the participation of students with autism in ER, as illustrated in Figure 12. These dimensions include teacher attitudes toward the participation of students with autism in the ER, teacher training methods, the implementation of ER activities, and the accessibility of ER for students with autism. Given the asymmetrical development of research across these dimensions, there is a lack of interaction and feedback between the different yet complementary research findings (Kats 2021, 2016; Karademir Coşkun 2022; Keshav et al. 2018; Lopez and Louis 2009).
Regarding the second objective of the scoping review, the results reveal an asymmetry in the research development of the included studies. Most of the research investigates how the participation of students with autism in ER activities influences the development of their social skills and their social status. However, very few explore their cognitive skills, coding skills, or STEM knowledge development. These findings suggest that most researchers commonly find the ER environment to be conducive to improving the social skills or social status of students with autism. Social skills development poses a significant challenge in autism, and different intervention strategies, tools, and methods have been employed in a therapeutic context to address this challenge. Although these interventions have shown positive results based on individual characteristics, the generalization of acquired knowledge or skills remains a substantial challenge. It is uncertain whether individuals with autism can transfer the acquired social skills to new situations (Froehlich et al. 2012; Hernández-Torrano et al. 2022; Ozonoff and Miller 1995; Wainer et al. 2010). ER activities, as indicated by the findings of this scoping review, have been utilized by researchers to provide benefits for children with autism in developing their social skills. Adopting strengths-based approaches, students with autism share the same desire as their peers to interact and contribute to group activities (White et al. 2023). ER within an authentically collaborative environment provides significant benefits as the transfer process is included. Given that ER activities are extracurricular and serve as a “magnet” of interest for typical students, they create a context where students with autism could be taught how to develop their social skills and enhance their social status. On the other hand, research that is focused on using ER to enhance coding skills and STEM knowledge in students with autism is limited. The potential of students with autism in coding has not been adequately investigated in terms of both quality and quantity. Similarly, research on the accessibility of ER interfaces for children with autism is limited, with some ER control interfaces proving not to be accessible for children on the autistic spectrum (Galvez Trigo et al. 2022).
This scoping review additionally highlights the psychoeducational methods that support the participation of students with autism, as summarized in Table 1. These methods encompass cooperation scenarios, collaboration scripts and rules, teamwork strategies presented through visual stimuli or prompts, specific roles assigned to participants, and strategy training incorporating visual prompts. These psychoeducational methodologies align with the educational needs of students with autism to operate effectively in a structured environment (Barry and Burlew 2004; Hume and Reynolds 2010; Karagiannidis et al. 2014; Mesibov 2018).
Positive outcomes concerning the participation, peer collaboration, and improvement of social skills and the social status of students with autism, in parallel with cognitive benefits, have been documented by the participation of students with autism in the ER activities that have been investigated in the included studies (De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Nanou and Karampatzakis 2022; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Silva et al. 2012; Silva-Calpa et al. 2021; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020). ER, in line with the vision of inclusion articulated by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), could be approached as an educational opportunity for differentiating instructions and establishing an authentically inclusive learning environment based on the strengths and interests of students with autism. According to the findings of this scoping review, it is recommended that more research be developed in different dimensions of the participation of students with autism in ER.
According to the results of the conducted research (Albo-Canals et al. 2013; Chatzara et al. 2014; Costa et al. 2010; De Franca Monteiro et al. 2020; Fachantidis et al. 2020; Lancheros-Cuesta et al. 2020; Nanou et al. 2022; Papazoglou et al. 2021; Tsiomi and Nanou 2020; Yun et al. 2014), as presented in Table 2, structuring the ER environment with visual instructions and creating a consistent schedule and routine are key factors to ensuring a predictable and secure environment suitable for the inclusion of students with autism (Baron-Cohen 2004; David Moore and Thorpe 2000; Hume and Reynolds 2010).
Finally, there are some limitations of this review that should be noted. First, the fact that we did not expand beyond the four electronic databases in our search means that some studies may not have been included. Second, only literature written in English was included. The lack of inclusion of non-English publications and limited country representation will limit the perspectives and experiences on ER for autism.

5. Conclusions

This scoping review demonstrated that research on the participation of students with autism in ER is limited. Interrelated dimensions that affect the participation of autistic students in ER have only just started to be investigated. Research gaps were identified in the investigation of autistic coding skills and the accessibility of ER interfaces. This scoping review highlights the key concept of participation in ER as a means and an outcome for the inclusion of autistic students in educational environments. Strengths-based approaches that take advantage of the potential of autistic students in ER and use of autism-adapted psychoeducational methodologies are strongly connected to the success of their inclusion. The findings of this review may help educators and researchers use strengths-based approaches to support the inclusion of autistic students in mainstream education using educational robotics.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci12120675/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.N.; Methodology: A.N. and D.K.; Writing—original draft: A.N.; Writing—review and editing: A.N. and D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article and Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

This research work is not directly linked to any particular funding initiative.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ASCAutism Spectrum Condition
ASDAutism Spectrum Disorder
EREducational Robotics
ERsEducational Robots
HFAHigh-Functioning Autism
IERInclusive Educational Robotics
SARSocial Assistive Robots
SaSSSearch and Share Strategy (IER Strategy)
SERSpecial Educational Robotics
SMSStaring Manage Share (IER Strategy)
STEMScience, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics
TSPThink Share Pair (Cooperative Strategy)
WoSWeb of Science

References

  1. Albo-Canals, Jordi, Marcel Heerink, Marta Diaz, Vanesa Padillo, Marta Maristany, Alex Barco, Cecilio Angulo, Ariana Riccio, Lauren Brodsky, Simone Dufresne, and et al. 2013. Comparing two LEGO Robotics-based interventions for social skills training with children with ASD. Paper presented at 2013 IEEE RO-MAN, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, August 26–29; pp. 638–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alhaddad, Ahmad Yaser, John-John Cabibihan, and Andrea Bonarini. 2023. Real-Time Social Robot’s Responses to Undesired Interactions Between Children and their Surroundings. International Journal of Social Robotics 15: 621–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amante, Lúcia, Elizabeth Batista Souza, António Quintas-Mendes, and Maribel Miranda-Pinto. 2023. Designing a MOOC on Computational Thinking, Programming and Robotics for Early Childhood Educators and Primary School Teachers: A Pilot Test Evaluation. Education Sciences 13: 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Antonelli, Dario, Athanasios Christopoulos, Mikko-Jussi Laakso, Valentina Dagienė, Agnė Juškevičienė, Vaida Masiulionytė-Dagienė, Maksymilian Mądziel, Dorota Stadnicka, and Chrysostomos Stylios. 2023. A Virtual Reality Laboratory for Blended Learning Education: Design, Implementation and Evaluation. Education Sciences 13: 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arias, Danna, and Ericka Madrid. 2017. A way to promote the development of autistic teenagers through programming of a humanoid robot platform. Paper presented at 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN, USA, October 18–21; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Arís, Nuria, and Lara Orcos. 2019. Educational Robotics in the Stage of Secondary Education: Empirical Study on Motivation and STEM Skills. Education Sciences 9: 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arshad, Noreen Izza, Ahmad Sobri Hashim, Mazeyanti Mohd Ariffin, Nurshazlyn Mohd Aszemi, Hui Min Low, and Azah Anir Norman. 2020. Robots as Assistive Technology Tools to Enhance Cognitive Abilities and Foster Valuable Learning Experiences among Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder. IEEE Access 8: 116279–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baccaglini-Frank, Anna E., George Santi, Agnese Del Zozzo, and Eric Frank. 2020. Teachers’ Perspectives on the Intertwining of Tangible and Digital Modes of Activity with a Drawing Robot for Geometry. Education Sciences 10: 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2004. The cognitive neuroscience of autism. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 75: 945–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barry, Leasha M., and Suzanne B. Burlew. 2004. Using social stories to teach choice and play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 19: 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Benitti, Fabiane Barreto Vavassori. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education 58: 978–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Caci, Barbara. 2004. New frontiers for psychology and education: Robotics. Psychological Reports 94: 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chatzara, Konstantina, Charalampos Karagiannidis, Sofia Mavropoulou, and Dimos Stamatis. 2014. Digital Storytelling for Children with Autism: Software Development and Pilot Application. New York: Springer New York, pp. 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chung, Eva Yin-han. 2021. Robot-Mediated Social Skill Intervention Programme for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An ABA Time-Series Study. International Journal of Social Robotics 13: 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Costa, Sandra, Cristina Santos, Filomena Soares, Manuel Ferreira, and Fátima Moreira. 2010. Promoting interaction amongst autistic adolescents using robots. Paper presented at 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, Buenos Aires, Argentina, August 31–September 4; pp. 3856–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Damianidou, Despoina, Ami Eidels, and Michael Arthur-Kelly. 2020. The Use of Robots in Social Communications and Interactions for Individuals with ASD: A Systematic Review. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders 4: 357–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dautenhahn, Kerstin, and Iain Werry. 2004. Towards interactive robots in autism therapy: Background, motivation and challenges. Pragmatics & Cognition 12: 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. David Moore, Paul McGrath, and John Thorpe. 2000. Computer-aided learning for people with autism—A framework for research and development. Innovations in Education and Training International 37: 218–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Franca Monteiro, Milena, Maria Veronica Segovia Gonzalez, Akynara Aglae Rodrigues Santos Da Silva Burlamaqui, and Aquiles Medeiros Filgueira Burlamaqui. 2020. Educational Robotics as a Motivational Tool for Students with ASD: A First Impression. Paper present at 2020 Latin American Robotics Symposium (LARS), 2020 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2020 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE), Natal, Brazil, November 9–13; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Demetroulis, Emmanouil A., Anastasios Theodoropoulos, Manolis Wallace, Vassilis Poulopoulos, and Angeliki Antoniou. 2023. Collaboration Skills in Educational Robotics: A Methodological Approach—Results from Two Case Studies in Primary Schools. Education Sciences 13: 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Di Battista, Silvia, Monica Pivetti, and Michele Moro. 2022. Learning Support Teachers’ Intention to Use Educational Robotics: The Role of Perception of Usefulness and Adaptability. Robotics 11: 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Di Battista, Silvia, Monica Pivetti, Michele Moro, and Emanuele Menegatti. 2020. Teachers’ Opinions towards Educational Robotics for Special Needs Students: An Exploratory Italian Study. Robotics 9: 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Di Lieto, Maria Chiara, Emanuela Castro, Chiara Pecini, Emanuela Inguaggiato, Francesca Cecchi, Paolo Dario, Giovanni Cioni, and Giuseppina Sgandurra. 2020. Improving Executive Functions at School in Children With Special Needs by Educational Robotics. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Fachantidis, Nikolaos, Christine K. Syriopoulou-Delli, Ioannis Vezyrtzis, and Maria Zygopoulou. 2020. Beneficial effects of robot-mediated class activities on a child with ASD and his typical classmates. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 66: 245–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Froehlich, Alyson L., Jeffrey S. Anderson, Erin D. Bigler, Judith S. Miller, Nicholas T. Lange, Molly B. DuBray, Jason R. Cooperrider, Annahir N. Cariello, Jared A. Nielsen, and Janet E. Lainhart. 2012. Intact prototype formation but impaired generalization in autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 6: 921–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Galvez Trigo, Maria Jose, Penelope Jane Standen, and Sue Valerie Gray Cobb. 2019. Robots in special education: Reasons for low uptake. Journal of Enabling Technologies 13: 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Galvez Trigo, Maria Jose, Penelope Jane Standen, and Sue Valerie Gray Cobb. 2022. Educational robots and their control interfaces: How can we make them more accessible for special education? In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. User and Context Diversity. Edited by Margherita Antona and Constantine Stephanidis. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 15–34. [Google Scholar]
  28. García-Tudela, Pedro Antonio, and José-Antonio Marín-Marín. 2023. Use of Arduino in Primary Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences 13: 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Golestan, Shadan, Pegah Soleiman, and Hadi Moradi. 2017. Feasibility of using sphero in rehabilitation of children with autism in social and communication skills. Paper presented at 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), London, UK, July 17–20; pp. 989–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Govender, Reginald Gerald, and Desmond Wesley Govender. 2023. Using Robotics in the Learning of Computer Programming: Student Experiences Based on Experiential Learning Cycles. Education Sciences 13: 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gubenko, Alla, Christiane Kirsch, Jan Nicola Smilek, Todd Lubart, and Claude Houssemand. 2021. Educational Robotics and Robot Creativity: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 8: 662030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Habib, Maki K., Fusaomi Nagata, and Keigo Watanabe. 2021. Mechatronics: Experiential Learning and the Stimulation of Thinking Skills. Education Sciences 11: 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hansbøl, Mikala. 2015. Tema 2: Robot technologies, autism and designs for learning. Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM) 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hernández-Torrano, Daniel, Michelle Somerton, and Janet Helmer. 2022. Mapping research on inclusive education since Salamanca Statement: A bibliometric review of the literature over 25 years. International Journal of Inclusive Education 26: 893–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hume, Kara, and Beth Reynolds. 2010. Implementing work systems across the school day: Increasing engagement in students with autism spectrum disorders. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 54: 228–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Imms, Christine, Mats Granlund, Peter H. Wilson, Bert Steenbergen, Peter L. Rosenbaum, and Andrew M. Gordon. 2017. Participation, both a means and an end: A conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 59: 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Iovannone, Rose, Glen Dunlap, Heather Huber, and Don Kincaid. 2003. Effective educational practices for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 18: 150–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jung, Sung, and Eun-sok Won. 2018. Systematic Review of Research Trends in Robotics Education for Young Children. Sustainability 10: 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaburlasos, Vassilis G., Ch Dardani, Maya Dimitrova, and Angelos Amanatiadis. 2018. Multi-robot engagement in special education: A preliminary study in autism. Paper presented at 2018 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, January 12–14; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kalaitzidou, Magdalini, and Theodore P. Pachidis. 2023. Recent Robots in STEAM Education. Education Sciences 13: 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karademir Coşkun, Tuğra. 2022. The effectiveness of robot training in special education: A robot training model proposal for special education. Interactive Learning Environments 30: 1092–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Karagiannidis, Charalampos, Panagiotis Politis, and Ilias Karasavvidis. 2014. Research on e-learning and ict in education. In Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education: Technological, Pedagogical and Instructional Perspectives. Cham: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  43. Karalekas, Georgios, Stavros Vologiannidis, and John Kalomiros. 2023. Teaching Machine Learning in K–12 Using Robotics. Education Sciences 13: 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kastner, Monika, Andrea C. Tricco, Charlene Soobiah, Erin Lillie, Laure Perrier, Tanya Horsley, Vivian Welch, Elise Cogo, Jesmin Antony, and Sharon E. Straus. 2012. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12: 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kats, Yefim. 2016. Educational Leadership and Integrated Support for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. In Educational Leadership and Administration: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 101–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kats, Yefim. 2021. Integrated Support of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Learning Disabilities. In Education and Technology Support for Children and Young Adults With ASD and Learning Disabilities. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Keshav, Neha, Arshya Vahabzadeh, Rafiq Abdus-Sabur, Krystal Huey, Joseph Salisbury, Runpeng Liu, and Ned Sahin. 2018. Longitudinal Socio-Emotional Learning Intervention for Autism via Smartglasses: Qualitative School Teacher Descriptions of Practicality, Usability, and Efficacy in General and Special Education Classroom Settings. Education Sciences 8: 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kimbler, D. L. 1984. Robots and special education: The robot as extension of self1. Peabody Journal of Education 62: 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kollar, Ingo, Frank Fischer, and Friedrich W. Hesse. 2006. Collaboration Scripts–A Conceptual Analysis. Educational Psychology Review 18: 159–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lahav, Orly, Vadim Talis, and Ravit Shekovitz. 2019. Programming Robotic Behavior by High-Functioning Autistic Children. Paper presented at 2019 International Conference on Virtual Rehabilitation (ICVR), Tel Aviv, Israel, July 21–24; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lancheros-Cuesta, Diana, Jorge Elicer Rangel, Jose Luis Rubiano, and Yenny Alexandra Cifuentes. 2020. Adaptive robotic platform as an inclusive education aid for children with autism spectrum disorder. In Computer Aided Systems Theory - EUROCAST 2019. Edited by Roberto Moreno-Díaz.íaz, Franz Pichler and Alexis Quesada-Arencibia. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 297–304. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lindsay, Sally. 2011. Discrimination and other barriers to employment for teens and young adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation 33: 1340–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lopez, Shane J., and Michelle C. Louis. 2009. The Principles of Strengths-Based Education. Journal of College and Character 10: 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ludi, Stephanie, and Tom Reichlmayr. 2011. The Use of Robotics to Promote Computing to Pre-College Students with Visual Impairments. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mesibov, Gary. 2018. Accessing the Curriculum for Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: Using the Teacch Programme to Help Inclusion. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Miguel Cruz, Antonio, Adriana María Ríos Rincón, William Ricardo Rodríguez Dueñas, Daniel Alejandro Quiroga Torres, and Andrés Felipe Bohórquez-Heredia. 2017. What does the literature say about using robots on children with disabilities? Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 12: 429–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Montuori, Chiara, Gabriele Pozzan, Costanza Padova, Lucia Ronconi, Tullio Vardanega, and Barbara Arfé. 2023. Combined Unplugged and Educational Robotics Training to Promote Computational Thinking and Cognitive Abilities in Preschoolers. Education Sciences 13: 858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Moorthy, Ramya S., and Sivagurunathan Pugazhenthi. 2017. Teaching Psychomotor Skills to Autistic Children by Employing a Robotic Training Kit: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Social Robotics 9: 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nanou, Andromachi, and Dimitris Karampatzakis. 2022. Collaborative Educational Robotics for the Inclusion of Children with Disabilities. Education. Innovation. Diversity 1: 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nanou, Andromachi, Evaggelia Tsiomi, Andreas Oikonomou, and Dimitris Karampatzakis. 2022. The SAS Strategy Training for Children with ASD in Inclusive Educational Robotics Activities. Education. Innovation. Diversity 2: 34–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ozonoff, Sally, and Judith N. Miller. 1995. Teaching theory of mind: A new approach to social skills training for individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 25: 415–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Papakostas, George A., Athanasios K. Strolis, Fotis Panagiotopoulos, and Charalabos N. Aitsidis. 2018. Social Robot Selection: A Case Study in Education. Paper presented at 2018 26th International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), Split, Croatia, September 13–15; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Papakostas, George A., George K. Sidiropoulos, Cristina I. Papadopoulou, Eleni Vrochidou, Vassilis G. Kaburlasos, Maria T. Papadopoulou, Vasiliki Holeva, Vasiliki-Aliki Nikopoulou, and Nikolaos Dalivigkas. 2021. Social Robots in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Electronics 10: 1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Papazoglou, Theodora, Charalampos Karagiannidis, and Sofia Mavropoulou. 2021. Educational Robotics can foster social inclusion and social status of children with autism. Paper present at 2021 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Tartu, Estonia, July 12–15; pp. 317–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Papert, Seymour. 1993. Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pellas, Nikolaos, and Katerina Tzafilkou. 2023. The Influence of Absorption and Need for Cognition on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Educational Robot-Supported Projects. Education Sciences 13: 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pennisi, Paola, Alessandro Tonacci, Gennaro Tartarisco, Lucia Billeci, Liliana Ruta, Sebastiano Gangemi, and Giovanni Pioggia. 2016. Autism and social robotics: A systematic review: Autism and social robotics. Autism Research 9: 165–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Perez-Vazquez, Elena, Gonzalo Lorenzo Lledo, and Alba Gilabert Cerda. 2022. Bee-bot robot in the use of executive functions in students with ASD: A pilot study. Paper present at 2022 XII International Conference on Virtual Campus (JICV), Arequipa, Peru, September 29–30; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peribañez, Elena, Sofia Bayona, Jose San Martin, Ana Verde, Carlos Garre, Janika Leoste, and Luis Pastor. 2023. An Experimental Methodology for Introducing Educational Robotics and Storytelling in Therapeutical Activities for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Machines 11: 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Peters, Micah D. J., Casey Marnie, Andrea C. Tricco, Danielle Pollock, Zachary Munn, Lyndsay Alexander, Patricia McInerney, Christina M. Godfrey, and Hanan Khalil. 2020. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 18: 2119–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Piedade, João, Nuno Dorotea, Ana Pedro, and João Filipe Matos. 2020. On Teaching Programming Fundamentals and Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics: A Didactic Experience with Pre-Service Teachers. Education Sciences 10: 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pivetti, Monica, Silvia Di Battista, Francesca Agatolio, Brunilda Simaku, Michele Moro, and Emanuele Menegatti. 2020. Educational Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Heliyon 6: e05160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Poletti, Giorgio. 2023. Educational Robotics Inclusive and Technology Education. European Proceedings of Educational Sciences 6: 214–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Prummer, Franziska, Annika Hellendoorn, Rianne Van Den Berghe, Hans Petersen, Erik Ploeger, and Hanno Van Keulen. 2022. Robotic Task Complexity and Collaborative Behavior of Children with ASD. Paper presented at 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Sapporo, Japan, March 7–10; pp. 997–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Saleh, Mohammed A., Fazah Akhtar Hanapiah, and Habibah Hashim. 2021. Robot applications for autism: A comprehensive review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 16: 580–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Schina, Despoina, Vanessa Esteve-González, and Mireia Usart. 2021. An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: Characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies 26: 2831–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Silva, Ricardo, Fernando Martins, José Cravino, Paulo Martins, Cecília Costa, and J. Bernardino Lopes. 2023. Using Educational Robotics in Pre-Service Teacher Training: Orchestration between an Exploration Guide and Teacher Role. Education Sciences 13: 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Silva, Sara, Filomena Soares, Sandra Costa, Ana Paula Pereira, and Fatima Moreira. 2012. Development of skills in children with ASD using a robotic platform. Paper presented at 2012 IEEE 2nd Portuguese Meeting in Bioengineering (ENBENG), Coimbra, Portugal, February 23–25; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Silva-Calpa, Greis Francy M., Alberto B. Raposo, and Francisco R. Ortega. 2021. Collaboration support in co-located collaborative systems for users with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37: 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Souza, Isabelle M. L., Wilkerson L. Andrade, Livia M. R. Sampaio, and Ana Liz Souto O. Araujo. 2018. A Systematic Review on the use of LEGO® Robotics in Education. Paper presented at 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), San Jose, CA, USA, October 3–6; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tselegkaridis, Sokratis, and Theodosios Sapounidis. 2021. Simulators in Educational Robotics: A Review. Education Sciences 11: 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tsiomi, Evaggelia, and Andromachi Nanou. 2020. Cooperative Strategies for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Robotics Activities. Society. Integration. Education. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference 4: 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wainer, Joshua, Ester Ferrari, Kerstin Dautenhahn, and Ben Robins. 2010. The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14: 445–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, Eric. 2001. Teaching freshmen design, creativity and programming with LEGOs and Labview. Paper present at 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37193), Reno, NV, USA, October 10; Volume 3, p. F3G-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Weiss, Mary Jane, and Sandra L. Harris. 2001. Teaching social skills to people with autism. Behav Modif 25: 785–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. White, Jia, Sarah McGarry, Marita Falkmer, Melissa Scott, P. John Williams, and Melissa H. Black. 2023. Creating Inclusive Schools for Autistic Students: A Scoping Review on Elements Contributing to Strengths-Based Approaches. Education Sciences 13: 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Xiao, Yu, and Maria Watson. 2019. Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39: 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yun, Sang-Seok, Sung-Kee Park, and JongSuk Choi. 2014. A robotic treatment approach to promote social interaction skills for children with autism spectrum disorders. Paper presented at The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Edinburgh, UK, August 25–29; pp. 130–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zúñiga Muñoz, Rene Fabián, Isabel Cristina Mejía Córdoba, Byron Giovanny Salazar España, Marilyn Tenorio Melenje, María Alejandra Trujillo Medina, and Julio Ariel Hurtado Alegría. 2023. Adjusting the ChildProgramming Methodology to Educational Robotics Teaching and Debugging. Education Sciences 13: 936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 12 00675 g001
Figure 1. The selection process and each stage of the review.
Figure 1. The selection process and each stage of the review.
Socsci 12 00675 g001
Socsci 12 00675 g002
Figure 2. The objectives and research questions.
Figure 2. The objectives and research questions.
Socsci 12 00675 g002
Socsci 12 00675 g003
Figure 3. The number of included studies by the year of publication.
Figure 3. The number of included studies by the year of publication.
Socsci 12 00675 g003
Socsci 12 00675 g004
Figure 4. The number of studies per country of publication.
Figure 4. The number of studies per country of publication.
Socsci 12 00675 g004
Socsci 12 00675 g005
Figure 5. The investigated ER technologies.
Figure 5. The investigated ER technologies.
Socsci 12 00675 g005
Socsci 12 00675 g006
Figure 6. The investigated dimensions that affect participation in relation to the year of publication of the included studies.
Figure 6. The investigated dimensions that affect participation in relation to the year of publication of the included studies.
Socsci 12 00675 g006
Socsci 12 00675 g007
Figure 7. The goal of ER activities in the included studies.
Figure 7. The goal of ER activities in the included studies.
Socsci 12 00675 g007
Socsci 12 00675 g008
Figure 8. The goal of ER activities or interventions in relation to the context of the collaboration (IER inclusive vs. SER special).
Figure 8. The goal of ER activities or interventions in relation to the context of the collaboration (IER inclusive vs. SER special).
Socsci 12 00675 g008
Socsci 12 00675 g009
Figure 9. ER and software interfaces used in different ER intervention goals for individuals with autism.
Figure 9. ER and software interfaces used in different ER intervention goals for individuals with autism.
Socsci 12 00675 g009
Socsci 12 00675 g010
Figure 10. The correlation of ER activities and ER kits in different countries.
Figure 10. The correlation of ER activities and ER kits in different countries.
Socsci 12 00675 g010
Socsci 12 00675 g011
Figure 11. The recommended psychoeducational methodologies that support autism students in ER activities.
Figure 11. The recommended psychoeducational methodologies that support autism students in ER activities.
Socsci 12 00675 g011
Socsci 12 00675 g012
Figure 12. Research dimensions for autism participation in ER activities.
Figure 12. Research dimensions for autism participation in ER activities.
Socsci 12 00675 g012
Table 1. Psychoeducational ER methods recommended by the included studies and their appearances in them.
Table 1. Psychoeducational ER methods recommended by the included studies and their appearances in them.
General ER MethodsSpecific ER Methods for the Inclusion of Students with AutismInclusive Methods in the Class
Problem-solving method based on the declarative approach (3)Modeling augmented reality with the mechanical assembly system (1)Universal Design for Learning Principles (2)
Collaboration based on problem-solving exploration, demonstration, and interaction (6)Collaboration script, specific roles in IER teamwork (architecture, supplier, builder), and SAS Strategy for successful collaboration (1)Differentiation strategies integration of technologies and IER (1)
Rotate roles: Build (builder, brick supplier, PC/tablet user) Code (PC/tablet user, programmer, driver) (1)Turn-taking wheels (1)Project-based (1)
Guided instruction with simple orders (1)General and special strategy training—Think Share Pair (TSP) cooperative strategy—Staring Manage Share (SMS) specific strategy for the cooperation of ASD with peers in ER–Self-regulated strategy Social story teaching approach (1)-
Teamwork strategies—no definition of roles (4)Visual instructions (2)Learning by design (2)
-Adjusted according to the needs of adolescents during each session (1)Working stations (1)
-Rules, Reminder Cards (1)Structure challenging activities (1)
-Structuring the process and the place (2)-
Table 2. Specific approaches for the inclusion of students with autism in ER activities recommended by the included studies.
Table 2. Specific approaches for the inclusion of students with autism in ER activities recommended by the included studies.
Description of the MethodCountryType of RobotResult(s)
Augmented reality was used as an assembly instructor to support students with autismColombiaLEGO-type robotStudents with autism assemble the robot with a low number of failures and an estimated time of 10 to 15 min
Collaboration script with the definition of specific roles for building the robot (architecture, supplier, builder) and coding. SaS Strategy training (SaSS)GreeceLEGO Mindstorms NXTSocial status improvement cooperative behavior and skills in building and coding
Turn-taking wheelsUKLEGO Mindstorms NXTImproved social interactions and peer collaborations were generalized in other domains. Children’s parents reported improvement in their children’s social status
Strategy training: (a) cooperative strategy: Think Share Pair (TSP) (b) Specific strategy for cooperation with peers: Staring Manage Share (SMS) (c) Self-regulated strategy, and (d) Social story teaching approachGreeceLEGO Mindstorms NXTThe SMS strategy and the specific self-regulated strategies proved necessary in creating a climate of cooperation between typical and HF students. Difficulties with disrupting behaviors occurred with less intensity
Structured process and place with visual instructions and rules reminder cardsGreece, Spain, USA, Brazil, and SpainLEGO-type Robot 3D, LEGO WeDo 2.0, OzobotsChildren with autism in structured environments overcame motivational and sensory processing barriers and improved participation, joint attention, and social skills
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nanou, A.; Karampatzakis, D. The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120675

AMA Style

Nanou A, Karampatzakis D. The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(12):675. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120675

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nanou, Andromachi, and Dimitris Karampatzakis. 2023. "The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review" Social Sciences 12, no. 12: 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120675

APA Style

Nanou, A., & Karampatzakis, D. (2023). The Participation of Students with Autism in Educational Robotics: A Scoping Review. Social Sciences, 12(12), 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120675

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop