sensors

Article
Socially-Assistive Robots to Support Learning in Students
on the Autism Spectrum: Investigating Educator Perspectives
and a Pilot Trial of a Mobile Platform to Remove Barriers
to Implementation
David Silvera-Tawil 1, * , Susan Bruck 2,3 and Yi Xiao 1 and DanaKai Bradford 1

1 Australian e-Health Research Centre, CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, Brisbane 4029, Australia
2 School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast 4222, Australia
3 Autism Spectrum Australia, Frenchs Forest 2086, Australia
* Correspondence: david.silvera@csiro.au

Abstract: Technology offers educators tools that can tailor learning to students’ learning styles and
interests. Research into the use of socially-assistive robots as a learning support for children on the
autism spectrum are showing promising results. However, to date, few schools have introduced
these robots to support learning in students on the autism spectrum. This paper reports on a research
project that investigated the barriers to implementing socially-assistive robot supported learning, and
the expectations, perceived benefits and concerns of school teachers and therapists of students on the
autism spectrum and adults on the autism spectrum. First, three focus groups were conducted with
six adults on the autism spectrum, and 13 teachers and therapists of students from two autism-specific
Citation: Silvera-Tawil, D.; Bruck, S.;
schools. During the focus groups, there was cautious optimism from participants about the value of
Xiao, Y.; Bradford, D.
socially-assistive robots for teaching support. While the data showed that participants were in favour
Socially-Assistive Robots to Support
Learning in Students on the Autism
of trialling socially-assistive robots in the classroom, they also raised several concerns and potential
Spectrum: Investigating Educator barriers to implementation, including the need for teacher training. In response to their concerns, the
Perspectives and a Pilot Trial of a second part of the project focussed on developing a software platform and mobile application (app)
Mobile Platform to Remove to support the introduction of robots into autism-specific classrooms. The software platform and app
Barriers to Implementation. Sensors were then trialled in two schools (n = 7 teachers and therapists). Results from focus groups indicated
2022, 22, 6125. https://doi.org/ that participants believe socially-assistive robots could be useful for learning support, as the mobile
10.3390/s22166125 app provides an easy to use tool to support preparing and conducting lessons that would motivate
Academic Editors: Ameersing them to trial robots in the classroom.
Luximon and Ravindra S.
Goonetilleke Keywords: autism spectrum disorder; social robots; socially-assistive robotics; classroom technology

Received: 15 July 2022

Accepted: 12 August 2022
Published: 16 August 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
Technology provides teachers with novel ways to present information, and offers
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
students opportunities to engage with topics compatible with their learning styles and
published maps and institutional affil-
interests. Consistent structured environments that provide routines, repetition and familiar
iations.
behaviours and activities support learning in students with diagnosed autism spectrum
disorder [1–3], a lifelong developmental condition characterised by difficulties with so-
cial communication and social interaction, and restricted and repetitive behaviours and
Copyright: c 2022 by the authors.
interests [4].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Strengths-based learning, where the special interests and abilities of the student
This article is an open access article are incorporated into the teaching practices, can support learning, act as a motivator,
distributed under the terms and and improve students’ sense of confidence in their abilities [5]. Students on the autism
conditions of the Creative Commons spectrum report they find technology less socially threatening than face-to-face social
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// interaction, and they find playing with technology enjoyable [5,6].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Socially-assistive robots are a relatively new type of technology that employs interac-
4.0/). tion strategies, including speech, facial expressions, and body movements, to assist people

Sensors 2022, 22, 6125. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22166125 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 2 of 17

in accordance with a particular context [7]. They can provide assistance by developing a
social bond with individuals and supporting a measurable progression in the development
of a skill [8–11]. Socially-assistive robots can interact autonomously or semi-autonomously
with humans to support their daily activities [12], and have the potential to complement ed-
ucators and therapists in the provision of tailored, accessible, and affordable interventions
and support [13,14]. From here on, we will refer to socially-assistive robots as robots.
In education settings, robots have the potential to support learning by delivering
reliable and replicable demonstrations and interactions to complement and enhance the
outcomes of school lessons [13–16]. Recently, a growing body of knowledge has shown that
robot involvement in therapy sessions can support social skill development in students on
the autism spectrum, including verbal communication [17,18], emotion recognition [19,20],
student engagement [21], and associative, cooperative, and social play [22]. Promising
results were also reported on the development of social interaction abilities [19,23] and
learning outcomes [24].
Small child-sized robots that have simplified human-like features and monotonous
voices are generally well received by young children on the autism spectrum because they
offer predictable, consistent behaviour, and a low sensory input [25]. However, the use of
robots in education and clinical settings has been met with scepticism by some therapists
and educators [26,27]. One reason is that the majority of research studies to date do not
follow standard research designs. For example, in many studies there is a lack of a control
group and sample sizes are small (often less than five participants) [28–30]. These small-
sample studies can give valuable trends, but generalising the results (often from a single
exposure to the robot) is not convincing and unlikely to present the realistic impact of robots
on educational or therapeutic outcomes of young people on the autism spectrum [31].
Teachers also report concerns about their knowledge of autism and their skills in teach-
ing students on the autism spectrum [2]. However, when accessible resources are available
to support teachers and develop individualised programs, confidence and perceived knowl-
edge improves [32]. To date, there are few professional development programs specifically
designed to prepare teachers for using robots in the classroom, and there is limited infor-
mation available on the perceptions and expectations of teachers of students on the autism
spectrum about the introduction and use of robots in the classroom [33].
Research that explores the expectations of adults on the autism spectrum, and teachers
and therapists of students on the autism spectrum, about the use of robots to assist learning
and teaching is a growing area of interest for educators and policy makers. Available data
suggest that educators and therapists consider this technology has the potential to be a
valuable tool in the education of children and young adults on the autism spectrum [34].
However, there is very little information about the views and perceptions of individuals on
the autism spectrum and a dearth of participation in the research process [35]. This study
extends the existing findings and investigates the expectations, concerns, and barriers to the
implementation of robots to support teaching of students on the autism spectrum, via focus
groups with special education school teachers and therapists, and adults on the autism
spectrum. The research questions posed in this research were:
1. What are the expectations of school teachers, therapists, and adults on the autism
spectrum towards robots at school?
2. What are the concerns and barriers of school teachers, therapists, and adults on the
autism spectrum towards using robots as a learning and teaching support tool?
3. What is needed to facilitate the use of robots in the classroom and improve learn-
ing opportunities?
Despite some concerns regarding the cost and fragility of robots, participants expressed
considerable interest in trialling new technologies (including robots) to support learning
for individuals on the autism spectrum, especially if the development of lectures was
quick, simple, and did not require advanced technical skills. In response, a novel software
platform and mobile application (app) were developed and trialled to enable teachers to
deliver robot-assisted learning.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 3 of 17

2. Methods and Materials

2.1. Design
This project was divided into three parts: (1) an exploratory study designed to in-
vestigate the interest from adults on the autism spectrum and educators in the use of
robots to support classroom education of students on the autism spectrum; (2) the devel-
opment of MAX, the first iteration of a software platform and mobile application (app)
designed to facilitate the use of robots in the classroom, and (3) the pilot trial of MAX. Both
the exploratory study and the pilot trial of MAX used focus groups to discuss benefits,
limitations, and opportunities of robot-assisted education with the participants. A focus
group discussion provides an arena for facilitator-led, qualitative data collection where the
stakeholders in the research interactively discuss a particular issue to capture their opinions
and perspectives [36].
The advantage of a focus group discussion is its ability to create a platform for de-
bate about a research topic and the expression of individual participant and collective
group views [37]. Focus group research is a popular method of data collection for school
teacher [34,38] and school robot research [39,40]. The internal validity of the data was
ensured by including the perspectives of teachers, therapists and adults on the autism
spectrum [41].
This project was conducted with ethical approval from CSIRO’s Health and Med-
ical Human Research Ethics Committee (LR 9/2017) and Aspect’s Research Approval
Committee (7/2017).

2.2. Materials
This project used NAO, a small (58 cm height, 4.3 kg), programmable humanoid robot
developed by SoftBank Robotics (Figure 1). The hardware platform includes: tactile sensors,
speakers, microphones, video cameras, and prehensile hands with three fingers. NAO
has been used in a number of research studies with children on the autism spectrum with
positive outcomes [21,42].

Figure 1. Humanoid robot NAO.

Informed by the exploratory study, a software platform—named MAX—was designed

to facilitate teachers’ access to a robot’s functionalities, and enable the use of robots in
the creation of activities to support learning. The platform includes a software library to
control the NAO robot (sensors, actuators, and network operations), an Android-based
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 4 of 17

mobile app, and a bi-directional communication channel between the app and the robot.
While the control library was built specifically for the NAO robot, the mobile app and the
communication channel were designed to work with any robot.
The communication channel was made via an HTTP protocol configured to start
and stop by a triple-press of the NAO’s chest button. The mobile app was developed
on Android 8.0, and is compatible with Android phones and tablets. The app’s user
interface (UI) design follows Google’s Material Design guidelines. The current version of
the app contains a ’Settings’ section and five fully functional modules: Speak, Chat, Action,
Movement, and Lecture (Figure 2). In every module, a ’Stop’ button allows the user to stop
the activity running on the robot, and return full control to the user. Their features and
intended use cases are briefly described in Table 1.

Figure 2. Main screen (left) and Action module (right) of the MAX app. The arrows in the bottom
right corner of the main screen are used to ‘refresh’ the wireless connection, and the ‘x’ in the bottom
right corner of the Action module stops the current activity running on the robot.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 5 of 17

Table 1. Features of the android app and use cases.

Feature Description Use Case

Provides the ability to configure the robot’s name, IP address, username and
Settings Initial configuration
password.
Provides a text-to-speech interface that allows the user to input English text for the Allows users to control the
Speak robot to speak out. While the robot speaks, random body movements are generated robot’s conversation
by the robot’s in-built animation library. manually.
When the user holds the robot’s right hand, the robot’s eyes light up in green to
announce that it’s ‘listening’. At the same time, it will use its microphone to perform Allows users to have an
Chat concurrent speech recognition and generates an appropriate speech response. This interactive conversation
module was implemented using the Google Cloud Speech API coupled with the with the robot.
chat-bot developed by Ireland et al. [43].
Facilitates access to pre-installed behaviors on the robot. The current version Supports lessons that
Action includes: in-built postures and animations, and open-source behaviors, such as involve physical activity,
dance sequence developed by Vernon et al. [44]. such as dance or yoga.
Provides a joystick-like interface to control the robot. The user can make the robot Conduct a teleoperated
Movement walk around and move its arms. It includes a camera view which lets the user see lecture, or facilitate
what the robot ‘sees’ through one of its cameras. navigation exercises.
Allows for different blocks of text to be incorporated. When the program is started,
Facilitates the creation of
Lecture the robot ‘reads’ out the first block of text, and then waits for a touch on its right
step-by-step lectures.
hand before reading the next one.

2.3. Participants
Adults on the autism spectrum, and teachers and therapists from autism-specific
service providers, were invited to participate in both the exploratory study and the pilot
trial of MAX. Participation was voluntary; no incentives were offered. To be included in the
studies, participants needed to be at least 18 years of age. There were no exclusion criteria.

2.3.1. Exploratory Study

Purposive sampling was employed in recruiting two groups of participants: (1) The
Aspect Think Tank, a consultative committee whose adult members have confirmed diag-
noses of autism or identify as being on the autism spectrum. (2) Aspect education staff.
Aspect Think Tank members were invited to participate in the study through a post on the
closed Think Tank Facebook page. Aspect teachers were invited to participate through an
advertisement on the online school communication platform Yammer.

2.3.2. MAX Trial

Recruitment for this study was conducted via email through a number of Australian
organisations that provide education for students on the autism spectrum. To be included
in the study, participants needed to be qualified therapists or educators working in the
education of individuals on the autism spectrum. Invited participants were different to
those who participated in the exploratory study.

2.4. Procedure
In all focus groups, the aims of the study and the larger project were explained prior
to obtaining informed consent and informing participants of their right to withdraw. Focus
groups ran for approximately 60 min each and were facilitated by one of the researchers.
At least two members of the research team were present in all focus groups; one of them
took hand-written notes. All focus groups were audio recorded with signed participant
consent prior to commencement.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 6 of 17

2.4.1. Exploratory Study

A total of three focus groups were conducted between August and November, 2017:
an initial focus group with Aspect’s Think Tank members, followed by two focus groups
held with Aspect’s education staff. Focus groups started with a short (∼10 min) video
demonstration of the NAO robot and a brief explanation of its capabilities. Demonstrations
were followed by a semi-structured framework of questions developed to facilitate flow
(Table 2), probe previous experience with robots and how a robot might assist various
aspects of the curriculum (e.g., literacy and numeracy), learning processes (e.g., creative
thinking), and the social environment (e.g., communication and interaction). Potential
barriers and opportunities were discussed.

Table 2. Subset of exploratory focus group questions.

Exploratory Questions
1. Have you ever used robots in a school/education environment?
- How did you use them?
- Did you find them useful? Why?
2. We are after ideas about how robots might be used in school?
- Can you think of any specific roles?
- Would it be more effective to use it in groups, or one-to-one?
- What about involving the kids in the control of the robot?
- Would allowing them to decide how the robot looks or acts help?
3. How might a robot assist in promoting social interaction?
- Do you think students would enjoy learning with the robot?
4. How might a robot assist in promoting creative thinking?
- Do you see any benefits for promoting creativity?
5. Can you think of any issues that may arise with the use of robots?
- What about any barriers to the introduction and use of robots?

2.4.2. MAX Trial

Two focus groups were conducted between October and November 2018: an initial
focus group with therapists from non-for-profit autism-specific organisation that provides
therapy and education was held in Sydney, followed by a teleconference with educators
from the inclusive education centre from a public high school in regional South Australia.
Both focus groups started with a short (∼5 min) demonstration of the NAO robot, followed
by a short discussion of the ideal user interface to control it. Then, participants were
given the opportunity to control the NAO robot using the MAX app, for approximately
five minutes each. The focus group was completed with a semi-structured framework of
questions aimed to collect the participants’ opinions on the current version of MAX, and its
potential integration into their practice (Table 3).

Table 3. Subset of MAX trial focus group questions.

Software/App Trial Questions

Pre-interaction phase with MAX
1. How would you feel about using NAO in your sessions/lectures?
2. What would be the easiest way for you to control and operate NAO?
Post-interaction phase with MAX
3. What do you like about the new app? Something you do not like?
4. What features or modules do you think are missing?
5. Would you feel comfortable using it in your next sessions? Why?
6. Which of the modules included would be most useful for you?

2.5. Data Analysis

Audio recordings from both the exploratory study and the trial of MAX were tran-
scribed verbatim and cross-checked for accuracy and missing data against the hand written
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 7 of 17

notes. All data underwent a thematic analysis [45], and scripts were independently re-
viewed by three researchers. An inductive approach was used to determine the coding of
the data, and a semantic approach to analyse the data by identifying explicit words [46].
Researchers familiarised themselves with the data, incorporated their codes, and entered
their suggested themes into a spreadsheet. Then, the three researchers met to discuss the
codes and to establish agreed themes.

3. Results
This section presents findings from the focus groups in the form of a summary. The in-
formation in this section represents the themes emerging during focus groups, as agreed by
the researchers. To avoid a misleading sense of statistical validity given the non-random
purposive sample and the semi-structured nature of focus groups [47,48], we refrain from
reporting results using whole numbers or percentages. Instead, to provide a sense of
generalizability, we describe findings as emerging from most (∼76–100% participants),
many (∼51–75% participants), some (∼25–50% participants), or a few (<25% participants).

3.1. Exploratory Study

Six adults on the autism spectrum from the Aspect Think Tank, and 12 teachers and a
school therapists from two autism specific schools—a Metropolitan School in Western Syd-
ney and a Regional School in New South Wales, Australia—responded to the advertisement
and agreed to participate (Table 4).
All participating teachers were familiar with using technology in the classroom; how-
ever, none had previous experience using robots. The focus group participants were
enthusiastic, as they anticipated introducing robots as a tool to support individualised
primary and high school student learning. This initial eagerness was tempered by practical
concerns. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) anticipated features that would
support learning; (2) barriers to implementation, including robot cost and fragility, teachers’
limited time to attend training, and lesson preparation time; (3) general concerns, including
technical challenges, sensory issues, and dependency on the robot; and (4) evaluating
student outcomes. Suggestions for implementations are catalogued.

Table 4. Participant summary of exploratory study.

Male Female Total

Aspect’s Regional School 3 5 8
Aspect’s Metropolitan School 2 3 5
Aspect Think Tank 5 1 6
Total 10 9 19

3.1.1. Anticipated Support Features

Most participants were cautiously optimistic that the students would respond favourably
to a robot in the classroom. They discussed the size and considered the humanoid features to
likely be relatable for students.
We could also do things such as program the robot to step back if somebody gets too close
or to do some obvious body movements that we can teach the kids to read, such as, ’Look,
he’s leaning back, maybe you’re too close.’ [Teacher 1]
There was consensus from most participants about the potential for student engage-
ment, particularly when the robot was novel. The predictability and reproducibility of
actions was viewed by many participants as an important feature of the robot. For students
who are conscious of ‘getting it right’, a few teachers suggested that a ‘patient’ robot could
be used to allow them to practice their skill in a safe setting.
Most participants also responded positively toward the suggestion of using robots with
primary and high school students, and highlighted a number of features they anticipated
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 8 of 17

would support learning, with the caveat that benefits may vary based on individual learning
styles and needs (Table 5).

Table 5. Perceived enabling features of the robot.

Feature Details
Novel and engaging Variety of programmable activities believed to be instru-
mental in student engagement. Anticipated higher level of
engagement than with teachers.
Predictable Messages can be delivered by robots in exactly the same
way every time, reducing student’s cognitive load.
Non-judgmental Robot is non-emotive, has no ulterior motives or precon-
ceived expectations. Hence, students would be more likely
to ‘give it a go’.
Patient Provides opportunities to practice as often as needed. Posi-
tive comments from the robot likely to improve students’
self-esteem.
Human-like appearance Features and movements would be familiar and recognis-
and behaviour able to students.

3.1.2. Barriers to Implementation

Participants mentioned a number of potential barriers to implementation. These were
grouped into six main categories:

Cost: Barriers around cost include the required budget for purchasing the robot, the cost of
maintenance, or the time/hours of work required to prepare a lesson. The purchase
price of the robot was seen as a barrier by some teachers. Other teachers were less
concerned and were convinced funds were available to enable the purchase of inno-
vative teaching tools. The cost of maintaining and repairing the robot was a recurring
theme. Some participants were concerned that funding for teaching resources could
be diverted to the robot program, leaving other programs underfunded.

Fragility of the robot: Many participants voiced their concerns about inconsistent WiFi
connections and the reliability of the robot. The potential for damage to the robot was
of significant concern:

What happens if it gets damaged? Within the purchase price... Probably would be
a warranty?’ [Think Tank member 1]

Robot availability: There was discussion about the need for predictability in the classroom
and the students’ responses if the robot was unavailable due to, for example, repairs
and maintenance. For some teachers, there was an expectation that there might only
be one robot per school, making it a scarce resource, and perhaps not worth the effort.

Time constraints: Most participants anticipated a need to set aside significant time to
develop specific programs to train students on how to work with a fragile tool. They
had angst based on the need for close monitoring, supervision, and additional work;
for example: how long would teachers need to prepare a lesson?

Training: Preparing lessons with the robot was perceived by most teachers to be time
consuming, given that most of them do not have adequate programming skills: ’the
bulk of our teachers really do not do programming at all’ [Teacher 1]. Training for
all classroom educators, including teacher aides, was raised as an important issue.
Teacher aides were expected to play an integral role in lesson development and
maintenance of the robot.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 9 of 17

Development of lessons: There was a suggestion (supported by most participants) that

a mobile app would facilitate the preparation and delivery of lessons. In this vein,
many participants agreed that a lesson hub for teachers to share programs with all
teachers across different schools should exist to alleviate the load needed for software
development and enable the use of the robot in classrooms.

... once we do a program, we’ll all share it out[...] and then we’d all make adjust-
ments to it to meet our classes needs. [Teacher 3].

3.1.3. General Concerns

Participants mentioned several factors of concern directly related to the introduction
of robots in the classroom:
Technical concerns: Participants mentioned several factors of concern directly related to
the technology, including the battery life of the robot, how often it would need to be
recharged, and how many times it could be charged before it would need replacing.
These concerns were shared by most participants. Some of them also questioned
the availability of solar power, and the robot’s ability to record video through its
cameras. The adults on the autism spectrum raised additional concerns regarding
data management and security: ’If it would be hacked, I would have concerns about
the safety and security of the children who are interacting’ [Think Tank member 2].
In addition, several technical modifications were suggested (Table 6).

Table 6. Suggested technical modifications.

Recommendation Details
Customizable Changing the robots face, mouth or eyes could provide op-
appearance portunities for students to learn about emotion recognition
and regulation.
Customizable Different materials (e.g., a soft silicon-like material) may be
covering materials more appealing for some students.
Customizable audio Allow for the level of emotion and intonation in robot’s
voice to be changed depending on the goals of the activity.
Alternative communica- Alternative communication methods would be beneficial
tion methods for some students, including sign language (Auslan or
Makaton), a tablet, or projections with text and images.
Artificial intelligence The robot should: (1) identify when a student is distressed
or in sensory overload; (2) understand colloquialism; (3) ex-
plain concepts in a different manner, on demand, and in a
flexible way; (4) learn from the interactions between peo-
ple; (5) adjust its behaviour, shut itself off, or convey in-
formation to the teacher (e.g., via a message) in ways that
positively and effectively impact students.

Robot as a reward: The use of technology as a student reward was contentious. Although
many teachers suggested the robot would be a valuable reward tool that could be
used to incentivize students, the Think Tank participants proffered an insight into the
outcome of incentives for students on the autism spectrum. The adults on the autism
spectrum explained that the robot should be considered an essential learning tool,
akin to a text book. They noted that if access to the robot was only for students who
met specific criteria or excelled in a particular skill, the chances were that due to their
different ways of learning, some students could be disadvantaged. There was also
agreement from Think Tank participants to avoid using withdrawal of the robot from
the learning environment as a punishment for not achieving goals.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 10 of 17

... Integrating technology into lessons is rewarding because the technology itself is
motivating. [Teacher 2]

Dependency and transfer of skills: There was apprehension about the possibility of stu-
dents becoming dependent on robots for learning. Some teachers stated their uneasi-
ness about student engagement and motivation to learn, if the robot was unavailable.
Concerns were raised my some participants that, for some students, the robot may
become a distraction from the lesson content, especially when first introduced. Many
participants were also uncertain as to whether the skills learnt with the robot were
transferable to the other settings (e.g., home). Most Think Tank participants also
expressed scepticism as to the value of learning social skills with a robot. They ques-
tioned whether learning to communicate with a robot is a relevant skill that translates
to a practical ability needed for communicating with a human.

My worry would be that it creates an expectation of social interaction that isn’t

representative of the social interaction undertaken by your typical human. [Think
Tank member 2]

3.1.4. Evaluating Student Outcomes

This theme contained participant comments around goals, individual education plans,
student progress, and program evaluations that measure the impacts of robot-assisted
learning. Many teachers suggested that individualised education plans (IEP) should
include the robot program, generalisation of skills to the real world, and feedback from
parents and/or therapists. Video content analysis was suggested by a few participants as a
measure of student engagement in the robot-assisted lessons.

3.1.5. Suggestions for Implementation in the Classroom

Most participants agreed that implementing a robot-assisted learning program in
schools would involve meeting teacher, student, and parent expectations. These expecta-
tions would need to be managed, and all stakeholders should be made aware that the robot
is implemented in the school as a tool to assist teachers in delivering content or activities,
not to replace them. Robot-assisted lessons that were suggested included: social skills, life
skills, navigation skills (e.g., over, under, before, behind, left, right, far, near), academic
skills (e.g., mathematics and software programming), emotion regulation, and physical
activity (e.g., yoga, dance). Teachers also suggested the robot may have roles in routine
classroom management, role play, assessment, time keeping, and story reading.
The process of introducing the robot to students requires careful planning to ensure
the students understand how to work safely with the new technology. Most participants
agreed that the ‘morning circle’, or first activity of the day, was an appropriate time to
introduce the robot:
The kids can get used to it being in the morning circle, and then once they and we get
comfortable with it, we can branch it out. [Teacher 3]
There was an expectation from most participants that the more time students spend
with the robot, the faster they will adapt to it as a learning tool. A number of recommen-
dations were proposed to improve the chances of success when introducing robots to the
classroom (Table 7).
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 11 of 17

Table 7. Recommendations for integrating robots into the classroom.

Recommendation Details
Slow-paced Different students would require a different introduction
introduction schedule, from days to months, depending on their devel-
opmental stages.
Their own pace Allow students to engage as much as they want, with the
option to participate in lessons with the robot or in a tradi-
tional setting.
Manage expectations Explain the role and availability of the robot prior to intro-
duction into the classroom, for example, by using accessi-
ble timetables.
School-wide plan Robots to be programmed by one teacher who runs sessions
in each class, maximising efficiency and familiarity with
the technology.
Control access Staff to manage access to avoid inappropriate use. Current
procedures relating to iPad use are likely to be applica-
ble. Having access to the robot only at school would be a
positive influence on learning.
From tele-operated to A gradual transition from teacher (tele) operated inter-
autonomous actions to computer operated (autonomous) interactions
would benefit students, however, teachers should super-
vise all autonomous interactions and take over control
if needed.

3.2. MAX Trial

A total of three therapists (two speech pathologists and one occupational therapist)
from a not-for-profit autism-specific organisation in metropolitan Sydney, and four ed-
ucators from the inclusive education centre from a public high school in regional South
Australia, agreed to participate (Table 8).

Table 8. Participant summary of Max trial.

Male Female Total

Non-for profit – 3 3
Inclusive education center 2 2 4
Total 2 5 7

Participants responded positively to the potential use of an NAO in their practices.

They all agreed that NAO’s non-confronting physical appearance would likely be well
received by the students and teachers. They also mentioned that the three-dimensional ap-
pearance of the robot would facilitate active interactions (as opposed to passive interactions
from tablets and smartphones) and possibly support skill generalisation:
Being able to have an interaction with something [a robot] that is similar to a person [...]
might be closer to generalising that [with] something that is 2D [a screen]. [Therapist 1]
Some participants also suggested that a smaller version of NAO would be easier to
move around different locations. The remainder of this section includes a summary of the
participants’ feedback divided into: (1) the participants’ perceptions of the ideal method to
deliver lectures using NAO (before the demonstration of MAX), and (2) their feedback on
the current version of MAX (after the demonstration of MAX).
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 12 of 17

3.2.1. A Practical Method to Deliver Lectures Using Robots

This theme relates to the participants’ perceptions of the practical method in regard
to preparing and delivering lessons using the robot. Like the exploratory study, most
participants suggested that a mobile app would facilitate the introduction of NAO into
education. They mentioned that the app should ‘be professional; it has to look good, has
to sound good ... It just needs to be smooth’ [Teacher 1]. If possible, a few participants
suggested that some controls should be integrated into a smart watch to reduce potential
distractions from the children. Most participants also agreed that the same app should
be used to control different robots, be customisable to different lectures and students,
and include modules that can be executed with a single press of a button. Many participants
also mentioned that the app should make it easy to prepare and personalise lectures in
approximately five minutes, or up to 30 min if it involves multiple students or sessions:
... This is going to take me half an hour to set it up, but I’m going to use it with three
children then it’s worth my time... Sometimes we don’t have much time at all to plan so
5 minutes would be good. [Therapist 2]

3.2.2. Feedback on MAX

This section refers to the participants feedback on MAX, after giving them an opportu-
nity to control NAO using the MAX app. The participants feedback was focussed around
three main areas:

Usability All participants indicated that they would be willing to trial the app in the
classroom, as the user interface is easy to use, the icon buttons are understandable,
and the navigation is intuitive. Most of them believed the symbols and visuals were
helpful, but suggest colour-coding to improve focus on the content.

Available modules All participants agreed that the available modules are a good starting
point, but many of them would like to have more specific modules, such as bully-
ing, questions and answers, turn taking, and emotion regulation. A few of them
highlighted that the ‘Movement’ and ‘Actions’ modules could be useful for staff and
students, but they would like to have a greater rage of actions than those currently
available. While they were supportive of the ‘Speak’ and ‘Chat’ modules, some of
them mentioned that the robot’s gestures, movement, and lights in the eyes might
be ‘too much’ for some students, and simpler behaviours might be preferred. Fi-
nally, many participants suggested that the ‘Lecture’ module would benefit from
additional methods (configurable by staff) to control the robot, including voice cues
or behaviours observed through the camera.

Available features Some teachers suggested that a simpler method to connect the app to
the robot was needed without the need to press the robot’s chest button: ‘... Although
it [pushing the button] seems simple and straightforward, a good portion of teachers
struggle with those things’ [Teacher 2]. Many participants also suggested a number
of new features, including the following capabilities: (1) change the robot’s voice
from the app (e.g., tone, accent, pace, etc.), (2) change the volume and pace of speech,
(3) turn on and off the gestures during speech, (4) share modules through the app
(i.e., a lesson hub), (5) install new robot behaviours directly from the app, (6) power
on/off the robot from the app, (7) integrate sign language (e.g., Key Word Sign
Australia) to provide additional cues during speech, (8) see the robot’s battery level
within the app, and (9) improve the robot’s management of inflections and grammar
in a sentence.

4. Discussion
This paper described two qualitative studies undertaken via focus groups to explore
the expectations, concerns, and barriers to the implementation of robots in an education
setting with students on the autism spectrum. Findings from the focus groups suggest that
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 13 of 17

adults on the autism spectrum and teachers of students on the autism spectrum expect
that robots could be used to assist learning and teaching. Although there were numerous
concerns with the new technology, the teachers and adults on the autism spectrum were
keen to discuss how robots could be integrated into the classroom to support teaching.

4.1. What Benefits Do Teachers Anticipate the Robot Will Offer to Teaching and Learning?
Participants’ opinions indicate that teachers foresee a wide range of opportunities for
using humanoid robots in the autism-specific classroom setting. The anthropomorphic
appearance and behaviour of the NAO robot meant that is was considered to be an appro-
priate tool for supporting the teaching of a range of skills. Additionally, the predictability
of the robot and the ability to program it with discreet actions led these participants to have
an expectation that robots could support student learning.
Student strengths-based learning provides positive learning settings and builds stu-
dent confidence [5]. Technology has been identified as a strength in around 50% of students
on the autism spectrum [5]. However, participating teachers noted that there are students
who are not interested in technology or are ambivalent towards the introduction of new
tools into the classroom. Hence, a slow-paced introduction of the robot to a class was
considered to be a very important part of the process of implementation of robots in the
classroom; different introduction schedules (from days to months) would be required for
individual students depending on their developmental stages.
For some teachers, their knowledge and experience in using a wide range of technolo-
gies meant they expected that robot-assisted teaching would be an extension of the current
use of technology. Teachers anticipated several learning units where they would engage
the robot in the classroom—mathematics and software development were seen as natural
matches. Communication and social skill development using a robot to assist students by
practice were also suggested as lessons that would most likely engage students. There is
previous evidence to support this notion, including the use of robots to support verbal com-
munication [18] and emotional recognition [19]. There was also a suggestion that the robot
has the potential to use alternative communication methods, such as hearing-impaired
sign language (Auslan), to support students with diverse abilities. Future research should
explore this possibility.

4.2. How Do Adults on the Autism Spectrum View Social Robots as a Learning and Teaching
Support Tool?
There is limited research that has investigated the views of therapists and teachers [33],
and even less research that asked people on the autism spectrum for their opinions on
using technology in education [35]. A major concern for participating adults on the autism
spectrum was the security and management of data collected by the robot. Specifically,
the discussions covered the potential for the robot to be hacked and the security measures
required to keep students safe. Student safety is essential for wide acceptance of robots in
education. The adults on the autism spectrum were also keen to raise the issue of using
the robot as a reward in the classroom, and were emphatic that the robot was a serious
teaching tool, not a toy, and that all students should have equal access to it. By contrast,
participating teachers expressed that the robot would be valuable as a reward.
There are few reports of sensory challenges with robots in students on the autism
spectrum. The autistic adults in this study raised the issue of sensory sensitivities associated
with the robot. They suggested that some students may find difficulties with the feel of
the robot and suggested alternative covering materials as an option. The flashing LEDs of
the eyes were noted as a potential source of distress and raised the option of changing the
colour of the eyes as needed.

4.3. What Challenges and Barriers Do Participants Anticipate in Using the Robot in the Classroom?
Scepticism toward the use of robots in education and clinical settings is docume-
nted [26,27]. Low uptake in schools has been limited by factors such as costs, limited range
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 14 of 17

of activities, and the potential for developing a dependency on the technology [42,49,50].
Focus group participants shared these concerns. With new robot platforms coming into
the market, we can expect the cost of robots to reduce significantly over the next decade,
removing one of the main barriers to implementation.
Transfer of skills from robot-assisted lessons to real world settings has shown promis-
ing results [18,42]. However, participants in our focus group raised concerns about the
generalisability of skills learned using robots. Teachers were worried that social interactions
practised with a robot might not be representative of natural engagement and may not be
transferable to other settings. There was also a concern that the classroom may be disrupted
by the noise and actions of the robot, distracting students from their current tasks, thereby
creating additional challenges in the classroom. The perceived fragility of the robot, the cost
of repairs, and the long-term loss of the robot for repairs and maintenance, were considered
major barriers to the introduction of a robot into the class.
There was apprehension about the provision of professional development and support
needed to prepare lessons. In line with previous research [2,33,35], most teachers were
concerned about the responsibility of creating and delivering lessons with the robot. Con-
sidering the limited professional development or training teachers receive on programming
and technology, the additional time required to develop lessons and write code for the robot
was seen as a significant barrier to the uptake of this technology. For those teachers who
have the technical proficiency and confidence to program the robot, designing a curriculum
that incorporates this technology was seen as an opportunity to develop engaging lessons.
The limited time and lack of technical training were considered barriers to the introduction
of robots in education.
With limited time on their hands, the introduction of robots in education appears to
be challenging. Accessible resources enable teachers to have the confidence to implement
inclusive teaching practices [32,51]. In response to the perceived barriers, a software
platform (MAX) was developed to assist teachers with the development and delivery
of lessons.

4.4. Facilitating Robot Technology in the Classroom

MAX is the first software platform designed to support robot-assisted education with
the teacher’s needs in mind. The platform includes software to control a robot’s sensors
and actuators and an Android-based mobile app that gives teachers the ability to access
robot functionalities, and a number of pre-installed modules to facilitate the use of robots
in the classroom. While some libraries were built specifically for the NAO robot, the mobile
app and the communication channel were designed to work with any robot.
MAX reduces the time and technical skill required for preparing and delivering robot-
assisted lessons, and streamlines the development of activities to support learning. The trial
of the software platform and app showed that the teachers were able to control the robot,
and they considered it a constructive and useful tool that would enable them to work
effectively and efficiently with the robot.
Participants reported that the pre-programmed features of the MAX app such as
the walk, stand and read aloud functionalities were easy to use and made the teachers
reconsider the challenges of robots as teaching tools. There were several additional modules
and features that participants would like to have available before the robot is introduced
into their classrooms, such as customisation of speech and behaviour, integration of sign
language, and inclusion of the robot’s battery level within the app. In general, the teachers
stated that a fully configurable application that they could manage easily was needed,
together with the ability to share new modules (or lessons) created by different teachers
through a lesson hub.
There are limitations to this study. The focus groups in the exploratory study were
from two schools (one metropolitan and one rural) and one Think Tank from the same
autism-specific organisation. Widening the recruitment to mainstream school teachers of
students on the autism spectrum may offer new insights into the expectations and technical
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 15 of 17

expertise of a representative sample of teachers. Future research would also benefit from
interviewing students on the autism spectrum. Furthermore, none of the participants
had experience using a robot, and it is recommended that a robot be available in future
explorations. The trial of MAX was limited by a small sample.

5. Conclusions
This paper described two qualitative studies that explored integrating robots into an
education setting with students on the autism spectrum.
The article examined the perceived benefits, barriers, and concerns of adults on
the autism spectrum, and teachers and therapists of students on the autism spectrum,
towards the use robots in autism-specific classrooms. Despite concerns of the cost and
perceived fragility of robots, there was considerable interest in involving socially-assistive
robots as tools to support teaching, especially if the programming of the robot was simple.
The introduction of an easy-to-use mobile app that eliminates the need for program coding
skills seems to be an avenue for enabling teachers to pursue implementing robot assisted
lessons. Future research in robot-assisted programs that evaluate the impact of socially-
assistive robots to support development and learning in large scale longitudinal studies
is necessary.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.S.-T. and S.B.; methodology, D.S.-T. and S.B.; software,
D.S.-T. and Y.X.; investigation, all authors; formal analysis, all authors; writing—original draft
preparation, all authors; writing—review and editing, D.S.-T. and S.B. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by CSIRO’s Health and Medical Human Research Ethics Committee (LR
9/2017) and Aspect’s Research Approval Committee (7/2017).
Informed Consent Statement: Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gary Mesibov, M.H.; Naftel, S. Accessing the Curriculum for Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders: Using the TEACCH Programme
to Help Inclusion; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
2. Roberts, J.; Simpson, K. A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream
schools. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2016, 20, 1084–1096. [CrossRef]
3. Stephenson, J.; Browne, L.; Carter, M.; Clark, T.; Costley, D.; Martin, J.; Williams, K.; Bruck, S.; Davies, L.; Sweller, N. Facilitators
and Barriers to Inclusion of Students With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Parent, Teacher, and Principal Perspectives. Australas. J.
Spec. Incl. Educ. 2021, 45, 1–17. [CrossRef]
4. Association, A.P. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5); American Psychiatric Association Publishing:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
5. Clark, M.; Adams, D. The self-identified positive attributes and favourite activities of children on the autism spectrum. Res.
Autism Spectr. Disord. 2020, 72, 101512. [CrossRef]
6. Jones, M.; Falkmer, M.; Milbourn, B.; Tan, T.; Bölte, S.; Girdler, S. The Core Elements of Strength-Based Technology Programs for
Youth on the Autism Spectrum: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence. Rev. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2022. [CrossRef]
7. Matarić, M.J.; Scassellati, B. Socially assistive robotics. In Springer Handbook of Robotics; Siciliano, B., Khatib, O., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume G, pp. 1973–1994. [CrossRef]
8. Buitrago, J.A.; Bolaños, A.M.; Bravo, E.C. A motor learning therapeutic intervention for a child with cerebral palsy through a
social assistive robot. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2019, 15, 357–362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Feil-Seifer, D.; Mataric, M.J. Defining socially assistive robotics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Rehabilitation Robotics, Chicago, IL, USA, 28 June–1 July 2005; pp. 465–468.
10. Marino, F.; Chilà, P.; Sfrazzetto, S.T.; Carrozza, C.; Crimi, I.; Failla, C.; Busà, M.; Bernava, G.; Tartarisco, G.; Vagni, D.; et al.
Outcomes of a Robot-Assisted Social-Emotional Understanding Intervention for Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.
J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2019, 50, 1973–1987. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 16 of 17

11. Van de Perre, G.; De Beir, A.; Cao, H.L.; Esteban, P.G.; Lefeber, D.; Vanderborght, B. Studying Design Aspects for Social Robots
Using a Generic Gesture Method. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2019, 11, 651–663. [CrossRef]
12. Di Napoli, C.; Rossi, S. A layered architecture for socially assistive robotics as a service. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Bari, Italy, 6–9 October 2019. [CrossRef]
13. Clabaugh, C.; Matarić, M. Escaping Oz: Autonomy in Socially Assistive Robotics. Ann. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 2019, 2,
33–61. [CrossRef]
14. Jain, S.; Thiagarajan, B.; Shi, Z.; Clabaugh, C.; Matarić, M.J. Modeling Engagement in Long-Term, In-Home Socially Assistive
Robot Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Sci. Robot. 2020, 5, 1–39. [CrossRef]
15. Baron-Cohen, S.; Lombardo, M.V. Autism and talent: The cognitive and neural basis of systemizing. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci.
2017, 19, 345–353. [CrossRef]
16. Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S.; Lawson, J.; Griffin, R.; Hill, J. The Exact Mind: Empathizing and Systemizing in Autism
Spectrum Conditions. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
[CrossRef]
17. Sartorato, F.; Przybylowski, L.; Sarko, D.K. Improving therapeutic outcomes in autism spectrum disorders: Enhancing social
communication and sensory processing through the use of interactive robots. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Silvera-Tawil, D.; Bradford, D.; Roberts-Yates, C. Talk to Me: The Role of Human-Robot Interaction in Improving Verbal
Communication Skills in Students with Autism or Intellectual Disability. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International
Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Nanjing, China, 27–31 August 2018; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
19. Bharatharaj, J.; Huang, L.; Mohan, R.E.; Al-Jumaily, A.; Krägeloh, C. Robot-assisted therapy for learning and social interaction of
children with autism spectrum disorder. Robotics 2017, 6, 4. [CrossRef]
20. Salvador, M.; Silver, S.; Mahoor, M. An Emotion Recognition Comparative Study of Autistic and Typically-Developing Children
Using the Zeno Robot. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Seattle, WA, USA,
26–30 May 2015; pp. 6128–6133.
21. Pennisi, P.; Tonacci, A.; Tartarisco, G.; Billeci, L.; Ruta, L.; Gangemi, S.; Pioggia, G. Autism and social robotics: A systematic
review. Autism Res. 2016, 9, 165–183. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Aggarwal, G.; Sehrawat, P.; Charaya, N. Improving the Joint Attention and Intelligibility in Speech of Autistic Children by an
Assistive Robot. Int. J. Emerg. Sci. Eng. 2013, 1, 52–54.
23. David, D.O.; Costescu, C.A.; Matu, S.; Szentagotai, A.; Dobrean, A. Developing Joint Attention for Children with Autism in
Robot-Enhanced Therapy. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2018. [CrossRef]
24. Scassellati, B.; Admoni, H.; Matarić, M.; Admoni, H. Robots for use in autism research. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2012, 14, 275–294.
[CrossRef]
25. Richardson, K. Challenging Sociality. An Anthropology of Robots, Autism, and Attachment; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [CrossRef]
26. Conti, D.; Di Nuovo, S.; Buono, S.; Di Nuovo, A. Robots in Education and Care of Children with Developmental Disabilities: A
Study on Acceptance by Experienced and Future Professionals. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2017, 9, 51–62. [CrossRef]
27. Kubilinskiene, S.; Zilinskiene, I.; Dagiene, V.; Sinkevičius, V. Applying Robotics in School Education: A Systematic Review. Balt.
J. Mod. Comput. 2017, 5, 50–69. [CrossRef]
28. Diehl, J.J.; Crowell, C.R.; Villano, M.; Wier, K.; Tang, K.; Riek, L.D. Clinical Applications of Robots in Autism Spectrum Disorder
Diagnosis and Treatment. In Comprehensive Guide to Autism; Patel, V.B., Preedy, V.R., Martin, C.R., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY,
USA, 2014; pp. 411–422.
29. Diehl, J.J.; Schmitt, L.M.; Villano, M.; Crowell, C.R. The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A
critical review. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 2012, 6, 249–262. [CrossRef]
30. Kim, E.S.; Paul, R.; Shic, F.; Scassellati, B. Bridging the research gap: Making HRI useful to individuals with autism. J. Hum.-Robot
Interact. 2012, 1, 26–54. [CrossRef]
31. Alcorn, A.M.; Ainger, E.; Charisi, V.; Mantinioti, S.; Petrović, S.; Schadenberg, B.R.; Tavassoli, T.; Pellicano, E. Educators’ Views on
Using Humanoid Robots with Autistic Learners in Special Education Settings in England. Front. Robot. AI 2019, 6, 107. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32. Susan Bruck, A.R.; Gallagher, E. A Model of Practice for improving autism knowledge in teachers of mainstream students on the
autism spectrum in Australia. Australas. J. Spec. Incl. Educ. 2021, 45, 1–16.
33. Sulaimani, M.F. Autism and technology: Investigating elementary teachers’ perceptions regarding technology used with students
with autism. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2017, 32, 586–599.
34. Claire, A.G.J.; Huijnen, M.A.L.; de Witte, L.P. Robots as new tools in therapy and education for children with autism. Int. J.
Neurorehabilit. 2017, 4, 4.
35. Robb, N.; Boyle, B.; Politis, Y.; Newbutt, N.; Kuo, H.J.; Sung, C. Participatory Technology Design for Autism and Cognitive
Disabilities: A Narrative Overview of Issues and Techniques. In Recent Advances in Technologies for Inclusive Well-Being: Virtual
Patients, Gamification and Simulation; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 469–485.
36. Hennink, M.M. Focus Group Discussions; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
37. Tobias O.N.; Kerrie Wilson, C.J.D.; Mukherjee, N. The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of
application in conservation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018, 9, 20–32.
Sensors 2022, 22, 6125 17 of 17

38. Gijs van Ewijk, M.S.; Konijn, E.A. Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: An exploratory case study. In Proceedings
of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, London, UK, 17–24 June 2020; pp. 273–280.
39. Huijnen, C.A.G.J.; Monique, A.S.; Lexis, R.J.; de Witte, L.P. Mapping robots to therapy and educational objectives for children
with autism spectrum disorder. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2016, 46, 2100–2114. [CrossRef]
40. Weibel, M.; Nielsen, M.K.F.; Topperzer, M.K.; Hammer, N.M.; Møller, S.W.; Schmiegelow, K.; Bækgaard Larsen, H. Back to school
with telepresence robot technology: A qualitative pilot study about how telepresence robots help school-aged children and
adolescents with cancer to remain socially and academically connected with their school classes during treatment. Nurs. Open,
2020, 7, 988–997. [CrossRef]
41. Graneheim, U.; Lundman, B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve
trustworthiness. Nurse Educ. Today 2004, 24, 105–112. [CrossRef]
42. Silvera-Tawil, D.; Roberts-Yates, C. Socially-Assistive Robots to Enhance Learning for Secondary Students with Intellectual
Disabilities and Autism. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication,
Nanjing, China, 27–31 August 2018; pp. 838–843. [CrossRef]
43. Ireland, D.; Atay, C.; Liddle, J.; Bradford, D.; Lee, H.; Rushin, O.; Mullins, T.; Angus, D.; Wiles, J.; McBride, S.; et al. Hello Harlie:
Enabling speech monitoring through chat-bot conversations. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2016, 227, 55–60. [CrossRef]
44. Vernon, J.; Diehl, J.; Crowell, C.; Villano, M.; Tang, K.; Weir, K.; Kumar, J.; Mazur, S.; Flores, J. The NAO-Base, 2014. Available on-
line: https://funlab.nd.edu/the-nao-base/ (accessed on 15 August 2022).
45. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
46. Onwuegbuzie, A.J. A Qualitative Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods
2009, 8, 1–21. [CrossRef]
47. Maxwell, J.A. Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Qual. Inq. 2010, 16, 475–482. [CrossRef]
48. Vicsek, L. Issues in the Analysis of Focus Groups: Generalisability, Quantifiability, Treatment of Context and Quotations. Qual.
Rep. 2010, 15, 122–141. [CrossRef]
49. Trigo, M.J.G.; Standen, P.; Cobb, S. Why are educational robots not being used in Special Education schools despite proof that
they are beneficial for their students? In Proceedings of the 12th ICDVRAT with ITAG, Nottingham, UK, 4–6 September 2018.
50. Huijnen, C.A.; Lexis, M.A.; Jansens, R.; de Witte, L.P. Roles, Strengths and Challenges of Using Robots in Interventions for
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2019, 49, 11–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Taylor, T.L. Factors That Influence Teachers’ Classroom Practices in Supporting Students on the Autism Spectrum in Mainstream
Settings. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2022.