THE SAS STRATEGY TRAINING FOR CHILDREN WITH ASD

IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL ROBOTICS ACTIVITIES

Andromachi Nanou1, Evaggelia Tsiomi2, Andreas Oikonomou3,

Dimitris Karampatzakis4
1,2,4 Department of Computer Science, International Hellenic University, Greece

3Department of Education, School of Pedagogical and Technological Education, Greece
1,2 Interdisciplinary Network for Special and Intercultural Education, Greece

Abstract. Educational Robotics in inclusive learning environments creates a wide area of research where

innovative teaching practices and theoretical approaches are developed and investigated in order for the new

growing educational challenges to be met. In this context, an educational intervention research was carried out

using mixed research methodology. The aim of the research was to investigate the effect of the“SAS Strategy

Training” a strategy that developed to foster the participation of children with autism, at level 2, in inclusive

teamwork with peers during construction and programming LEGO Mindstorms. 2 children, 10-11 years old,

diagnosed with autism, at level 2, participated in two inclusive educational robotics teams with typical peers. Τhe

SaS Strategy has been integrated in the collaboration script that was designed to support the interaction between

the team members during their collaboration on programming LEGO Mindstorms. The “SaS Strategy Training”

had encouraging results in reducing the barriers of the participation of the children with autism in teamwork with

their typical peers. Critical questions, reflections and new research horizons emerged.

Keywords: Inclusion, Participation, Educational Robotics, Lego Mindstorms, collaboration scripts, autism.

To cite this article:

Nanou, A., Tsiomi, E., Oikonomou, A., & Karampatzakis, D. (2021). The SAS Strategy Training for Children

with ASD in Inclusive Educational Robotics Activities. Education. Innovation. Diversity, 2(3), 34-52. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/eid2021.2.6723

Introduction

Educational Robotics (ER) is an innovative and promising discipline with a focus on how

robots can foster or support human learning processes in formal or informal learning

environments (Barker & Ansorge, 2007). ER studies interests in those kinds of robots that

children can manipulate and interact with for educational purposes. The Educational Robots

receive instructions designed and executed through algorithms by the children themselves, to

control the behaviour of the robot and complete a specific task (Pivetti et al., 2020). Although

the literature reveals a lot of difficulties that are being raised for the effective integration of ER

in curriculum, this trend in education have been already introduced into the classroom, from

kindergarten through high school, as the design, assembly and programming of ER require the

use of principles from different sciences such as engineering, computers, mathematics, and

physics.

ER supports the learning processes in different ages and enhance of various skills such as

logical reasoning, critical thinking, and creativity (Blanchard, Freiman, & Lirrete-Pitre, 2010;

Miller, Nourbakhsh, & Siegwart, 2008), problem solving, social interaction and teamwork

(Benitti, 2012). Recently, new research outcomes demonstrated that ER bridges gaps that lead

to risks of social marginalization and subsequent risks of early school leaving by improving

learning motivation, interest in learning itself and engagement of children with disabilities in

active learning processes (Daniela & Lytras, 2019).

The last ten years, much work has been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of ER

engagement of children with disabilities (Pivetti et al., 2020; Sannenan et al., 2020; Tsiomi &

Nanou, 2020; Hinchliffe, Saggers, Chalmers & Hobbs, 2016; Yuen, Mason & Gomez, 2014;

https://doi.org/10.17770/eid2021.2.6723

Wainer et al., 2010;). The interest of many of the authors focused on which kind of robots,

which educational methods and specific collaborative or cooperative strategies promote the

engagement of children with ASD or with other kinds of disabilities and foster the learning

possess the emotional, cognitive, or social skills. Most of the research work had been conducted

in special educational settings.

Although ER is being applied in inclusive learning environments, very little research has

been conducted in this field (Hinchliffe, Saggers, Chalmers, & Hobbs, 2016; Tsiomi & Nanou,

2020). As the learning environment all over the world becomes more inclusive, there is a need

to develop successful inclusive practices and theories within the inclusive context in all fields

in formal and non-formal education (Seale et al 2014; Nanou et al., 2020; Nilholm, 2021).

The aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of an educational

intervention focused on teaching children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) at Level 2, a

specific strategy, under the name Search and Share Strategy (SaSS), to foster their participation

in teamwork with peers during inclusive ER constructive and programming activities with

LEGO Mindstorms. The proposed strategy was devised to solve the problem of how children

with ASD could be fostered to participate in teamwork during ER activities. This problem

emerged after our previous research work in the field of inclusive ER where children with ASD

were included (Tsiomi & Nanou, 2020). SaSS Training that was based on the structured

teaching (Mesibov & Howley, 2003) extends Legoff's method of assigning specific roles to

children with ASD in teamwork during LEGO constructing play. The SaSS Training had been

applied in two teams of three 10-11 years old children where two children with autism were

included. The participation of children with ASD had been assessed by participant and

independent observers, through observation protocols and research diaries. A rubric used for

the description of the SaSS usage by children with autism. Data analysis followed a mixed

research methodology.

Literature Review

In inclusive environments, it is important for all students to participate and to learn

according to their needs. Children with ASD included in formal or non-formal educational

environments have the same desire in using ER technologies and to participate, as their typical

peers, in the educational process. Participation is the key to childhood development and the

"best predictor" of learning for children with autism (Iovannone, Dunlap, Huber, & Kincaid,

2003). According to the psychosocial approach, the Participation has two dimensions:

Attendance and Involvement. Attendance is related to the objective dimension of the concept

and takes on the meaning of "I'm here". The Involvement, however, has emotional components

such as motivation, involvement, perseverance, and sociability in the sense of interaction and

interconnection and. On a personal level the content of Involvement means engagement

(Immset al., 2017). According to researchers’ statement “Sustainable learning can occur only

when there is meaningful engagement. The process of engagement is a journey which connects

a child and their environment (including people, ideas, materials and concepts) to enable

learning and achievement”(Carpenter, Carpenter, Egerton, & Cockbill, 2016). Engagement “In

the person level is the internal state of individuals involving focus or effort: (page 20) (Imms et

al., 2017).The engagement of children in ER designing, assembling, programming, testing,

debugging, and modification activities presupposes effective collaboration and teamwork.

Participants in an ER activity are invited to collaborate on the design and construction of a robot

that is required to carry out a project. Collaboration requires students to be active and involved

(Yuen et al., 2014; Tsiomi & Nanou, 2020).

However, children with ASD face barriers in communication and socialization that

negatively affect their social interactions and participation in activities of day life. People with

ASD are less engaged in social or physical activities compared to their typically developing

peers (Askari et al. 2015, Simpson, Imms, & Keen, 2021). Research and clinical data have

shown that teamwork between typical and non-typical students does not usually lead to

substantial learning outcomes if specific rules are not agreed between the team members (Bell,

2004; Hewitt, 2005; Liu & Tsai, 2008). The effective engagement of children with ASD in an

ER learning environment depends on the degree of the structuring of the learning environment

(Mesibov & Howley, 2003). Structure is oriented by specific collaboration scripts and rules

being defined to support teamwork. It is strongly recommended, except in the ER environment,

that the interactions between students must be structured (Dillenbourg, 2002).

According to the research findings, when the teamwork in inclusive ER learning

environments is structured using specific collaborative or cooperative strategies, the

participation of the children with ASD is increased. More specifically, it was documented by

previous research in inclusive ER settings, that specific cooperative strategy for structuring the

activities and the processes of sharing ideas had positive results in fostering the participation of

children with ASD and social interactions of typical and non-typical peers (Tsiomi & Nanou,

2020; Tsiomi, Pashalidou & Nanou, 2020). Additionally, one of the best outcomes concerning

the participation of children with ASD in teamwork during LEGO construction play have been

documented after the assigning of specific roles to each child with ASD in the team (Legoff,

2004). Legoff, in order to promote teamwork during LEGO construction play, structured the

teamwork process, assigning different responsibilities between children with ASD (e.g., a child

is given a set of instructions and acts as “engineer”; another child has the necessary pieces to

make the set and acts as the “supplier”; and another child is the “builder”, who is assigned the

task putting the pieces together, following the instructions of the engineer). Positive results

concerning the participation and social interaction of children with ASD peers have been

documented (Legoff, 2004; Pang, 2010).

In inclusive ER learning environments, where children with ASD are included, specific

strategies have to be developed in order for the learning environment, the learning processes

and the collaboration to be structured. During ER activities with peers the collaboration process

(e.g. verbal interaction, active gesturing, physical contact) is important to be structured if our

intent is children with ASD to gain social interaction and skills (Yuen et al., 2014). Teamwork

strategies are strongly recommended to be presented by visual stimuli in order for the

participation of children with ASD to be effective (Tsiomi & Nanou, 2020; Albo-Canals et al.,

2015). Specific strategies that could impose a specific structure on how children with ASD

could interact with peers during teamwork inclusive educational robotic activities need to be

developed especially for children with ASD in Level 2 that need substantial support for

effective collaboration (American Psychiatric Association, DSM 5, 2013).

The aim of this study

This study aims at investigating the effects of SaSS Training in the participation of

children with Level 2 ASD as “suppliers”, in teamwork with typical peers during the inclusive

ER activities with LEGO bricks and ER LEGO Mindstorms.

Research questions

More specifically, with our intervention we try to give answers to the following questions:

1. Will the SaSS training reduce the barriers and increase the successful participation
of children with ASD in Level 2 in the teamwork with peers a) during the

construction activities with LEGO blocks? b) During the design of the LEGO

Mindstorms robot? and c) during programming activities of LEGO Mindstorms

robot?

2. Will the children with ASD learn to use the SaSS autonomously in teamwork with
their peers?

Methodology

Research Methodology

Educational intervention is chosen as the most suitable research method. Educational

intervention is a qualitative study that involves the design, implementation and evaluation of a

proposal or curriculum in a particular course and can be related to either the content or the

teaching process. Requires measurements before and after the intervention. Comparing the

results of the measurements before and after the educational intervention, the researchers test

the success or failure of the educational intervention (Damaskinidis & Christodoulou, 2019).

Educational intervention gives answers to educators, questions like: «what works, in what

context, with which groups, and at what cost» (Hutchinson. 1999). It is also based on detailed

and well-timed planning, in a way that accurately records all the steps of the educational

process; measurements are provided before and after the intervention so that an improvement

can be calculated (Hutchinson, 1999).

Place, schedule, and educational equipment

The educational intervention took place at the “Tokei Maru - School for all”, located in

Triandria Thessaloniki, Greece. It lasted at 12 Meetings of ER activities (M1-M12) once a

week, and for a period of three months. Each Meeting had a duration of 90 minutes. The

schedule (day and time) of each Meeting was fixed. The ER equipment consisted of two kits of

ΝΧΤ LEGO Mindstorms kits were used, one for each team. The children followed an

assembling process through the LEGO Mindstorms manual using two 10 inch tablets. The

practice in robotics was done on a track (2,40m x 1,20m) intelligently designed for ER activities

with LEGO Mindstorms.

Participants

6 children separated in two teams, team A of three boys and team B of three girls, 10-11

years old, were selected to participate in the activities of the inclusive ER educational

programme. In each group a child with ASD was included.

All children participated with the permission of their parents in the after-school activities

of “Tokei Maru - School for all”. The children with ASD did not have any experience in LEGO

Mindstorms constructing and programming activities. They were selected to join this activity

because they had a keen interest in structured LEGO play. The children with typical

development were selected because they were interested in joining robotic activities. They were

experienced in ER and familiar in collaboration with ASD children at “Tokei Maru” before.

Table 1 Teams of participants in relationship with researchers

Participants Researchers

Name Role in the team Diagnosis Observers Coordinator

A.1 Architect typical

A.2 Supplier ASD

A.3 Builder typical

B.1 Architect typical

2 B.2 Supplier ASD

B.3 Builder typical

The children with ASD were both diagnosed by the Greek Public Educational and

Counselling Support Center. According to their psychiatric evaluation their functionality was

detected at Level 2. ASD people diagnosed with Level 2 have moderate symptoms, showing

deficits in verbal and non-verbal social communication skills and limited ability to start social

interaction. They need substantial support (American Psychiatric Association DSM 5, 2013).

According to the diagnosis, the boy, named Christos, found it difficult to adapt to new social

situations and environmental changes. Although he had extensive vocabulary, he rarely

participated in dialogue. He responded effectively to instructions when presented to him

visually. He responded with one word in the dialogue context. He was very skilled in

constructive play with blocks. The girl, Lina, needed substantial support in social interaction.

She used to speak with short sentences. Her expressive vocabulary was limited to everyday

situations. She responded in the dialogue slowly and she used to discuss specific topics.

Although she loved art and constructive play with LEGO, she kept her interest for a limited

time, and she was working slowly.

Educational Methodology

In the context of educational intervention, the inclusive ER programme followed a

specific collaboration script (Kollar, Fischer, & Hesse, 2006). The collaboration scripts are

scaffolds that shape the collaboration by structuring the interaction process in computer

supported collaborative learning. Scaffolding supports learners to accomplish tasks that they

are not able to accomplish on their own and it is derived by Vygotsky as a concept of the Zone
of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1992; Wood et al., 1976).The collaboration script of this
educational intervention followed five components:

I. the learning objective: The children with ASD learn to participate as “suppliers” in
teamwork with peers during ER inclusive activities

II. the type of activities: Designing and programming the NXT LEGO Mindstorms into
its basic movements, going forward and performing a square to reach specific

LEGO objects in the track. The NXT LEGO Mindstorms were selected as an

educational tool that functions as a magnet of interest, to enhance the participation

and collaboration between children at each team. The NXT LEGO Mindstorms

facilitate the construction play with structured blocks and computational bricks that

allow users to create their own robots (Lauwaert, 2008). The assembly kit contains

building block pieces and a programmable control unit that can enable one to build

several robots. It allows users to assemble robots, program the movement, interface

sensors and motors without focusing on technical details. The process of

assembling and making the robot work involves basic understanding of physical

and design principles and elementary programming skills (Afari & Khine, 2017).

ΝΧΤ platform provides students with the opportunity to "test their programming

skills" as what they are programming through the LEGO Mindstorms robot. They

can visually understand "what works" and "what does not work" and "why". LEGO

Mindstorms robots provide students with the opportunity to understand

fundamental computer programming concepts that are, by their very nature, abstract

(Afari & Khine, 2017).

One of the greatest advantages of the LEGO Mindstorms for the participation of

children with ASD is that the model structure for the assembling step by step is

being represented in the detailed manual that is being included into the kit. These

detailed visually structured manuals describe all the facilitated play options, step by

step (Lauwaert, 2008). Through the detailed manuals the structured activities are

visually organized and presented in a planned, sequential, and logical way. This

kind of manual is effective in facilitating the constructing play of children with ASD

(Hampshire & Hourcade, 2014). Although structured block play with LEGO is

suitable for individual play of children with ASD in collaborative robotic projects

specific strategies must be developed and taught in order everyone in the team has

its role and to keep the collaboration process. Collaborative robotics projects

require students to work together to solve a robotic task. For example, students can

work together to design and build a robot that will find an object, pick it up, and

move it to another location (Yuen et al., 2014. Children with ASD face difficulties

in initiating or responding to social interactions and need the support of specific

strategies to collaborate with peers (Silva et al., 2020).

The implementation phases of SaSS during the 12 Meetings (M1-M12) are the

following:

● Phase Α: Construction activities with LEGO blocks (M1-M3),
● Phase B: Robot design (M4-M5), and
● Phase C: Programming (M6-M12).

The ER program activities in each meeting is presented below:

● M1: Assessment meeting on LEGO construction without the intervention or
the support of special educators.

● M2-M3: LEGO construction using LEGO Educational material.
● M4-M5: Robot design: Construction of the NXT LEGO Mindstorms using

the SaSS with optical verbal or physical guidance.

● M6-M8: Programming 1st mission, Moving front and going back. Each team
works on a tablet. Children with ASD are being asked to transfer the blocks

to the tablet following the standard image on colour printed cards, using the

SaSS with optical, verbal or physical guidance.

● M9-M11: Programming 2nd mission, Go forward, come back and turn four
times like a square.Children with ASD are being asked to transfer the blocks

to the tablet following the standard image on colour printed cards, using the

SaSS with optical, verbal or physical guidance.

● M12:Assessment meeting on Programming 1st and 2nd missions without
intervention or the support of special educators.

III. the sequence component: The sequence in the script specifies the activities learners
should perform and when they should perform them (Kollar, Fischer, & Hesse,

2006).In order for the sequence component to be followed the Search and Share

Strategy (SaSS) steps were designed to structure the ER activities in this

educational intervention. The SaSS was devised based on the experience gained by

our action research that is conducted for many years with children on the autism

spectrum (Tsiomi & Nanou, 2020) as well as study of the relevant literature and

especially the Legoff method (Legoff, 2004). The SaSS determines the specific

steps that a child with ASD must follow to participate as a productive “supplier”

while working with the “architecture” and the “builder” in the ER team. The

children have to share bricks during LEGO construction or robot design and share

information during programming of the robot Lego Mindstorms.

Figure1 The five steps of the SaS Strategy

The SaSS consists of five steps, as illustrated in Figure 1.The steps are presented visually

to prepare more precisely the children with ASD to use the SaSS during the A,B and C phase

of the programme. The steps are:

(1) Come - the child is invited by the teacher to come to the training area,

(2) Look - the child is verbally encouraged by the teacher to focus on the desired
point of construction,

(3) Look For - the child is encouraged by the teacher to seek to find the necessary
piece either with physical or verbal guidance,

(4) Find - the child finds and confirms with the requested piece,
(5) Give - the child gives the piece and focuses on the assembly process.

IV. the role distribution component: Specific roles addressed to the participants during
the teamwork in ER activities. These roles had specified according to Legoff’s work

on construction play with LEGO (Legoff, 2004) (see Table 1)

V. the representation component: This component refers to the type of representation
of the components of the script. In our educational intervention emphasis had been

given to the representation of the SaSS which constitutes the sequence component of

the script. As the SaSS training addressed to the children with ASD the visual

representation had been chosen (see Figure 1).

Data Collection

Data concerning the participation of the children with ASD after the SaSS training during

the Phases (A, B, C) were collected through observation methods and tools. Observation

consists of the main method of data collection in ER activities (Bernstein, Mutch-Jones,

Cassidy, & Hamner, 2020).

Two observers, special pedagogues, observed the ASD children’s participation in the two

teams (4 observers in total). The Independent Observer (IO) was to observe the participation

processes of the children with ASD in each team without taking part in the robotic activities.

The Participant Observers (PO) was the one that supported the children with ASD in each group

to efficiently use the SaSS. Participatory observation combines participation in activities under

study by maintaining a professional distance that allows appropriate observation and data

recording.

Both the observers used structured and unstructured observation methods and tools for

data collection. Work diary was used as an unstructured observation method. Work diaries were

used by both the participant and independent observer of each team just after the end of each

meeting in order their observations and interpretations were recorded. In addition, they recorded

methodological notes about her role in the context, her relations with the other researchers,

participants, her personal impressions and feelings or practical issues arising in the field

(Feldman, Altrichter, Posch, &Somekh, 2018; Willig, 2008). At the end of each activity, a

feedback discussion is held between the observers and special educators to evaluate the

educational process.

Rubric for the assessment of autonomy in the use of SaSS by children with ASD

A unique rubric has been designed for the specific research as a tool for the assessment

of the level of autonomy in the implementation of the SaSS by the children with ASD in

teamwork during the constructive and programming robotic activities. Rubrics are effective and

efficient tools that are being used for the objective evaluation of a range of performances or

activities in any subject area (Stevens & Levi, 2005). The level of autonomy in the usage of

every step of the SaSS was being accessed by both the coordinator and the independent observer

at each group at the beginning of the constructing or programming process in all meetings (M1-

M12).

The rubric that has been designed for the purpose of the research aims at evaluating the

degree of autonomy in participation of the children with ASD in each of the five SaSS steps: 1)

Come, 2) Look, 3) Look for, 4) Find, and 5) Give. The coordinator of both teams and the

independent observer of each team had to assess the participation in each process using a scale

of grades 0-5 that represent the levels of autonomy in the implementation of the strategy. More

specifically (0) declares the absence of participation, (1) the intention of participation, (2) the

participation with Physical guidance of a special educator, (3) the participation after verbal

reminders, (4) the participation with visual reminders, and (5) the autonomous participation.

The designing of the rubric followed the scaffolding processes derived by Vygotskyan concept

of the Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1992).

How data was classified and analysed

For data analysis mixed methods were used. According to Creswell and Clark (2007),

"Data analysis in mixed methods consists of analysing the qualitative data using quantitative

methods" (p.128).

Categorical productive approach was chosen for Qualitative data analysis (Isaris &

Purkos, 2015). The reason that the productive rather than the inductive approach in categorical

analysis was chosen dictated by the aim of the research, which was to find out specific reactions,

that could be given information concerning the participation of children with ASD as suppliers

in the inclusive educational robotics program and how this participation achieved. The research

data recorded by the observers in their diaries were analysed in content units that focus on

participation and have been categorized according to two thematic categories: Observation of

the Barriers in participation. These specific thematic categories were predefined to focus and

highlight data that are related to the issues being investigated by the research questions (Isaris

& Purkos, 2015). In order for the 1stand 2nd research questions to be answered the Barriers and

Successes in participation of children with ASD as they were recorded in the research diaries

were counted.

Research Findings

1st Research question

Will the SaSS Training reduce the barriers and increase the successful participation of

children with ASD in Level 2 in the teamwork with peers a) during the construction activities

with LEGO blocks? b) during the design of the LEGO Mindstorms robot? c) during the

programming activities of LEGO Mindstorms robot?

The data concerning the 1st research question came up by the categorical analysis of the

observations included into the research diaries of both the Participant Observer (PO) and the

Independent Observer (ΙΟ) during the A, B and C Phase.

After the categorical analysis, 110 content units were identified through the research

diaries of both the Participant (60 units) and the Independent Observer (50 units) concerning

the participation of the boy with ASD in teamwork with peers during the three phases (A, B

and C) of the SaSS Training. 17 content units into the Independent Observer’s diaries have been

categorized as Barriers and 43 as Successes of participation. 14 content units into the Participant

Observer’s diaries categorized as Barriers and 36 as Successes in participation of the boy with

ASD.

The agreement between the two observers (ΙΟ and PO) was checked with the Cohen's

Kappa index. Specifically, regarding the the boy's participation Barriers, the index for the

weaknesses of cooperation took a value of 0.660 which ranks the agreement between the

observers in a significant agreement (above average) at the level of importance p = 0.001 and

for the successes with a value of 0.4 which classifies it as a moderate agreement between the

observers with a significance level p = 0.002.

Figure 2 presents the average of the observed Barriers and Successes of the boy during

the 12 Meetings.

Figure 2 The average of the observed barriers and successes of the boy's participation in

each session until the completion of the 12 meetings of the boys' group

Concerning the participation of the girl with ASD in teamwork with peers, 126 content

units were identified through the research diaries of both the Participant (62 units) and the

Independent Observer (64 units) during the three phases (A, B and C) of the SaSS Training.

The Independent Observer recorded 28 barriers and 34 successes while the Participant Observer

recorded 34 barriers and 30 successes.

The agreement between the two observers (ΙΟ and PO) was tested with Cohen Kappa

index, showed for each category of semantic coherence above average relevance at the

significance level p = 0.001. Regarding the Barriers, the Cohen Kappa index for the weaknesses

of cooperation took a value 0.571, which ranks the agreement of the observers at the upper

levels of mediocrity at the level of significance p = 0.001 and regarding the Successes of

participation, took a value 0.564, which also ranks the agreement between observers at the

upper level of the median, in terms of significance, p = 0.001.

Figure 3 presents the average of the observed Barriers and Successes of the girl’s

participation during the 12 Meetings.

Figure 3 The average of the Barriers and Successes recorded by the observers of girl's

participation during the Meetings (M1-M12)

Differences in the participation between the boy, Christos and the girl, Lina, were

determined, with the girl facing more Barriers, especially in the programming Phase (C). More

specifically, during the Phase (A) in constructing play with LEGO, both the girl and the boy

were facing Barriers at the same degree. In the second phase (B) during robot design the Barriers

were decreased. But in Phase (C) during the programming, Barriers for the boy were reduced,

while for the girl was increased.

The Barriers and the Successes of participation of both children with ASD, Christos and

Lina, while using SaSS in teamwork are described in detail with the comments of the observers

as they were recorded into their dairies. The data from the observations of A and B Phases are

presented concerning the boy first and the girl next.

During M1 more Barriers than Successes were recorded in the boy’s participation.

Christos entered the Tokei Maru with his personal LEGO toys and played alone only with them

throughout the Meeting. He chose not to participate in the teamwork with peers. While he was

talking to himself he was looking at the team working. Although the boys asked him to

participate he preferred to stay alone. During M2, boys asked Christos to join their team from

the beginning of the Meeting. Although he approached the team, he didn’ stop playing with his

own LEGO constructions. He was helped by the special pedagogue to come close to the team,

but he had a parallel construction play. The independent observer noted in her diary;

“Christos looked like not want to participate.The boys had understood that he was really

good at construction so they tried to find some ways to interact with him”

When the boys asked him to present his LEGO constructions he responded:

“Τhese are my constructions. They are vehicles”

During M3, robot design Phase (B), Christos, under the guidance of the special

pedagogue, put his personal LEGO toys in a box and left them visible. Special pedagogue

helped and ensured that he could have visual contact with his toys any time during the Meeting.

The team of boys sat at the table and the special pedagogue presented visually the SaSS

describing the steps one by one. The independent observer noted:

“The boys helped to put on the table the pictures of the SaSS steps and the starting letters

of each step that on the pictures because Christos could recognize the alphabet letters”

They started assembling the robot in which Christos participated following the SaSS steps

with the help of the special pedagogue and with the support of the other boys. The SaSS pictures

were sent to his parents by email so that Christos could study the pictures and be better prepared.

During M4, Christos’ participation progressively increased with longer duration. Christos had

learned the routine of entering the room, putting his personal toys in the transparent box and

sitting at the table with his team members where the SaSS pictures were put. At first, he started

to follow the steps with physical guidance by the special pedagogue. The participant observer

wrote in her diary:

“The Mindstorms manual and the construction of the collaboration process through the

SaSS strategy, helped him to organize his participation during the robot design and to

contribute as a member of the team”

In the M5 it is noted that he was upset when he entered the room. Although he was

confused, he participated in the construction of the robot. He helped his team to find the correct

pieces with the guidance of the special pedagogue.

Concerning the participation of the girl with ASD, Lina, during M1, more Barriers than

Successes were recorded. From the first time Lina joined the girls, the members of her team

talked with them asking their names. Thus, while responding to the call of her team members

to focus her gaze and attention on the book of orders for LEGO construction, she participated

only in the role of the observer without proceeding with the search and finding of the

appropriate block.

During M2 and M3 after she was taught the steps of SaSS by pictures with the support of

the special pedagogue her participation became more successful. The Participatory Observer,

special pedagogue, noted the Barriers that Lina was face:

“She looked at the brick shown to her in the guide, raised her hand to look for the pieces

but reassembled her hand as if unsure. she needed physical guidance to complete the steps"

The SASS pictures were, also, sent to her parents, so that Lina could study them before

the next Meeting. At M4 and Μ5 Lina was involved in the process of assembling the robot.

According to both the Independent and the Participant Observers, Lina participated successfully

during the robot design (Phase B). The reason was due to the robot components that were settled

in the specific places in the kit. This arrangement of the components in the kit made it easier

for Lina to search and locate the blocks the team was looking for. Throughout the process the

support of the special educator was necessary, especially when Lina lost her concentration.

During the Phases A and B of the SaSS Training there was progressive closeness and success

in involving children in assembly teamwork.

Findings from the Phase C are presented below for both the boy and the girl:

During M6, Christos' participation improved. Although the means of implementation

were changed and a tablet with the programming software was added through the NXT

platform, the participation of the child continued, and in fact because he had a special interest

for digital media, his participation was of better quality. He was significantly helped by the

SASS pictures that were put during the Meeting on the table. During the Step Give of SaSS

Christos had to put in the "programming frame" the programming blocks using the touch screen

of the tablet. The team decided how many blocks Christos had to put in the “programming

frame” and he became the “supplier” of the blocks during programming.

During M7, Christos' participation continued to be active. He managed to put all the

blocks even though they were increased. In the M8, Christos made his routine at the entrance,

placing his toys in the box. This time he approached his group alone after the children's call.

He follows the steps of the SaSS with minimal guidance from the special pedagogue. He

successfully transferred the blocks and when he completed his mission, he gave the tablet to

the next one. In M9 they programmed robots to move on. Christos followed the steps of the

SaSS and transferred the appropriate blocks. However, because these were more, they needed

verbal guidance from the special educator. He was enthusiastic about the robot's movement.

The children completed the arrangements for the robot's movement and Christos watched the

team in programming tests. During M10-M11 he entered with great enthusiasm. He followed

his routine and approached the team alone. He followed the steps of the SaSS and the

cooperation was constructive. The support of the special pedagogue was deemed necessary in

the steps that Christos seemed to have difficulty in (numbering the necessary blocks for

programming). In the last meeting Christos followed the verbal guidance of the special

pedagogue to stay in his team and work together placing the blocks. The special pedagogue's

notes in her diary “Christos could be taught how to adjust the other parameters in order to

control the movement of the robot”.

On the other hand, during M6-M7, a decrease in Lina's successes was observed according

to both the Observers. This change was attributed to the activities of programming during the

Phase C. During this phase the teamwork was differentiated. As a result, it was difficult for

Lina to participate especially during the 7th Meeting. According to the observers, Lina’s

behaviour was affected negatively by the constant movements of the girls of her team, who

were moving all the time while programming and testing their robot on the track. These new

conditions in their collaboration were unexpectedly differentiated according to the previous

M2-M5 collaboration conditions, in which less movement was required. Even when the special

pedagogue showed Lina the steps of the programming process visualized, she found that Lina

had a difficulty in concentrating. The special pedagogue, as she realized that difficulty, asked

the girls of her team to stay at the table, next to Lina, in order to complete the programming in

a specific place. In the following meetings (M8-M9) the planning process was visually

structured to facilitate Lina's participation. Except for the SaSS pictures, pictures of the exact

number of blocks that Lina had to transfer to the canvas-programming surface were placed on

the table. The construction positively affected Lina's participation, which seems to have

increased according to the observers of cooperation possibilities. Lina started following the

team on the track and participating by giving the command with the support of her team girls

in the robot to move. Although her participation was mechanistically she understood the process

and her role in the team, as “supplier”.

Lina found it difficult to participate in the programming process during the next Meetings.

The independent observer notes:

“The programming process was complex as it required eight blocks that Lina had to

measure and place on the canvas in a row”.

The comparison of the Successes and Barriers of participation of both boys and girls

between the 1st and the 12th Meeting when there was no support by special pedagogues is

presented in Figure 4.

Τhe Barriers in participation for both the boy and the girl were reduced from M1 to M12.

Although the boy, during M1 had no Success in his participation as he worked alone, at the

final Meeting M12, his participation was totally successful, according to both observers.

Christos was accepted as a member of the ER team and participated in the process of

construction and programming of Lego Mindstorms, using the SaSS. On the other hand, the

girl, Lina, although from the first meeting she had positive interaction with the girls' team,

needed strong support from the special pedagogue to participate effectively in the programming

Phase. At the last Meeting M12 faced Barriers using the SaSS but she managed to collaborate

with the guidance of the other girls of her team. Of course, as one observer points out, it was

obvious that her participation was achieved without the corresponding understanding of

concepts and programming algorithms, concepts that the other members of the team

understood.

Figure 4 The Successes and the Barriers of participation of both boy (a) and girl (b) at the

M1 and M12 with no support of special pedagogue

The SaSS training as pilot intervention showed that inclusive ER teams could be effective

under identifying and specific roles and collaboration scripts that determine the steps of

collaboration. The process of deepening concepts to participate effectively at the cognitive level

remains to be further explored in mainstream research.

2nd Research question

Will the children with ASD increase the level of their autonomous implementation of the

SaSS as suppliers in their teamwork?

The level of autonomy differentiated between the two children and between SaSS steps.

Figures 5 and 6 presents the Levels of the boy’s and girl’s with ASD autonomy in the

implementation of the SaSS during the ER M1-M12

Figure 5 Levels of the boy’s with ASD autonomy (0-5) in the implementation of the SaSS

during the ER M1-M12

As presented in Figure 5, Christos at the first meeting of his team, rated 0 which means

the absence of participation in teamwork. At M2-M3 at all the steps of SaSS declared an

intention to participate in the teamwork by approaching the team or looking at the manual but

his participation was unsure (rated 1 or 2). In the next, M4, he managed to follow the first two

steps of the strategy (Come and Look) with his own effort and the other steps (Find and Give)

with visual support and vertical prompts by the special pedagogue (rated 4). During M5 he

needed support by physical guidance by the special pedagogue as he was disrupted, according

to the observation diaries (rated 1 and 2). But in the next meetings (M6-M8) the physical

guidance of the special educator was reduced. Christos could follow the steps of SaSS with

virtual support. In the phase of programming (M8) he was able to independently conquer the

first steps of the strategy (Come, Look, Look for) but he needed visual and verbal support to

Find, Give steps of SaSS. Finally, during M9-M12 although the tasks for programming were

more complex, the boy supplied the programming blocks in the canvas himself with only visual

support. In the last two meetings, even if the task was more complicated, Christos followed

SaSS steps with visual prompts and/or verbal guidance.

Figure 6 Levels of the girl’s with ASD autonomy (0-5) in the implementation of the SaSS

during the ER M1-M12

As presented in Figure 6, Lina's first meeting with the girls' team had positive results

concerning the first two (2) SaSS steps. Lina rated 5 to the first two SaSS steps (Come, Look)

as she independently approached and stayed close to the team without guidance. This was a

stable characteristic of her participation in all the meetings. In contrast to Christos, she needed

more support to apply the last steps of the strategy. More specifically during all the meetings

graded 1 or 2 concerning the Look, Look for, Find and Give of SaSS steps, which means that

she followed the SaSS to participate with physical guidance by the special pedagogue. This was

the same also for the robot assembly meetings (M4-M5) and for the programming meetings.

The need for guidance was ensured also by the observations of her participation according to

which Lina was delayed and the special pedagogue with physical guidance helped her to be

more effective. Only in the last meeting she completed the SaSS steps with the visual support

and verbal guidance with the support of her team in the last two SaSS steps.

Conclusions and Discussion

The analysis of the findings leads to the following conclusions

Although the children with ASD with the need of substantial sup.port that were included

in the two ER teams with typical peers during the educational intervention that was carried out,

managed to "be on their roles" in teamwork as “suppliers” and to start functioning

autonomously with the visual support of the SaSS. It is documented therefore, that SaSS

Training fostered the participation of the two children with ASD in Level 2 in ER inclusive

activities.

SaSS Training took place in authentic inclusive settings. It has to be mentioned that the

children with ASD haven’t got any special intervention before but were taught the SaSS in real

time with their typical peers. By the observation of the children in the authentic learning

environment drew to the conclusion the assignment of specific roles of the children in

teamwork, the determination of the specific steps that the “supplier”could be followed as these

steps were determined by the SaSS, the representation type and the support of special

pedagogues created the circumstances of promoting the participation of both children with ASD

in the construction and programming phases of the ER Lego Mindstorms activities. The support

of special pedagogues progressively minimized.

The educational Robots, Lego Mindstorms, functioned as "collaborative motivators". The

choice of LEGO Mindstorms as the ER education kit was derived mainly because of their

dominant acceptance and use in educational institutions. Also, LEGO Mindstorms has a

widespread active community and supporting educational material. Learning practices through

LEGO (only bricks) and LEGO Mindstorms (ER) especially for children with Autism Spectrum

Disorders (ASD) are getting strong attention by education and academic society. LEGO, as

structured, rule-based play, had strong evidence in facilitating social interaction and

participation of children with ASD in team work with peers (Legoff, 2004; Legoff & Sherman,

2006). The model structure for the assembling step by step as it was being represented in the

detailed manual, proved an effective educational material suitable for children with ASD and

challenging at the same time for typical children. The detailed visually structured manuals that

are being described by (Lauwaert, 2008) proved very effective in inclusive settings where

children with ASD are being included. LEGO Mindstorms NXT canvas was helpful for the

children with autism to participate in the programming Phase. Their participation during the

programming Phase fostered by using SaSS as Searching and Sharing the blocks in the

programming canvas. SaSS in block programming has the meaning of Search and Sharing

information ( programming blocks), while at constructing Phases has the meaning of Search

and Share the real blocks. SaSS gave children the opportunity to participate actively and to be

engaged in construction and in programming with peers just after 11 Meetings. The SaSS was

used as a common communication code between the team members, and this gave them the

confidence to continue their collaboration. According to the observations of the observatory

"the children of typical development knew what to do to cooperate". The SaSS essentially

contributed to leading and integrating the children into the teamwork so that the collaboration

becomes more effective.

The educational intervention that was carried out continues the research on educational

methods and strategies that can be applied in inclusive ER learning environments. Although the

level of function of children that participated in this research was lower than the ones that had

participated in inclusive ER in Australia (Hinchliffe et al., 2016), benefits documented by the

research findings.

One of the main limitations of our educational intervention is the lack of control groups

that could be left without intervention. In the inclusive settings it is not recemented, not an

intervention without support to be applied. The absence of a control group is a usual

methodological weakness in ER activities and especially in special or inclusive settings.

According to the most recent review (Pivetti et al., 2020), eleven from thirteen research works

in the field of ER programs addressed to people with disabilities didn’t test their results in

comparison with a control group. The lack of control group is expected due to the difficulties

in the availability of participants. In these educational interventions the designing of research

follows the restrictions of occasional participation.

As the field is new and the interest of researchers is really strong the research is under the

circumstances of occasionality. Of course, the interpretation of the results has to take into

consideration the specific limitations till the circumstances be more mature (e.g., ER be

implemented in all populations in formal and non-formal education and their utilization will be

spread in all educational settings).The other limitation is the small number of participants. In

order for the results to be reliable the SaSS has to be taught to more children with ASD in

inclusive settings.

Although the participation of the children with ASD was encouraging, future research has

to focus on educational interventions that could foster the automatization of the SaSS in their

teamwork as suppliers. Also, the investigation of functioning under differentiated roles (e.g., as

builders) could be promising and helpful in promoting the participation of children with ASD

in ER programmes. Also, future research has to investigate educational methodologies and

strategies to increase the engagement of children with ASD in programming ER. The

investigation of the subjective aspect of participation due to the Imms et al. (2017) model would

be measured under the self assessment approach in order the engagement of persons with ASD

to be globally estimated.

We do not know how the process of learning could go on if the research had the

opportunity to deeply focus on programming. Children with autism at Level 2 may have the

opportunity to understand fundamental computer programming concepts with the support of

specific educational strategies as many researchers highlight for typical children (Afari &

Khine, 2017).

References

Afari, E., & Khine, M. S. (2017). Robotics as an Educational Tool: Impact of Lego Mindstorms.

International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6), 437–442.

https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908

Albo-Canals, J., Fernández-Baena, A., Boldu, R., Barco, A., Navarro, J., Miralles, D., Raya,

C., & Angulo, C. (2015). Enhancing Long-term Children to Robot Interaction

Engagement through Cloud Connectivity. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE

International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts, 105–106.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702045
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders (DSM-5). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Askari S., Anaby D., & Bergthorson M. (2015). Participation of children and youth with autism

spectrum disorder: a scoping review. Rev J Autism Dev Disord, 2(1), 103–114.

Barker, B.S. & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an

informal learning environment.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3),

229-43.

Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the

science classroom. In M. Linn, E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for

science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic

review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

Bernstein, D., Karen Mutch-Jones K., Michael Cassidy, M., & Emily Hamner, E, (2020):

Teaching with robotics: creating and implementing integrated units in middle school

subjects, Journal of Research on Technology in Education.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1816864

Blanchard, S., Freiman, V., & Lirrete-Pitre, N. (2010). Strategies used by elementary school

children solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2851–2857.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.427

Carpenter, B., Carpenter, J., Egerton, J., & Cockbill, B. (2016). The Engagement for Learning

Framework: Connecting with learning and evidencing progress for children with autism

spectrum conditions. Advances in Autism, 2, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-10-

2015-0021

John W., Creswell, W. E., Hanson, V.L., Clark P., & Alejandro M. (2007). Qualitative Research

Designs: Selection and Implementation—(n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2021, from

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011000006287390

https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908
https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702045
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1816864
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.427
https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-10-2015-0021
https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-10-2015-0021
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011000006287390

Damaskinidis, G. & Christodoulou, A. (2019). Writing Research Proposals for the Social

Sciences and Humanities in a Higher Education Context. Cambridge, Scholars

Publishing, UK.

Daniela, L. & Lytras, M.D., (2019). Educational Robotics for Inclusive Education. Tech Know

Learn 24, 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9397-5

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with

instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support

CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

Feldman,A., Altrichter,H., Posch,P., & Somekh, B. (2018). Teachers Investigate Their Work,

An Introduction to Action Research across the Professions. Routledge.

Hampshire, P. K. & Hourcade, J. J. (2014). Teaching Play Skills to Children with Autism Using

Visually Structured Tasks. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 46(3), 26–31.

https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991404600303

Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer

conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567-589.

Hinchliffe, K., Saggers, B., Chalmers, Ch., & Hobbs, J. (2016). Utilising robotics social clubs

to support the needs of students on the autism spectrum within inclusive school settings.

Autism CRC - Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, Australia.

Hutchinson, L. (1999). Evaluating and researching the effectiveness of educational

interventions. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 318(7193), 1267–1269.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1267

Imms, C., Granlund, M., Wilson, P.H., Steenbergen, B., Rosenbaum, P.L., & Gordon, A.M.

(2017). Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and

outcomes in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol, 59: 16-25.

https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237

Iovannone, R., Dunlap, G., Huber, H., & Kincaid, D. (2003). Effective educational practices

for students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental

Disabilities, 18(3), 150-65.

Isari, F. & Purkos, M. (2015). Qualitative research methodology. Applications in psychology

and education. Retrieved from

https://repository.kallipos.gr/bitstream/11419/5826/4/15327_Isari-KOY.pdf

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration Scripts – A Conceptual Analysis.

Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-

9007-2

Lauwaert, M. (2008). Playing outside the box – on LEGO toys and the changing world of

construction play. History and Technology, 24(3), 221–237.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510801900300

Legoff, D. B., & Sherman, M. (2006). Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based

on interactive LEGOplay. Autism, 10(4), 317–329.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361306064403

Legoff, D. B. (2004). Use of LEGO as a Therapeutic Medium for Improving Social

Competence. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(5), 557–571.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-004-2550-0

Liu, C. & Tsai, C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line

small group problem - solving activity. Computers and Education, 50(3), 627-639.

Mesibov, G. Β. & Howley, M. (2003). Accessing the curriculum for pupils with autistic

spectrum disorders. Using the TEACCH programme to help inclusion. London: David

Fulton Publishers.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9397-5
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991404600303
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Saggers,_Beth.html
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Chalmers,_Chris.html
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7193.1267
https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.13237
https://repository.kallipos.gr/bitstream/11419/5826/4/15327_Isari-KOY.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9007-2
https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510801900300
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361306064403
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-004-2550-0

Miller, D. P., Nourbakhsh, I. R., & Siegwart, R. (2008). Robots for Education. In B. Siciliano

& O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 1283–1301). Berlin Heidelberg:

Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_56

Nanou, A., Giatrakou,A., & Maistrellis A.(2020). Learning how to fall, to standup and demand.

Grafima Publications Thessaloniki.

Nilholm, C. (2021). How can we improve our theories in order to change practice? European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(3), 358-370.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547

Pang, Y. (2010). Lego Games Help Young Children with Autism Develop Social Skills.

International Journal of Education, 2(2), E7. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v2i2.538

Pivetti, M., Di Battista, S., Agatolio, F., Simaku, B., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2020).

Educational Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic

review. Heliyon, 6(10), e05160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05160

Sanneman, L., Fourie, C., & Shah, J. (2020). The State of Industrial Robotics: Emerging

Technologies, Challenges, and Key Research Directions. Retrieved from

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14537

Seale, J., Nind M., & ParsonsS. (2014). Inclusive research in education: contributions to method

and debate.International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(4), 347-356.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.935272

Stevens, D. & Levi, A. (2005). Leveling the field : Using rubrics to achieve greater equity in

teaching and grading. The professional and organizational development network in

higher education, 17(1). Retrieved from

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=edu_fac

Silva, L., Mendes, A. J., & Gomes, A. (2020). Computer-supported Collaborative Learning in

Programming Education: A Systematic Literature Review. 2020 IEEE Global

Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) Proceedings, 1086–1095.

https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125237

Simpson, K., Imms, C., & Keen, D. (2021). The experience of participation: eliciting the views

of children on the autism spectrum. Disability and Rehabilitation.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1903100

Tsiomi, Ε. & Nanou, Α. (2020). Cooperative strategies for children with Autism Spectrum

Disorders Autism spectrum disorders in inclusive robotics activities''. Society.

Integration. Education, 5, 148-156. https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol4.5147

Tsiomi, E., Paschalidou, A., & Nanou, A. (2020). Social story intervention for a child with

autism in out of school robotic activities. 3rdInternational Experiential Conference on

Applied Teaching New Challenges in Education.Greece, 2- 4 October.

Yuen, T. T., Mason, L. L., & Gomez, A. (2014). Collaborative Robotics Projects for

Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology,

29(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341402900104

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

Harvard, University Press, Cambridge, MA:. Harvard, University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1992). Thought and language (rev. ed.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wainer, J., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., & Robins, B. (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(5), 445–455.

https://doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0266-z

Warren, Z. E., Zheng, Z., Swanson, A. R., Bekele, E., Zhang, L., Crittendon, J. A., Weitlauf,

A. F., & Sarkar, N. (2015). Can Robotic Interaction Improve Joint Attention Skills?

Journal Of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(11), 3726–3734.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1918-4

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30301-5_56
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1754547
https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v2i2.538
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05160
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14537
https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.935272
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=edu_fac
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125237
https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1903100
https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2020vol4.5147
https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341402900104
https://doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0266-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1918-4

Willig, C. (2008). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and

Method. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of

Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 7 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-

7610.1976.tb00381.x

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x