Using robots in “Hands-on” academic activities: a case study examining speech-generating device use and required skills

References

• Van De Walle JA, Karp KS, Bay-Williams JM. Elementary and middle school mathematics: teaching developmentally. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2010
   Google Scholar
• Fredericks AD. Much more social studies through children's literature: a collaborative approach. Through children’s literature. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Gustafson B, MacDonald D, d’Entremont Y. Elementary science literature review. Edmonton, AB: Minister of Education, Alberta Education, Curriculum Branch; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Carbonneau KJ, Marley SC, Selig JP. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. J Educ Psychol 2013;105:380–400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bley NS, Thornton CA. Accommodating special needs. In: Thornton CA, Bley NS, eds. Windows of opportunity: mathematics for students with special needs. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 1994:137–66
   Google Scholar
• Ginsburg HP, Klein A, Starkey P. The development of children's mathematical thinking: connecting research with practice. In: Siegel IE, Renninger KA, eds. Handbook of child psychology, volume 4, child psychology in practice. 5th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1998:401–76
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R, McGhie-Richmond D, Blackstien-Adler S, et al. Training a school team to integrate technology meaningfully into the curriculum: effects on student participation. J Spec Educ Technol 2000;15:31–44
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson L, Welander J, Granlund M. Participation in everyday school activities for children with and without disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil 2007;19:485–502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright M, Hunt L, Stanley O. Quantification of object manipulation in children with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Rehabil 2001;4:187–195
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christenson S, Rschly AL, Whylie C. Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer; 2012
   Google Scholar
• Howell R, Hay K. Software-based access and control of robotic manipulators for severely physically disabled students. J Artif Intell Educ 1989;1:53–72
   Google Scholar
• Howell R, Martz S, Stanger CA. Classroom applications of educational robots for inclusive teams of students with and without disabilities. Technol Disabil 1996;5:139–50
   Google Scholar
• Kwee H, Quaedackers J. Pocus project: adapting the control of the manus manipulator for persons with cerebral palsy. ICORR ‘99: International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 1999:106–14; Stanford, CA
   Google Scholar
• Eberhart SP, Osborne J, Rahman T. Classroom evaluation of the arlyn arm robotic workstation. Assist Technol 2000;12:132–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith J, Topping M. The introduction of a robotic aid to drawing into a school for physically handicapped children: a case study. Br J Occup Ther 1996;59:565–9
   Google Scholar
• Cook A, Adams K, Volden J, et al. Using Lego robots to estimate cognitive ability in children who have severe physical disabilities. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2011;6:338–46
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ljunglof P, Thunberg G, Claesson B, et al. TRIK: a talking and drawing robot for children with communication disabilities. The 14th Biennial Conference of ISAAC – International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication; 2010; Barcelona, Spain
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Howery K, Gu J, Meng M. Robot enhanced interaction and learning for children with profound physical disabilities. Technol Disabil 2000;13:1–8
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Adams KD, Harbottle N. Lego robot use by children with severe disabilities. CSUN Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference; 2007; Los Angeles, CA
   Google Scholar
• Light JC, Drager KDR. Improving the design of augmentative and alternative technologies for young children. Assist Technol 2002;14:17–32
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collinger JL, Wodlinger B, Downey JE, et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 2013;381:557–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffont I, Biard N, Chalubert G, et al. Evaluation of a graphic interface to control a robotic grasping arm: a multicenter study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:1740–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson A. Learning language using infrared toys. CSUN 18th Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference; 2002; Los Angeles, CA
   Google Scholar
• Light JC. Definition of communicative competence. In: Light J, Beukelman DR, Reichle J, eds. Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: from research to effective practice. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2003:3–40
   Google Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Dowden P, Cook A. Choosing effective selection techniques for beginning communicators. In: Reichle J, Beukelman D, Light J, eds. Implementing an augmentative communication system: exemplary strategies for beginning communicators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co; 2002:395–432
   Google Scholar
• Wadsworth OA. Kit, fan, tot, and the rest of them. Boston: American Tract Society; 1870
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton E. Mythology: timeless tales of gods and heroes. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.; 1942
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Adams K. The importance of play: AT for children with disabilities. In: Oishi MMK, Mitchell IM, Van der Loos HFM, eds. Design and use of assistive technology: social, technical, ethical, and economic challenges. New York: Springer Science + Business Media; 2010:33–9
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R. Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 1999;15:234–47
   Google Scholar
• Wielandt T, Mckenna K, Tooth L, Strong J. Factors that predict the post-discharge use of recommended assistive technology (AT). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2006;1:29–40
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Riemer-Reiss ML, Wacker RR. Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. J Rehabil 2000;66:44–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham DJ, Bisantz AM, Sunm M, et al. The effect of context priming and task type on augmentative communication performance. Augment Altern Commun 2009;25:19–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Schneider H. Interaact framework: dynamic AAC goals planning guide. Pittsburgh, PA: DynaVox Mayer-Johnson; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Cook & Hussey's assistive technologies: principles and practice. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Cook A. Access to hands-on mathematics measurement activities using robots controlled via speech generating devices: three case studies. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2014;9:286–98
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung Y, Simpson R. The development of a robot controlled by speech generating devices for children. RESNA Conference; 2011; Toronto, ON
   Google Scholar