Using assistive robots to promote inclusive education

References

• Gupta SS, Henninger IV WR, Vinh ME. First steps to preschool inclusion: how to jumpstart your programwide plan. Baltimore (MD): Brookes Publishing; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell D. What really works in special and inclusive education: using evidence-based teaching strategies. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Alquraini T, Gut D. Critical components of successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities: literature review. Int J Spec Educ. 2012;27:42–59.
   Google Scholar
• Wood D. How children think and learn: the social contexts of cognitive development. 2nd ed. Maldan (MA): Wiley-Blackwell; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. 4th ed. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier Inc; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Dell AG, Deborah AN, Petroff JG. Assistive technology in the classroom: enhancing the experience of students with disabilities. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Person; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Myers C. “Please listen, it's my turn”: instructional approaches, curricula and contexts for supporting communication and increasing access to inclusion. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2007;32:230–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calculator SN. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. Int J Incl Educ. 2009;13:93–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent-Walsh J, Light J. General education teachers’ experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2003;19:104–124.
   Google Scholar
• Soto G, Müller E, Hunt P, et al. Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: an educational team perspective. Augment Altern Commun. 2001;17:62–72.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson KA, Hatch P, Clendon S. Literacy, assistive technology, and students with significant disabilities. Focus Except Chil. 2010;42:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppenhaver DA, Hendrix MP, Williams AR. Toward evidence-based literacy interventions for children with severe and multiple disabilities. Semin Speech Lang. 2007;28:79–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D, Weyer M, et al. Evidence-based literacy instruction for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a case study of a student with multiple disabilities. Semin Speech Lang. 2008;29:120–132.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Hunt P, Soto G, Maier J, et al. Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augment Altern Commun. 2002;18:20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore (MD): Paul H Brookes Publishing; 2013.
   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 C. Classroom applications of educational robots for inclusive teams of students with and without disabilities. Technol Disabil. 1996;5:139–150.
   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;59:565–569.
   Google Scholar
• Eberhardt SP, Osborne J, Rahman T. Classroom evaluation of the Arlyn Arm robotic workstation. Assist Technol. 2000;12:132–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Bentz B, Harbottle N, et al. School-based use of a robotic arm system by children with disabilities. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13:452–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell R. Robotic devices as assistive and educational tools for persons with disabilities. Whitefish Bay (WI): Knowledge by Design, Inc; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Encarnação P, Adams K. Robots: assistive technologies for play, learning and cognitive development. Technol Disabil. 2010;22:127–145.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Cook AM. Access to hands-on mathematics measurement activities using robots controlled via speech generating devices: three case studies. Disabil Rehabil: Assist Technol. 2014;9:286–298.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adams K. Access to math activities for children with disabilities by controlling Lego robots via augmentative communication devices. Ph.D. thesis on Rehabilitation Science. Edmonton: University of Albert; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Cook AM. Limits and user satisfaction of using low-cost robots for Math measurement activities. In: Proceedings of the RESNA 2012 Conference. Baltimore (MD): RESNA; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, David BL. Methods of manipulation for children with severe disabilities to do hands-on math activities: robot, directing, guiding. In: Proceedings of the RESNA Conference. Bellevue (WA): RESNA; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Yantha J, Cook AM. Lego robot control via a speech generating communication device for play and educational activities. In: Proceedings of the RESNA Conference. Washington (DC): RESNA; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Encarnação P, Alvarez L, Rios R, et al. Using virtual robot-mediated play activities to assess cognitive skills. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9:231–241.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Darke P, Shanks G, Broadbent M. Successfully completing case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism. Inform Syst J. 1998;8:273–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edyburn D. Models, theories, and frameworks: contributions to understanding special education technology. Spec Educ Technol Pract. 2002;4:16–24.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assist Technol. 2003;15:1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M. Matching person and technology. Webster (NY): Institute for Matching Person & Technology; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Zabala JS. The SETT framework: critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. In: Closing the Gap Preconference Workshop; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton D, Light J. The iPad and mobile technology revolution: benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29:107–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Encarnação P, Pereira J, Piedade G, et al. User manual of the integrated augmentative manipulation and communication assistive technology. Lisbon: UARPIE Project; 2015. Available from: http://uarpie.anditec.pt/images/docs/user_manual_iamcat.zip.
   Google Scholar
• French J. Pictorial test of intelligence. 2nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Palisano R, Rosenbaum P, Walter S, et al. Development and reliability of a system to classify gross motor function in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39:214–223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliasson AC, Krumlinde-Sundholm L, Rösblad B, et al. The Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) for children with cerebral palsy: scale development and evidence of validity and reliability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48:549–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynell J, Gruber C. Reynell developmental language scales. Los Angeles: Western; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Helmbold B, Lucky K. “I Tell You a Story”: using narrative re-tell to assess AAC competencies. In: Proceedings of the ISAAC Conference. Barcelona: ISAAC; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• O'Brien J. David the dinosaur. Phoenix (MD): ISM, Inc; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke V, Schneider H. Dynamic AAC goals grid [Internet]; 2010 [cited 2015 October 22]. Available from: http://ca.dynavoxtech.com/training/toolkit/details.aspx?id =32.
   Google Scholar
• Howell R, Mayton G, Baker P. Education and research issues in designing robotically-aided science education environments. In: Proceedings of the RESNA Conference. New Orleans: RESNA; 1989. p. 109–110.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Encarnação P. A training protocol for controlling Lego robots via speech generating devices. In: Gelderblom G, Soede M, Adriaens L, Miesenberger K, editors. Everyday technology for independence and care – AAATE 2011, assistive technology research series. Maastricht: IOS Press; 2011. p. 517–525.
   Google Scholar
• Adams K, Cook AM. Measuring user accuracy and speed with scanning access on dynamic display speech generating devices. In: Proceedings of the ISAAC Conference. Barcelona: ISAAC; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Tolstoy A, Sharkey N. Gigantic turnip. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Barefoot Books; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Neundorf K. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stemler S. An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2001;7. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
   Google Scholar
• Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24:105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poletz L, Encarnação P, Adams K, et al. Robot skills and cognitive performance of preschool children. Technol Disabil. 2010;22:117–126.
   Google Scholar