TechCHAT: Dr. Pamela Rollins

The TechCHAT series invites teachers, media specialists and other educators from across the country and around the world to share how they're using technology to enhance instruction and student learning.

Pamela Rollins, MS, Ed.D., has been researching, teaching and clinically practicing with children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and their families for over 30 years. As a certified clinical speech language pathologist with a doctorate from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Dr. Rollins was the founding Director of the Early Communication, Language & Social Skills Preschool for children with ASD at University of Texas-Dallas, Callier Center for Communication Disorders from 2003 to 2010. She also teaches graduate courses on assessing and treating ASD at the Callier Center for Communication Disorders at the School of Behavior and Brain Sciences at the University of Texas in Dallas.

We discussed with Dr. Rollins how a robot named Milo—and other communication devices—can be used to support children on the autism spectrum, as well as students with other special needs. (Milo, in an earlier form, was called Zeno—read more about this amazing robot.)
 

Explain how working with the robot Milo has impacted your students’ social skills. How long did it take for changes, if any, to occur?

Our students with Autism Spectrum Disorder often have social anxiety. Learning social interactions via a less threatening interface—a robot—helps many students better identify emotions and use specific social skills with humans, like holding a conversation or giving new information. These are all difficult for children on the spectrum. Many of the children immediately start talking to Milo and reveal skills we didn’t know they had. One example is the young boy my colleague, Dr. Carolyn Garver, was working with at the Autism Treatment Center in Dallas. He was very self-centered and never showed any perspective-taking. When interacting with Milo and the tablet around a lesson that had to do with tools, he told Milo, “Jonny will really like this.” Everyone was blown away! This very simple statement showed that he was capable of “Theory of Mind” skills, something that he had never demonstrated before. Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states (i.e., desires, beliefs, thoughts) to oneself and others. Individuals on the spectrum have extraordinary difficulties with theory of mind skills, and this child was no different.
 

Are there any other technologies that you would suggest for helping students with communication difficulties?

An Augmentative Communication Device with a voice output (i.e., generates speech). This can be a dedicated communication device or mainstream technology like a tablet. I like augmentative devices because they fit the strengths of children with ASD (e.g., visual learners, interest in objects, reduces the complexity of social cues). The voice output is important so that the child can communicate with individuals who are not looking at the system with the child, and they can be understood if their articulation is not clear.

As with any technology for this population, it is only as good as the implementation. Augmentative communication systems are not a one-size-fits-all answer, and a device should be tailored to the communication needs of the individual who is using the device. It is also important that people interacting with the person with ASD use the device to model language to the individual, which helps teach the child how to use and communicate with the device.

I should note that these features are also programmed into Milo. When Milo talks, the speech is synchronized with visual symbols for the core vocabulary introduced in the Robots4Autism curriculum. The child also has the opportunity to use the visual symbols presented in the lessons to communicate with Milo.
 

What are some of the challenges of using EdTech with special-needs students?

Challenges are often in how the education technology is implemented. Each tool needs to be fine-tuned to the developmental level of the child, and the activities of education technology need be consistent with the child’s developmental level and individualized goals.  It is also important not to leave the child alone with technology for extended periods of time without human interaction, and to have a plan regarding how to structure the removal of technology when it is time for the child to complete other less-motivating activities. I should mention that the Robots4autism teacher’s manual gives several suggestions on how to do just that.

Article by Jason Cunningham, EducationWorld Social Media Editor
Education World®             
Copyright © 2014 Education World