Logo
ScienceStack
Table of Contents
Fetching ...
Sign In

Social Robotics for Disabled Students: An Empirical Investigation of Embodiment, Roles and Interaction

Alva Markelius, Fethiye Irmak Doğan, Julie Bailey, Guy Laban, Jenny L. Gibson, Hatice Gunes

TL;DR

This study investigates how two robot roles (signposting information and sounding board for disclosure) and two embodiments (a physical Pepper robot and a disembodied voice agent) affect disabled students' perceptions of understanding, social energy demands, information access, task difficulty, and privacy in higher education. Using a 3x2 within-subjects design with 31 participants, the authors find that embodiment enhances perceived understanding and sociability and that privacy and social effort depend on task type and disability type, though robots do not consistently outperform self guided or laptop-based approaches for information tasks. The work highlights ethical and practical considerations and argues for closer integration with institutional processes and co design with disabled students to reduce barriers to access, inclusion, and trust. It also provides nuanced insights into how different disability groups experience embodiment, informing future design of accessible, privacy preserving social robots in HE. The findings have implications for deploying socially embodied agents as intermediaries in disability services and advocate for user centered, context aware deployments that minimize social burden while enhancing information access and support.

Abstract

Institutional and social barriers in higher education often prevent students with disabilities from effectively accessing support, including lengthy procedures, insufficient information, and high social-emotional demands. This study empirically explores how disabled students perceive robot-based support, comparing two interaction roles, one information based (signposting) and one disclosure based (sounding board), and two embodiment types (physical robot/disembodied voice agent). Participants assessed these systems across five dimensions: perceived understanding, social energy demands, information access/clarity, task difficulty, and data privacy concerns. The main findings of the study reveal that the physical robot was perceived as more understanding than the voice-only agent, with embodiment significantly shaping perceptions of sociability, animacy, and privacy. We also analyse differences between disability types. These results provide critical insights into the potential of social robots to mitigate accessibility barriers in higher education, while highlighting ethical, social and technical challenges.

Social Robotics for Disabled Students: An Empirical Investigation of Embodiment, Roles and Interaction

TL;DR

This study investigates how two robot roles (signposting information and sounding board for disclosure) and two embodiments (a physical Pepper robot and a disembodied voice agent) affect disabled students' perceptions of understanding, social energy demands, information access, task difficulty, and privacy in higher education. Using a 3x2 within-subjects design with 31 participants, the authors find that embodiment enhances perceived understanding and sociability and that privacy and social effort depend on task type and disability type, though robots do not consistently outperform self guided or laptop-based approaches for information tasks. The work highlights ethical and practical considerations and argues for closer integration with institutional processes and co design with disabled students to reduce barriers to access, inclusion, and trust. It also provides nuanced insights into how different disability groups experience embodiment, informing future design of accessible, privacy preserving social robots in HE. The findings have implications for deploying socially embodied agents as intermediaries in disability services and advocate for user centered, context aware deployments that minimize social burden while enhancing information access and support.

Abstract

Institutional and social barriers in higher education often prevent students with disabilities from effectively accessing support, including lengthy procedures, insufficient information, and high social-emotional demands. This study empirically explores how disabled students perceive robot-based support, comparing two interaction roles, one information based (signposting) and one disclosure based (sounding board), and two embodiment types (physical robot/disembodied voice agent). Participants assessed these systems across five dimensions: perceived understanding, social energy demands, information access/clarity, task difficulty, and data privacy concerns. The main findings of the study reveal that the physical robot was perceived as more understanding than the voice-only agent, with embodiment significantly shaping perceptions of sociability, animacy, and privacy. We also analyse differences between disability types. These results provide critical insights into the potential of social robots to mitigate accessibility barriers in higher education, while highlighting ethical, social and technical challenges.
Paper Structure (17 sections, 4 figures)

This paper contains 17 sections, 4 figures.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Related Work
  3. The Study
  4. Study Conditions
  5. Participants
  6. Experiment Procedure
  7. Robot Roles
  8. Robotic and Disembodied Agent Platform
  9. Measures
  10. Data Analysis
  11. Findings
  12. Task-level questionnaires
  13. Pre/post questionnaires
  14. Post-study questionnaires
  15. Thematic Analysis of Interviews
  16. ...and 2 more sections

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: Illustrative figure of the user study setup (left) and number of participants by disability type (right)
  • Figure 2: Task-level questionnaire results. Participant ratings of Understanding (RQ1), Social Energy demands (RQ2), Information access and clarity (RQ3), Task Difficulty (RQ4), and Data Privacy concerns (RQ5)
  • Figure 3: Mean responses to pre/post questionnaire items
  • Figure 4: H-REIS scale ratings with ±1 standard error of mean