The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inclusion as a Process: Co-Designing an Inclusive Robotic Game with Neurodiverse Classrooms
Open accessAbstract
Neurodivergent children spend most of their time in neurodiverse schools alongside their neurotypical peers and often face social exclusion. Inclusive play activities are a strong vehicle of inclusion. Unfortunately, games designed for the specific needs of neurodiverse groups are scarce. Given the potential of robots to support play, we led a co-design process to build an inclusive robotic game for neurodiverse classrooms. We conducted five co-design workshops, engaging 80 children from neurodiverse classrooms in designing an inclusive game. Employing the resulting design insights, we iteratively prototyped and playtested a tabletop robotic game leveraging off-the-shelf robots. Reflecting upon our findings, we discuss how the longitudinal co-design process (rather than the resulting game) was key in allowing children the space to learn how to accommodate accessibility needs and create inclusive play experiences. We posit the use of co-design to enhance children’s interpersonal relationships, fosters feelings of ownership, and encourages appropriation practices as a strategy to sustain inclusive experiences that extend beyond project timelines or artefact designs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Authentic collaboration has been associated with motivation, empowerment, and deeper learning.
“In contrast to empathy exercises that risk superficiality or stereotyping [3], authentic collaboration has been associated with motivation, empowerment, and deeper learning [14, 17, 27].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract says the longitudinal co-design process gave children space to learn to accommodate accessibility needs and fostered feelings of ownership. This supports learning and an aspect of empowerment through collaboration, but our copy does not establish an association with motivation or deeper learning specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredInclusive, strengths-based settings can surface capabilities and increase opportunities for meaningful contribution.
“Inclusive, strengths-based settings can surface capabilities and increase opportunities for meaningful contribution [14, 17, 27].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract (no page indicated) reports that 80 children in neurodiverse classrooms took part in co-design workshops and that the process gave them space to create inclusive play experiences. This supports opportunities for contribution, but our copy does not say that the setting was strengths-based or that it surfaced participants’ capabilities. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCo-creative engagement can produce more meaningful learning and change.
“They complement critiques of empathy simulations that risk superficial understanding or stereotyping [3], and align with reports that co-creative engagement can produce more meaningful learning and change [14, 17, 27].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
True participatory co-creation is still rarely realized in practice; many institutional initiatives remain reactive or evaluative rather than proactively co-creative.
“However, as Baillargeon et al. [1] and Borsotti et al. [4] note, true participatory co-creation—consistent with the disability-rights principle 'Nothing about us without us' [5], is still rarely realized in practice; many institutional initiatives remain reactive or evaluative rather than proactively co-creative [3, 27, 40].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract (page unavailable) describes the authors’ co-design workshops and the value of that process, but does not say participatory co-creation is rarely practiced or characterize institutional initiatives as reactive or evaluative. Searches for those claims and for top-down design found no passage in our copy that establishes them. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAn educational scientist and the accessibility advisor supported facilitation, reflection, and process integrity, realizing a multi-perspective setting.
“An educational scientist and the accessibility advisor supported facilitation, reflection, and process integrity, realizing a multi-perspective setting [1, 17, 27].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The indexed Abstract describes co-design workshops with neurodiverse classrooms, but does not identify an educational scientist or accessibility advisor or describe their roles. Searches for those roles and for facilitation, reflection, and process integrity found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Prior work reports that targeted, practice-oriented interventions and direct contact with peer experts improve knowledge and perspective taking when learning is authentic and situated.
“The significant gain on accessible design knowledge coheres with targeted, practice-oriented interventions and direct contact with peer experts reported in prior work, which show improvements in knowledge and perspective taking when learning is authentic and situated [2, 10, 19, 27].”
From Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The available non-abstract passages are references and publication metadata, not findings about learning outcomes. Searches for peer-expert contact, accessible-design knowledge, and perspective taking found no passage establishing the attributed improvements. (LLM, conf=0.68)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 58
- A.-M., Beckett A E Holt R. J., and Moore. 2014. Together Through Play: Facilitating Inclusive Play Through Participatory Design, J., Heylighen A., Dong H Langdon P. M., and Lazar (Eds.). Inclusive Designing, 245–255.
- 10.1080/10447318.2017.1300750 · DOI
- Cristiana Antunes, Isabel Neto, Filipa Correia, Ana Paiva, and Hugo Nicolau. 2022. Inclusive’R’Stories: An Inclusive Storytelling Activity with an Emotional Robot. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 90–100.
- Saminda Sundeepa Balasuriya Laurianne Sitbon Margot Brereton and Stewart Koplick. 2019. How Can Social Robots Spark Collaboration and Engagement among People with Intellectual Disability?Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369457.3370915 · DOI
- 10.1109/CGames.2012.6314544 · DOI
- 10.3390/robotics9030072 · DOI
- 10.1145/2556288.2557244 · DOI
- 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1109540.1109545 · DOI
- 10.1145/1146816.1146827 · DOI
- Nicholas Sheep Dalton. 2013. Neurodiversity & HCI. CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2295–2304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468752 · DOI
- Alan Dix. 2007. Designing for appropriation. In Proceedings of HCI 2007 The 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference University of Lancaster, UK 21. 1–4.
- 10.1109/EAEEIE54893.2022.9820516 · DOI
- 10.1145/3419249.3420121 · DOI
- 10.1145/3290605.3300501 · DOI
- Doris Fromberg. 1990. Play issues in early childhood education. Merrill Publishing Company. 223–243 pages.
- Doris Fromberg and Dominic Gullo. 1992. Perspectives on children. Routledge. 191–194 pages.
- Doris Pronin Fromberg and Doris Bergen. 2012. Play from birth to twelve: Contexts, perspectives, and meanings. Routledge.
- Catherine Garvey. 1990. Play. Vol. 27. Harvard University Press.
- 10.1145/2658537.2661303 · DOI
- 10.1542/peds.2006-2697 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445494 · DOI
- 10.1145/3311350.3347161 · DOI
- 10.1145/1463689.1463719 · DOI
- 10.1145/2485760.2485808 · DOI
- Johan Huizinga. 2014. Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Routledge.
- 10.1145/3290605.3300453 · DOI
- James E Johnson, James F Christie, and Thomas D Yawkey. 1987. Play and early childhood development.Scott, Foresman & Co. 269, xii, 269–xii pages.
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00260 · DOI
- 10.1177/18369391211056668 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10803-019-03888-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100384 · DOI
- Claire Liu, S Lynneth Solis, Hanne Jensen, Emily Hopkins, Dave Neale, Jennifer Zosh, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and David Whitebread. 2017. Neuroscience and learning through play: a review of the evidence. The Lego Foundation, Dinamarca (2017).
- 10.1145/2593968.2593981 · DOI
- 10.1145/3019943.3019975 · DOI
- 10.1080/10494820.2021.1919146 · DOI
- 10.1145/3313831.3376270 · DOI
- 10.1145/3392063.3394431 · DOI
- 10.1145/3544549.3585828 · DOI
- 10.1145/3568162.3576997 · DOI
- 10.1145/3568162.3576997 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445135 · DOI
- 10.23919/CISTI49556.2020.9140906 · DOI
- 10.1145/1180875.1180877 · DOI
- 10.1145/3585088.3589389 · DOI
- 10.1177/10442073050160030601 · DOI
- 10.1145/3544548.3581261 · DOI
- 10.1080/15710880701875068 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1865245.1865256 · DOI
- Tom Shakespeare. 1996. Disability, identity and difference. Exploring the divide (1996), 94–113.
- 10.1145/2771839.2771844 · DOI
- 10.1145/2858036.2858114 · DOI
- 10.1145/2839462.2839480 · DOI
- 10.1145/3432245 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100477 · DOI
- 10.1145/2384916.2384965 · DOI
- 10.1145/1240624.1240704 · DOI
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teaching Participatory Inclusive IT Design with a Neurodiversity Lens in Computing Education
Hermann, J., Jansen, N., Richter, U., Fleer, A., & Doganün, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the 25th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3769994.3770007 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Piedade, P., Neto, I., Pires, A. C., Prada, R., & Nicolau, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores Investigação e Desenvolvimento (PT)
- Venue
- The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-10-27
- Pages
- 1-15
- OpenAlex
- W4403582902
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 8.74
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (GA 101079116)
- Agência Nacional de Inovação (C645022399-00000057)
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (C645022399-00000057)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- neurodiversity, inclusive play, tabletop games, co-design, neurodivergent children, social exclusion, accessibility, ownership, inclusive education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
