IB Questionbank

User interface language: English | Español

Date	May 2018	Marks available	12	Reference code	18M.3.HL.TZ0.4
Level	HL	Paper	3 (model questions)	Time zone	no time zone
Command term	Recommend	Question number	4	Adapted from	N/A

Question

Students should be provided with the pre-release document ahead of the May 2018 HL paper 3 examination, this can be found under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials > May 2018 HL paper 3 pre-release document: Accessibility.

Improving the accessibility to the curriculum for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)

Source 1: Tayton School

Tayton School is a primary school that teaches 500 children aged between 5 and 12. There are three classes in each year group, with a maximum of 24 students in each class. The school’s motto is “Education for Everyone”, and inclusion is at the heart of the school’s mission.

The school’s Inclusion Department consists of five full-time staff, led by Sandra, and 10 learning support assistants who are active in working with the children. Sandra has recently produced a report on the students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in the school, in which she found that the increasing numbers of students, and the types of SEND, means that the schools needs to invest in expanding the amount of support for the students (see Table 1).

Table 1: SEND at Tayton School

Sandra’s report argues that, next year, the work of the Inclusion Department would be more effective if the school purchased educational digital technologies, such as social robots and assistive technologies.

Source 2: Social robots in education

Sandra researched social robots and came back to the department meeting with this information:

In 2020, a report on the use of social robots in education was published by a prestigious university professor, who concluded that social robots have the potential to be a key player in education in the way textbooks and whiteboards have been in the past. A social robot has the potential to support students in ways that could never have been envisaged 20 years ago. However, there are significant technical limitations, particularly linked to the social robot’s ability to interact with students, that will restrict their usability for the next few years

Source 3: Mary sees the positives

Mary, one of the learning assistants at Tayton School, says:

“As a parent of two school-age children, I think the potential introduction of social robots has both advantages and disadvantages. My children thought the idea of having a robot that sits with them very exciting, and I think they would do what the robot asks without questioning it. The robot will also be much more patient while they are learning their times tables!” (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Students interacting with a social robot

[Source: pexels.com]

Source 4: James has doubts

James, another learning assistant at Tayton School, is wary of the overuse of digital technology in schools for children with special needs based on his experiences in other schools. He has found some research that supports his ideas.

[Source: pexels.com]

With reference to the stimulus material and your own inquiries, recommend whether Tayton School should use social robots and/or assistive technologies to ensure students with SEND can be further integrated into the school.

Markscheme

Answers may include:

Evaluation of social robots

Equity:

With inadequate budget, there may not be enough social robots in Tayton School to support the number of students with SEND (Source 1).
With careful planning/timetabling, social robots could be made accessible to the students in class.
Social robots may not meet the needs of all students, e.g., students with speech problems may not be able to effectively interact with the social robots (access, inclusion).
Social robots can be fitted with alternative input technologies, e.g., wearable sensors or touch screens.
Different social robots are designed for different students’ needs and are not generic.

Acceptability:

Students are excited for the social robot to be with them (Source 3).
Research has shown that students are accepting of social robots because they have been designed with human features /expressions.
Robots can use facial recognition to help identify the student and provide a personalized interaction.
Adults are more cautious about accepting robots in the classroom, and therefore parents may be less trusting of a robot compared with a human tutor.

Cost:

The cost of the social robots has reduced and is now more affordable, with commercial products that can be bought off the shelf for US$500.
Additional costs are needed to maintain the robots, e.g., over time batteries can degrade, they will need internet access (which may require the school to purchase additional network data), robots may need software upgrades (which may require technology specialists).
Social robots would be desirable to students, and therefore may be stolen and need replacing.
Students with emotional needs may be aggressive and damage the social robots, which will need repairing/replacing.
Social robots could replace human learning assistants, which could be cheaper in the long run (automation).

Feasibility:

The number of students that would need to use the social robots (Source 1) would require more than a few social robots, which is expensive.
Technical limitations, speech recognition, and social interaction (Source 2).
Social robots are technically feasible – there are sufficient educational robots on the market that can be used by Tayton School.
Social robots could be used in the classroom, which provides suitable terrain for it to function. With sufficient charging and internet access, social robots are feasible in the classroom.

Innovation:

Although relatively new, there are research papers that analyse the effectiveness of robots in education.
Artificial intelligence and robotics developments are improving performance.
The innovation is designed to support teachers and therefore enhance learning, rather than replace teachers.

Ethics:

Policies need to be put in place in the school to outline the acceptable use of social robots in the classroom.
Policies need to include the responsibilities of the classroom teacher when using the social robot with a group of children and expected behaviour.
Privacy concerns regarding the collection, storage, use, and access of data collected by the robot.

Evaluation of assistive technology

Equity:

Assistive technology in hardware form is specific to the needs of the student – a range of technologies would need to be employed for the different needs.
Assistive technology improves accessibility and access to learning.
Assistive technology in the form of apps on tablets or laptops can be accessible to many children, e.g., one tablet could include apps for all learning needs.

Acceptability:

Unrealistic expectations and disappointment by staff (Source 4) (technical determinism).
Assistive technologies are more acceptable in the community, as they have been established for many years, e.g., braille keyboards are widely known.
Assistive technologies alone may not be useful unless they are fully accepted and integrated into the learning by the teacher.
Parents may not be happy with the increase in screen time for their children spending more time at school on a tablet/mobile device (values).
Assistive technologies through apps on mobile devices may not be as accepted by the students compared to interacting with a social robot.

Cost:

High-tech hardware assistive technologies can be expensive and can only be used by students with a specific need (they are not general).
Low-tech apps/website subscriptions, e.g., apps for general learning disabilities, can be relatively cheap because they can be shared among many users.
Apps/website subscriptions that provide personalized learning are more expensive and require individual licensing per person (access, inclusion).

Feasibility:

Not enough consideration is given to how assistive technology will work in a busy school environment (Source 4).
The school may already have mobile devices for learning in the classroom connected to the internet, making assistive technologies (apps) easy to implement (systems).
Time constraints make it difficult for a teacher to fully plan for using the assistive technologies.
Training is important for effective use of assistive technology, requiring both time and training.
The school may already have in place policies for technology, e.g., an acceptable use policy.
The school’s mission focuses on inclusion, and the provision of the assistive technologies supports this mission.

Innovation:

Assistive technologies can mitigate the challenges that students with SEND face with their learning.
Assistive technologies can be used to enhance the teaching and learning of students.
There are a wide range of assistive technologies; these must be reviewed, tried, and tested before purchasing (systems).
Teachers need professional development and training before the integration of assistive technologies in the classroom can be effective.

Ethics:

Privacy concerns exist with the use of personalized apps, as they collect data from interactions. The school must ensure the apps comply with data protection policies.

The recommendation:

Using the evaluations of each intervention, the response needs to recommend one or the other, or a combination of both.
The recommendation needs to explicitly balance the evaluations against each other in order to support the recommendation and to satisfy the requirement that possible trade-offs and implications have been considered.
The trade-offs and implications will need to consider which of the evaluation points is more important than the others.

Keywords: identity, ethics, systems, values, data, privacy, policies, app, facial recognition, trust, social robot, assistive technologies, hardware, automation, relationships, accessibility, access, inclusion, equity, acceptability, cost, feasibility, innovations, technological determinism.

Please refer to the HL paper 3 question 4 markbands when awarding marks. These can be found under the "Your tests" tab > supplemental materials > Digital society markbands and guidance document.