A Comparison of Different Technological Interfaces and Activities on Autistic Children's Social Play

Background: Technology is widely used by autistic children and is increasingly used to develop skills in the social domain. However, there are ongoing concerns that technology is socially isolating and prohibits real-world interaction. Many of these concerns are directed towards touch-screen devices, however, we won't know whether (and how) different technologies create opportunity for different types of social interaction. Understanding the influence of different technologies has applications to better address community concerns and evaluate uses of new technologies to support autistic children.

Objectives: To compare autistic children's social play whilst using different types of technological devices and software

Methods: Four autistic children were video-recorded in their classroom playing with three different technological interfaces: (a) iPads(tm) with various recreational and educational apps and games, (b) Osmo(tm), a tangible system (physical-digital hybrid) with various educational apps, and (c) Code-A-Pillar(tm), a musical-construction robotic toy. Children's profiles were characterised using the teacher versions of the Social Responsiveness Scale 2 (mean total t = 78), Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales 3 (mean ABC = 58.75), and Wing's Subgroups Questionnaire. A total of 51 five-minute video clips (mean = 13 clips per child) were sampled (2 hours 5 minutes footage analysed, comprising 19% of full dataset collected over 4 weeks) and categorical coding of interactive social play applied using Howes' Peer Play Scale. The scale includes 7 categories of social play (in hierarchical order): non-play interaction with adults, non-play, solitary play, parallel-play, parallel-aware play, simple social play (SS), and complementary & reciprocal play (CR). For each observation, the child's play partner (staff or peer) was also coded, as well as interface and app (e.g. Osmo Numbers, iPad Reactickles).

Results: For each interface, patterns of observed play type are reported. Of all observations of SS with peers, 61.2% was observed whilst children played with iPads, 22.4% was observed while children played with Osmo, and 16.4% while children played with Code-A-Pillar. Of all observations of CR with peers, 87.5% was observed on the iPad, 12.5% observed on the Code-A-Pillar, and none observed with Osmo. Of all observations of SS with adults, 47.9% was observed whilst children played with Osmo, 26% observed on iPad, and 26% observed on Code-A-Pillar. Of all observations of CR with adults, 50% observed with iPads, 35% observed with Code-A-Pillar, and 15% observed with Osmo. Between the first two sessions (2 weeks) and the last two sessions (8 weeks), an increase was observed in observations of SS (mean at 2 weeks = 7, mean at 8 weeks = 21.5), but not CR (mean at 2 weeks = 3, mean at 8 weeks = 4).

Conclusions: This study compared autistic children’s social interactions whilst using different types of technology, including tablets, tangibles and robotics. The highest rates of social play were observed whilst children used iPads, and more complementary types of play were observed whilst children used Code-A-Pillar compared to Osmo. These results provide important insights into the differences between different types of technology that can be used to support autistic children in education and therapeutic contexts.