• Nurul Husna M Computer Information Sciences Department (CISD), Faculty of Science and Information Technology (FSIT), Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
  • Wan Fatimah WA Computer Information Sciences Department (CISD), Faculty of Science and Information Technology (FSIT), Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
  • Ahmad Sobri H Computer Information Sciences Department (CISD), Faculty of Science and Information Technology (FSIT), Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
  • Manisah MA Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Keywords: Slow learner, student-centred learning, robotic-assistive learning tool


Learning is important for the development of children with special needs. Slow learners, which are included in the special-needs category suffer from extreme timidity thus making them unable to actively involved in learning sessions. It is important for them to actively involve in the learning activities as it affects their academic achievement.  This study involves two phases of activities which are; Phase 1, identification specification through literature review and expert interview, and Phase 2, model development. From the specification identification phase, suitable elements and components are identified, gathered, analysed and organised to prepare a comprehensive model. Therefore, a robotic-based model for slow learners’ learning is proposed. The model consists of the elements and the components that emphasize interactive student-centred learning. The model is derived from Care-Receiving Robot, Social Development Theory and Triple-D Model which consists of the teacher (More Knowledgable Other), the student, the robot (Care-Receiving Robot), learning by teaching to invoke student-centred learning, and evaluation (Triple-D Model).


1. S. Siti Faridah and B. Mahadi, “A Review of Learning Courseware for Children with Learning Disabilities in Malaysia,” J. Inf. Syst. Res. Innov., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2016.

2. G. Baglio et al., “Social Competence in Children with Borderline Intellectual Functioning: Delayed Development of Theory of Mind Across All Complexity Levels,” Front. Psychol., vol. 7, pp. 1–10, 2016.

3. M. Peltopuro, T. Ahonen, J. Kaartinen, H. Seppälä, and V. Närhi, “Borderline Intellectual Functioning: A Systematic Literature Review,” Intellect. Dev. Disabil., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 419–443, 2014.

4. A. Vasudevan, “Slow Learners – Causes, Problems and Educational Programmes,” Int. J. Appl. Res., vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 308–313, 2017.

5. G. Muppudathi, “Role of Teachers on Helping Slow Learners to Bring Out Their Hidden Skills,” Int. J. Sci. Res., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 98–99, 2014.

6. J. Martin and A. Torres, “What Is Student Engagement and Why Is It Important?,” 2012.

7. C. Yang and G. G. Bear, “Multilevel Associations Between School-Wide Social–Emotional Learning Approach and Student Engagement Across Elementary, Middle, and High Schools,” School Psych. Rev., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 45–61, 2018.

8. M. M. Ali and N. Hassan, “Defining Concepts of Student Engagement and Factors Contributing to Their Engagement in Schools,” Creat. Educ., pp. 2161–2170, 2018.

9. M. M. Ali and N. Hassan, “Teachers’ Perspectives on Academic Engagement of Students with Visual Impairments,” J. Pendidik. Malaysia, pp. 109–114, 2014.

10. A. Siti Zulaiha and A. M. Ariffin, “Validating a Proposed Conceptual Model iCAL4LA through Expert Review,” J. Fundam. Appl. Sci., 2018.

11. H. Azizzeanna, M. Murni, and M. T. Abu Osman, “Tablet Technology Integration Framework for Slow Learner Learning,” 5th Int. Conf. Inf. Commun. Technol. Muslim World, pp. 1–5, 2014.

12. H. Azizzeanna and M. Murni, “Tablet Technology and Apps to Enhance Slow Learners Motivation in Learning,” Adv. Sci. Lett., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 400–407, 2011.

13. S. A. Sabarinah, S. Mariam Felani, H. Rugayah, and K. Shahab, “Conducive Attributes of Physical Learning Environment at Preschool Level for Slow Learners,” in Asian Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, 2015, vol. 201, pp. 110–120.

14. W. A. Wan Fatimah, M. N. Shahrina, and M. S. Nor Syafiza, “Development of a Multimedia Courseware for Slow Learner Children with Reading Difficulties: MyLINUS,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (, vol. 8237, pp. 371–382, 2013.

15. W. A. Wan Fatimah, M. N. Shahrina, and M. S. Nor Syafiza, “Development of A Multimedia Courseware for Slow Learner Children with Reading Difficulties: MyLINUS,” Int. Vis. Informatics Conf., vol. 8237, no. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 371–382, 2013.

16. H. N. Kien, B. Aryati, and Ab. R. Azizah, “Effects of Persuasive Designed Courseware on Children with Learning Difficulties in Learning Malay Language Subject,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1413–1431, 2016.

17. E. Karna-Lin, K. Pihlainen-Bednarik, E. Sutinen, and M. Virnes, “Can Robots Teach? Preliminary Results on Educational Robotics in Special Education,” Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Adv. Learn. Technol., pp. 319–321, 2006.

18. N. Novitasari, A. Lukito, and R. Ekawati, “Slow Learner Errors Analysis in Solving Fractions Problems in Inclusive Junior High School Class,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2018.

19. R. Ruhela, “The Pain of the Slow Learners,” Online Int. Interdiscip. Res., no. Iv, pp. 193–200, 2014.

20. S. Chauhan, “Slow Learners: Their Psychology and Educational Programmes,” Int. J. Multidiscip. Res., vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 279–289, 2011.

21. P. B. Paul, “Coping with Slow Learners,” Int. J. Manag. Appl. Sci., vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 56–58, 2016.

22. F. Tanaka and S. Matsuzoe, “Children Teach a Care-Receiving Robot to Promote Their Learning: Field Experiments in a Classroom for Vocabulary Learning,” J. Human-Robot Interact., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 78–95, 2012.

23. S. Matsuzoe and F. Tanaka, “How Smartly Should Robots Behave?: Comparative Investigation on the Learning Ability of a Care-Receiving Robot,” Proc. - IEEE Int. Work. Robot Hum. Interact. Commun., pp. 339–344, 2012.

24. S. Matsuzoe, H. Kuzuoka, and F. Tanaka, “Learning English Words with the Aid of an Autonomous Care-Receiving Robot in a Children ’ s Group Activity,” in 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN 2014), 2014, pp. 802–807.

25. F. Tanaka and T. Kimura, “Care-receiving Robot as a Tool of Teachers in Child Education,” Interact. Stud., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 263–268, 2010.

26. F. Tanaka and M. Ghosh, “The Implementation of Care-Receiving Robot at an English Learning School for Children,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction - HRI ’11, 2011, p. 265.

27. K. Abe, M. Shiomi, Y. Pei, T. Zhang, N. Ikeda, and T. Nagai, “ChiCaRo: Tele-presence Robot for Interacting with Babies and Toddlers,” Adv. Robot., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 176–190, 2018.

28. K. M. A. Churcher, E. Downs, and D. Tewksbury, “‘Friending’ Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom Social Media Use,” J. Eff. Teach., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 33–50, 2014.

29. K. E. Len, “Classroom Communication Techniques: A Tool for Pupils’ Participation in the Learning Process across the Curriculum,” Creat. Educ., vol. 09, no. 03, pp. 535–548, 2018.

30. M. H. Charlop, R. Lang, and M. Rispoli, “More Than Just Fun and Games: Definition, Development, and Intervention for Children’s Play and Social Skills,” Play Soc. Ski. Child. with Autism Spectr. Disord., pp. 1–16, 2018.

31. N. L. McElwain, B. G. Ogolsky, J. M. Engle, A. S. Holland, and E. T. Mitchell, “Child-child Similarity on Attachment and Temperament as Predictors of Positive Interaction During Acquaintanceship at Age 3,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1394–1408, 2016.

32. K. A. Schonert-Reichl et al., “Enhancing Cognitive and Social–Emotional Development Through a Simple-to-Administer Mindfulness-Based School Program for Elementary School Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Dev. Psychol., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 52–66, 2015.

33. L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. 1978.

34. K. Shabani, M. Khatib, and S. Ebadi, “Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development: Instructional Implications and Teachers ’ Professional Development,” English Lang. Teach., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 237–248, 2010.

35. H. Pathan, R. A. Memon, S. Memon, A. R. Khoso, and I. Bux, “A Critical Review of Vygotsky ’ s Socio-Cultural Theory in Second Language Acquisition,” Int. J. English Linguist., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 232–236, 2018.

36. N. K. H. Chia and N. K. N. Kee, “An Integrated Teaching-Learning Framework for Special Education in Singapore,” Acad. Res. Int., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 416–426, 2013.

37. N. K. H. Chia and M. E. Wong, “From Mental Retardation to Intellectual Disability : A Proposed Educological Framework for Teaching Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Singapore,” Acad. Res. Int., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 147–163, 2014.

38. N. K. H. Chia, “Teaching-Learning Framework for Training of Special Education Professionals,” Educ. Res. Int., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 2013.

39. K. Dasaradhi, C. S. R. Rajeswari, and P. V. . Badarinath, “30 Methods to Improve Learning Capability in Slow Learners Sriharipuram,” Int. J. English Laguage, Litreture Humanit., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 556–570, 2016.

40. I. Made Rajendra and I. Made Sudana, “The Influence of Interactive Multimedia Technology to Enhance Achievement Students on Practice Skills in Mechanical Technology,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 953, no. 1, 2018.

41. F. Tanaka, K. Isshiki, F. Takahashi, M. Uekusa, R. Sei, and K. Hayashi, “Pepper Learns Together with Children: Development of an Educational Application,” in IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2015, pp. 270–275.

42. M. Perusquía-Hernández, D. A. G. Jáuregui, M. Cuberos-Balda, and D. Paez-Granados, “Robot Mirroring: A Framework for Self-tracking Feedback through Empathy with an Artificial Agent Representing the Self,” 2019.

43. F. Tanaka and S. Matsuzoe, “Learning Verbs by Teaching a Care-Receiving Robot by Children: An Experimental Report,” in Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction - HRI ’12, 2012, no. 3, p. 253.

44. Pardjono, “Active Learning: the Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Constructivist Theory Perspectives,” Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, vol. 9, no. 3. pp. 163–178, 2002.

45. N. Kucirkova, K. Sheehy, and D. Messer, “A Vygotskian Perspective on Parent–child Talk during iPad Story Sharing,” J. Res. Read., 2014.

46. N. Kok, H. Chia, N. Kiak, and N. Kee, “Professional Development of Special Needs Therapists through Lesson Study within the Triple-D Model of Special Education in Singapore,” in The World Association of Lesson Studies International Conference 2012, 2012.

47. M. E. Wong, N. Kok, H. Chia, and B. H. Lim, “A Triple - D Model of Primary Case Management System for Special Education,” Asian J. Manag. Sci. Educ., 2015.

48. P. M. H. Ng, “A Brief Updated Examination on the Enigma of Hyperlexia,” J. Read. Lit., 2012.
How to Cite
Nurul Husna M, Wan Fatimah WA, Ahmad Sobri H, & Manisah MA. (2020). PROPOSED ROBOTIC-BASED MODEL FOR SLOW LEARNER’S LEARNING . Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 20(Special1), 6-13.