When applied effectively in schools, collaborative learning techniques are highly successful (Howe, 2010, Baines et al., 2007, 2009, Kutnick et al., 2008). A recent review found that, for younger children (ages 4-7), collaborative learning activities are particularly beneficial for low-ability children (Sills, Rowse & Emerson, 2016). Furthermore, relationships between students, both in the classroom and during play outside of school, have been found to be improved by collaborative group work (Tolmie et al., 2010)

The importance of the role of peers has been the focus of a recent systematic review by Chang and Locke (2016). Peer-mediated interventions generally involve interaction between a typically-developing child and a child with social communication impairments such as autism spectrum disorders. Peers provide appropriate language models and an opportunity for children with social communication impairments to practice newly learnt skills. Chang and Locke (2016) concluded that the inclusion of peers was one of the most promising strategies for social skills interventions, resulting in positive impacts on social communication.

Collaborative group work requires minimum levels of social communication ability for successful participation, a task that will naturally be more difficult for children with social communication impairments. Studies have found that children with social communication impairments fail to contribute appropriately within collaborative group work, sharing less and making more irrelevant statements or ignoring others, as well as being aggressive or withdrawn, leaving them excluded or dominated by peers (Brinton et al., 2000, Kimhi & Bauminger-Zviely, 2012, Murphy et al., 2014a).

Due to these difficulties, enabling social interaction between children with social communication impairments and their peers requires considerable skill from an adult facilitator. Difficulties and resource implications related to providing support for children with social communication impairments tends to leave them isolated within the classroom. Blatchford et al. (2009) report that typically, the most common activity for children with special educational needs is one-to-one working with teaching assistants. Whilst this has many advantages, these authors also report that children with more classroom support have less interaction with teachers and other peers, in fact, rates of interaction are reduced by about half.

Some non-technological games and tasks aim to improve children’s collaborative skills, such as Lego-based Therapy (LeGoff 2017, LeGoff, Gomez Krauss & Baron-Cohen, 2014). Lego-based Therapy has been widely embraced within schools in the UK, despite its limited evidence base. The popularity of Lego-based Therapy suggests a growing need and desire for interventions targeting both communicative and collaborative skills. However, Lego-based Therapy requires major input from adult facilitators (LeGoff, Gomez Krauss & Baron-Cohen, 2014). Alt et al. (2012) have pointed out that currently, whilst peer collaborative activities for children with communication and language impairments rely heavily on adult specialist skill for facilitation, little time or thought has been invested in the creation and development of these activities. Well-designed activities using technology could therefore reduce the need for skilled specialist adult input.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of computer-assisted collaborative learning concluded that scripts (a series of predictable actions within a computer program, not a ‘script’ as in a film or play) act as a kind of socio-cognitive scaffolding and can enhance learning outcomes substantially (Vogels et al., 2017). Large positive effects on collaboration skills were reported. Computer technology potentially offers a number of other advantages which are only now beginning to be explored. Among these are novel presentations with surprises, colourful animations and unusual sounds, as well as possibilities for tailoring games precisely to individual ability and enhancing motivation and treatment fidelity (Ploog et al., 2013).