, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 613–631 | Cite as

The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions

  • Sofia SerholtEmail author
  • Wolmet Barendregt
  • Asimina Vasalou
  • Patrícia Alves-Oliveira
  • Aidan Jones
  • Sofia Petisca
  • Ana Paiva
Open Forum


Robots are increasingly being studied for use in education. It is expected that robots will have the potential to facilitate children’s learning and function autonomously within real classrooms in the near future. Previous research has raised the importance of designing acceptable robots for different practices. In parallel, scholars have raised ethical concerns surrounding children interacting with robots. Drawing on a Responsible Research and Innovation perspective, our goal is to move away from research concerned with designing features that will render robots more socially acceptable by end users toward a reflective dialogue whose goal is to consider the key ethical issues and long-term consequences of implementing classroom robots for teachers and children in primary education. This paper presents the results from several focus groups conducted with teachers in three European countries. Through a thematic analysis, we provide a theoretical account of teachers’ perspectives on classroom robots pertaining to privacy, robot role, effects on children and responsibility. Implications for the field of educational robotics are discussed.


Educational robots Social implications Ethics Teachers’ perspectives Thematic analysis Focus group 



We would first of all like to thank all the teachers and students who took part in the studies. We would also like to extend our gratitude to teacher education students Rebecka Olofsson and Trixie Assarsson for their excellent video editing. We thank Tiago Ribeiro, Eugenio Di Tullio, Etienne Roesch and Daniel Gooch for facilitating some of the focus groups. We would also like to thank master student Thomas Rider for his initial transcription services and ideas. We also thank the MUL group at the University of Gothenburg for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper. This work was partially supported by the European Commission (EC) and was funded by the EU FP7 ICT-317,923 project EMOTE ( P. Alves-Oliveira acknowledges a FCT Grant Ref. SFRH/BD/110223/2015. The authors are solely responsible for the content of this publication. It does not represent the opinion of the EC, and the EC is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.


  1. Aiken RM, Epstein RG (2000) Ethical Guidelines for AI in Education: starting a Conversation. Int J Artif Intell Educ 11:163–176Google Scholar
  2. Asaro PM (2007) Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. Paper presented at the IEEE 2007 International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Workshop on RoboEthics, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer JM, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2014) Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. J Hum-Robot Interact 3:74–99. doi: 10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belpaeme T et al. (2013) Child-robot interaction: perspectives and challenges. In: Herrmann G, Pearson M, Lenz A, Bremner P, Spiers A, Leonards U (eds) Social robotics, vol 8239. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, pp 452–459. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_45
  5. Belpaeme T et al (2012) Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds. J Hum-Robot Interact 1:33–53. doi: 10.5898/JHRI.1.2.Belpaeme Google Scholar
  6. Benedikt Frey C, Osborne MA (2013) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. Retrieved from
  7. Beran T, Ramirez-Serrano A (2011) Can children have a relationship with a robot? In: Lamers M, Verbeek F (eds) Human-robot personal relationships, vol 59. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 49–56. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19385-9_7
  8. Bloom BS (1984) The 2 sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ Res 13:4–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryson JJ (2010) Why robot nannies probably won’t do much psychological damage. Interact Stud 11:196–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castellano G et al. (2013) Towards empathic virtual and robotic tutors. In: Lane HC, Yacef K, Mostow J, Pavlik P (eds) Artificial intelligence in education, vol 7926. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 733–736. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_100
  12. Chiu MM, Chow BWY (2011) Classroom discipline across forty-one countries: school economic, and cultural differences. J Cross-Cult Psychol. doi: 10.1177/0022022110381115 Google Scholar
  13. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K (2013) Research methods in education, 7th edn. Taylor and Francis, Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorsten AM, Sifford KS, Bharucha A, Mecca LP, Wactlar H (2009) Ethical perspectives on emerging assistive technologies: insights from focus groups with stakeholders in long-term care facilities. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 4:25–36. doi: 10.1525/jer.2009.4.1.25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics Auton Syst 42:177–190. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Eden G, Jirotka M, Stahl B (2013) Responsible research and innovation: critical reflection into the potential social consequences of ICT. In: Research challenges in information science (RCIS), IEEE seventh international conference on, 29–31 May 2013. pp 1–12. doi: 10.1109/RCIS.2013.6577706
  17. Epley N, Waytz A, Cacioppo JT (2007) On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol Rev 114:864–886. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eunja H, Hawon L, Hyemin Y (2012) Young children’s perception of IrobiQ, the teacher assistive robot, with reference to speech register. In: Computing technology and information management (ICCM) 8th International conference on, 24–26 April 2012. pp 366–369Google Scholar
  19. Fior M, Nugent S, Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Kuzyk R (2010) Children’s relationships with robots: robot is child’s new friend. J Phys Agents 4:9–17Google Scholar
  20. Fluck A, Dowden T (2013) On the cusp of change: examining pre-service teachers’ beliefs about ICT and envisioning the digital classroom of the future. J Comput Assist Learn 29:43–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00464.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Foucault M (1975) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput Hum Behav 33:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Friedman B, Kahn PH (1992) Human agency and responsible computing: implications for computer system design. J Syst Softw 17:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gill SP (2008) Socio-ethics of interaction with intelligent interactive technologies. Ai Soc 22:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Han J (2012) Emerging technologies: robot assisted language learning. Lang Learn Technol 16:1–9Google Scholar
  26. Heersmink R, van den Hoven J, Timmermans J (2014) ETICA project: D.2.2 normative issues reportGoogle Scholar
  27. Hyun E, Yoon H, Son S (2010) Relationships between user experiences and children’s perceptions of the education robot. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Osaka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones A et al. (2015) Empathic robotic tutors for personalised learning: a multidisciplinary approach. In: International conference on social robotics, Paris, France, 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, pp 285–295Google Scholar
  29. Kahn PH, Freier NG, Friedman B, Severson RL, Feldman EN (2004) Social and moral relationships with robotic others? In: IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan, 2004Google Scholar
  30. Kahn PH, Ishiguro H, Friedman B, Kanda T, Freier NG, Severson RL, Miller J (2007) What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interact Stud 8:363–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahn PH, Gary HE, Shen S (2013) Children’s social relationships with current and near-future robots. Child Dev Perspect 7:32–37. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum-Comput Interact 19:61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human-robot interaction robotics. IEEE Trans 23:962–971. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2007.904904 Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. Int J Soc Robot 7:293–308. doi: 10.1007/s12369-014-0277-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Senft E, Belpaeme T (2016) Heart versus hard drive: children learn more from a human tutor than a social robot. Paper presented at the eleventh ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee E, Lee Y, Kye B, Ko B (2008) Elementary and middle school teachers’, students’ and parents’ perception of robot-aided education in Korea. In: Proceedings of the conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, 2008. pp 175–183Google Scholar
  37. Lee MK, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S, Rybski P, Antanitis J, Savetsila S (2012) Personalization in HRI: a longitudinal field experiment. In: 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Boston, MA, 2012Google Scholar
  38. Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5:291–308. doi: 10.1007/s12369-013-0178-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Toneva M, Scassellati B (2012) The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science societyGoogle Scholar
  40. Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Scassellati B (2014) Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, Bielefeld, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  41. Little L, Storer T, Briggs P, Duncan I (2008) E-voting in an ambient world: trust, privacy and social implications. Soc Sci Comput Rev 26:44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mancini C et al (2010) Contravision: exploring users’ reactions to futuristic technology. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Marino D, Tamburrini G (2006) Learning robots and human responsibility. Int Rev Inf Ethics 6:46–51Google Scholar
  44. Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183. doi: 10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Movellan JR, Tanaka F, Fortenberry B, Aisaka K (2005) The RUBI/QRIO project: origins, principles, and first steps. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on development and learning, 19–21 July 2005. pp 80–86. doi: 10.1109/DEVLRN.2005.1490948
  46. Nomura T, Uratani T, Kanda T, Matsumoto K, Kidokoro H, Suehiro Y, Yamada S (2015) Why do children abuse robots? Paper presented at the proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction extended abstracts, Portland, Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Nordkvelle YT, Olson J (2005) Visions for ICT, ethics and the practice of teachers. Educ Inf Technol 10:21–32. doi:
  48. Pino M, Boulay M, Jouen F, Rigaud AS (2015) Are we ready for robots that care for us? Attitudes and opinions of older adults towards socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00141 Google Scholar
  49. Porayska-Pomsta K, Mavrikis M, D’Mello S, Conati C, Baker R (2013) Knowledge elicitation methods for affect modelling in education. Int J Artif Intell Educ 22:107–140. doi: 10.3233/JAI-130032 Google Scholar
  50. Ros R, Coninx A, Demiris Y, Patsis G, Enescu V, Sahli H (2014) Behavioral accommodation towards a dance robot tutor. In: Paper presented at the HRI’14: 9th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. Late Breaking Report, Bielefeld, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  51. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2:439–450. doi: 10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy: implications for robotics. AI Soc 22:331–348. doi: 10.1007/s00146-007-0152-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Serholt S et al (2014) Teachers’ views on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. Paper presented at the IEEE ROMAN 2014. The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  54. Sharkey A (2016) Should we welcome robot teachers? Eth Inf Technol 1–15Google Scholar
  55. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2011) Children, the elderly, and interactive robots. Robot Autom Mag IEEE 18:32–38. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2010.940151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shenton AK (2004) Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf 22:63–75Google Scholar
  57. Sparrow R (2015) Robots in aged care: a dystopian future? AI Soc 1–10 doi: 10.1007/s00146-015-0625-4
  58. Stahl BC, McBride N, Wakunuma K, Flick C (2013) The empathic care robot: a prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1–12Google Scholar
  59. Takayama L (2012) Perspectives on agency interacting with and through personal robots. In: Zacarias M, de Oliveira J (eds) Human-computer interaction: the agency perspective, vol 396. Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 195–214. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25691-2_8
  60. Tanaka F, Cicourel A, Movellan JR (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:17954–17958. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0707769104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Turkle S (2006) A Nascent robotics culture: new complicities for companionship. AAAI Technical Report Series. Retrieved from
  62. Turkle S (2015) Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. van Oost E, Reed D (2011) Towards a sociological understanding of robots as companions. In: Lamers M, Verbeek F (eds) Human-robot personal relationships, vol 59. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–18. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19385-9_2
  64. Vaughn S, Shay Schumm J, Sinagub J (1996) Focus group interviews in education and psychology. SAGE Publications Inc, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu Y-H, Fassert C, Rigaud A-S (2012) Designing robots for the elderly: appearance issue and beyond. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 54:121–126. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2011.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhao S (2006) Humanoid social robots as a medium of communication. New Media Soc 8:401–419. doi: 10.1177/1461444806061951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sofia Serholt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolmet Barendregt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Asimina Vasalou
    • 3
  • Patrícia Alves-Oliveira
    • 4
    • 6
  • Aidan Jones
    • 5
  • Sofia Petisca
    • 4
  • Ana Paiva
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Applied ITUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.LinCS, Linneaus Centre of ExcellenceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.UCL Knowledge Lab, UCL Institute of EducationLondonUK
  4. 4.INESC-ID and Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  6. 6.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations