Advertisement

Children Teach Handwriting to a Social Robot with Different Learning Competencies

  • Shruti ChandraEmail author
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
  • Ana Paiva
Article

Abstract

As robots are entering into educational fields to enhance children’s learning, it becomes relevant to explore different methods of learning in the area of child–robot interaction. In this article, we present an autonomous educational system incorporating a social robot to enhance children’s handwriting skills. The system provides a one-to-one learning scenario based on the learning-by-teaching approach where a tutor-child assess the handwriting skills of a learner-robot. The robot’s writing was generated by an algorithm incorporating human-inspired movements and could reproduce a set of writing errors. We tested the system by conducting two multi-session studies. In the first study, we assigned the robot two contrasting competencies: ‘learning’ and ‘non-learning’. We measured the differences in children’s learning gains and changes in their perceptions of the learner-robot. The second study followed a similar interaction scenario and research questions, but this time the robot performed three learning competencies: ‘continuous-learning’; ‘non-learning’ and ‘personalised-learning’. The findings of these studies show that the children learnt with the robot that exhibits learning competency and children’s learning and perceptions of the robot changed as interactions unfold, confirming the need for longitudinal studies. This research supports that the contrasting learning competencies of social robots can impact children’s learning differently in peer-learning scenarios.

Keywords

Child–robot interaction Peer-tutoring Learning-by-teaching Longitudinal studies Handwriting Social robot 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with reference UID/CEC/50021/2013, through project AMIGOS (PTDC/EEISII/7174/2014), and by the Swiss National Science Foundation through the National Centre of Competence in Research Robotics. The first author acknowledges grants with ref. SFRH/BD/51-935/2012 funded by the FCT. The authors show their gratitude to the schools “Colégio da Fonte” in Porto Salvo, Portugal and “Escola 31 de Janeiro” in Parede, Portugal and its school principal, teachers and students for their participation in this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12369_2019_589_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 108 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Allen V (1976) Children as teachers: theory and research on tutoring. Educational psychology. Academic Press, Cambridge. https://books.google.ch/books?id=uj8mAQAAIAAJ
  2. 2.
    Allen VL, Feldman RS (1974) Tutor attributions and attitude as a function of tutee performance. J Appl Soc Psychol 4(4):311–320Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandura A (1986) Social foundation of thought and action: a social-cognitive view. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baxter P, Ashurst E, Read R, Kennedy J, Belpaeme T (2017) Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: personalisation promotes child learning. PLoS One 12(5):e0178126Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beran TN, Ramirez-Serrano A, Kuzyk R, Fior M, Nugent S (2011) Understanding how children understand robots: perceived animism in child–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 69(7–8):539–550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry K (1989) The VMI: developmental test of visual-motor integration. Pearson, ClevelandGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bierman KL, Furman W (1981) Effects of role and assignment rationale on attitudes formed during peer tutoring. J Educ Psychol 73(1):33Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bitchener J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. J Second Lang Writ 17(2):102–118Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloom S (1975) Peer and cross-age tutoring in the schools: an individualized supplement to group instructionGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bowman-Perrott LJ, Greenwood CR, Tapia Y (2007) The efficacy of CWPT used in secondary alternative school classrooms with small teacher/pupil ratios and students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Educ Treat Child 30:65–87Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carroll M (1996) Peer tutoring: can medical studies teach biochemistry? Biochem Educ 24(1):13–15MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chandra S, Alves-Oliveira P, Lemaignan S, Sequeira P, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2015) Can a child feel responsible for another in the presence of a robot in a collaborative learning activity? In: 2015 24th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chandra S, Alves-Oliveira P, Lemaignan S, Sequeira P, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2016) Children’s peer assessment and self-disclosure in the presence of an educational robot. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 539–544Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chandra S, Dillenbourg P, Paiva A (2017) Classification of children’s handwriting errors for the design of an educational co-writer robotic peer. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children. ACM, pp 215–225Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandra S, Paradeda R, Yin H, Dillenbourg P, Prada R, Paiva A (2017) Affect of robot’s competencies on children’s perception. In: Proceedings of the 16th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. International foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 1490–1492Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chandra S, Paradeda R, Yin H, Dillenbourg P, Prada R, Paiva A (2018) Do children perceive whether a robotic peer is learning or not? In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction. ACM, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christensen CA (2005) The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educ Psychol 25(5):441–453MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen EG (1984) Talking and working together: status, interaction, and learning. In: The social context of instruction: group organization and group processes, pp 180–196Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Damon W (1984) Peer education: the untapped potential. J Appl Dev Psychol 5(4):331–343Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deshmukh A, Janarthanam S, Hastie H, Lim MY, Aylett R, Castellano G (2016) How expressiveness of a robotic tutor is perceived by children in a learning environment. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 423–424.  https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451787
  22. 22.
    Falchikov N (2001) Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. Psychology Press, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feder K, Majnemer A, Synnes A (2000) Handwriting: current trends in occupational therapy practice. Can J Occup Ther 67(3):197–204Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feder KP, Majnemer A (2007) Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev Med Child Neurol 49(4):312–317Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gockley R, Bruce A, Forlizzi J, Michalowski M, Mundell A, Rosenthal S, Sellner B, Simmons R, Snipes K, Schultz AC et al (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2005). IEEE, pp 1338–1343Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gouaillier D, Hugel V, Blazevic P, Kilner C, Monceaux J, Lafourcade P, Marnier B, Serre J, Maisonnier B (2008) The Nao humanoid: a combination of performance and affordability. CoRR arXiv:0807.3223
  27. 27.
    Graham S, Harris KR, Mason L, Fink-Chorzempa B, Moran S, Saddler B (2008) How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. Read Writ 21(1–2):49–69Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Graham S, Weintraub N, Berninger V (2001) Which manuscript letters do primary grade children write legibly? J Educ Psychol 93(3):488Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Han J, Kim D (2009) r-Learning services for elementary school students with a teaching assistant robot. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction. ACM, pp 255–256Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Han JH, Jo MH, Jones V, Jo JH (2008) Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. J Inf Process Syst 4(4):159–168Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81–112Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hood D, Lemaignan S, Dillenbourg P (2015) When children teach a robot to write: an autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoy MM, Egan MY, Feder KP (2011) A systematic review of interventions to improve handwriting. Can J Occup Ther 78(1):13–25Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hyun E, Yoon H, Son S (2010) Relationships between user experiences and children’s perceptions of the education robot. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 199–200Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hyun EJ, Kim SY, Jang S, Park S (2008) Comparative study of effects of language instruction program using intelligence robot and multimedia on linguistic ability of young children. In: RO-MAN 2008 the 17th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 187–192Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacq A, Lemaignan S, Garcia F, Dillenbourg P, Paiva A (2016) Building successful long child–robot interactions in a learning context. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 239–246Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johal W, Jacq A, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2016) Child–robot spatial arrangement in a learning by teaching activity. In: 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 533–538Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jones A, Bull S, Castellano G (2018) I know that now, I’m going to learn this next promoting self-regulated learning with a robotic tutor. Int J Soc Robot 10(4):439–454Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kahn PH Jr, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Freier NG, Severson RL, Gill BT, Ruckert JH, Shen S (2012) Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now: children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Dev Psychol 48(2):303Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    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(1):61–84Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kanda T, Sato R, Saiwaki N, Ishiguro H (2007) A two-month field trial in an elementary school for long-term human–robot interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 23(5):962–971Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Karlsdottir R, Stefansson T (2002) Problems in developing functional handwriting. Percept Motor Skills 94(2):623–662Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). ACM, NY, USA, pp 67–74.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696457
  44. 44.
    Kozima H, Michalowski MP, Nakagawa C (2009) Keepon. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):3–18Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Long-term interactions with empathic robots: evaluating perceived support in children. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 298–307Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Modelling empathic behaviour in a robotic game companion for children: an ethnographic study in real-world settings. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 367–374Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A, Martinho C, Paiva A (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6(3):329–341Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lemaignan S, Jacq A, Hood D, Garcia F, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2016) Learning by teaching a robot: the case of handwriting. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):56–66Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Scassellati B (2014) Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 423–430Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Malloy-Miller T, Polatajko H, Anstett B (1995) Handwriting error patterns of children with mild motor difficulties. Can J Occup Ther 62(5):258–267Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Matsuzoe S, Tanaka F (2012) How smartly should robots behave?: Comparative investigation on the learning ability of a care-receiving robot. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 339–344Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    McKeganey SPN (2000) The rise and rise of peer education approaches. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 7(3):293–310Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Medwell J, Wray D (2008) Handwriting—a forgotten language skill? Lang Educ 22(1):34–47Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1(209—-0015):13Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Okita SY, Schwartz DL, Shibata T, Tokuda H (2005) Exploring young children’s attributions through entertainment robots. In: ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 390–395Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    O’Reilly C, Plamondon R (2009) Development of a sigma–lognormal representation for on-line signatures. Pattern Recognit 42(12):3324–3337zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ribeiro T, Pereira A, Di Tullio E, Alves-Oliveira P, Paiva A (2014) From thalamus to skene: high-level behaviour planning and managing for mixed-reality characters. In: Proceedings of the IVA 2014 workshop on architectures and standards for IVAsGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ribeiro T, Pereira A, Di Tullio E, Paiva A (2016) The sera ecosystem: socially expressive robotics architecture for autonomous human–robot interaction. In: AAAI Spring Symposium SeriesGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rohrbeck CA, Ginsburg-Block MD, Fantuzzo JW, Miller TR (2003) Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: a meta-analytic review. J Educ Psychol 95(2):240Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Roscoe RD, Chi MT (2007) Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Rev Educ Res 77(4):534–574Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1613–1622Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Salter T, Dautenhahn K, Bockhorst R (2004) Robots moving out of the laboratory-detecting interaction levels and human contact in noisy school environments. In: ROMAN 2004. 13th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 563–568Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Salter T, Werry I, Michaud F (2008) Going into the wild in child–robot interaction studies: issues in social robotic development. Intell Serv Robot 1(2):93–108Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sarbin TR (1966) Role theory: concepts and research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sassoon R (1990) Handwriting: a new perspective. Stanley Thornes, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shimada M, Kanda T, Koizumi S (2012) How can a social robot facilitate children’s collaboration? In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 98–107Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Simner ML (1979) Mirror-image reversals in children’s printing: preliminary findingsGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Simner ML (1980) Role of the mirror-image counterpart in producing reversals when children printGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Simner ML (1981) The grammar of action and children’s printing. Dev Psychol 17(6):866Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Simner ML (1982) Printing errors in kindergarten and the prediction of academic performance. J Learn Disabil 15(3):155–159Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stewart S, Simon C (1985) Development of written language proficiency: methods for teaching text structure. Commun Skills Classr Success 341–361Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tanaka F, Kimura T (2009) The use of robots in early education: a scenario based on ethical consideration. In: RO-MAN 2009. The 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 558–560Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tanaka F, Kimura T (2010) Care-receiving robot as a tool of teachers in child education. Interact Stud 11(2):263Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tanaka F, Matsuzoe S (2012) Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):78–95Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Topping KJ (1996) The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: a typology and review of the literature. High Educ 32(3):321–345Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Vander Hart N, Fitzpatrick P, Cortesa C (2010) In-depth analysis of handwriting curriculum and instruction in four kindergarten classrooms. Read Writ 23(6):673–699Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Woods S (2006) Exploring the design space of robots: children’s perspectives. Interact Comput 18(6):1390–1418Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yin H, Alves-Olivera P, Melo FS, Billard A, Paiva A (2016) Synthesizing robotic handwriting motion by learning from human demonstrations. In Proceedings of international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zimmerman BJ (2000) Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):82–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CHILI Lab, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, EPFL-CHILILausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.INESC-ID, GAIPS Lab, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversity of Lisbon, IST TagusparkPorto SalvoPortugal

Personalised recommendations