Approaching Social Robots Through Playfulness and Doing-It-Yourself: Children in Action
- 301 Downloads
This work reports on a pilot study devoted to investigate whether the direct experience of building a robot by children enables them to obtain a more effective and complex learning of what a robot is. The study consists of an experiment carried out with eighteen pupils of the same age, attending a secondary school in Udine (Italy). The experiment was aimed to allow children to build up a simple robot, and in this experience, the children were supported by two researchers and by one of their teachers. The results show that this concrete experience activated in the children affective, emotional, physical, and social dimensions and brought them to the development of a more sophisticate conceptualization of robots. The learning by doing approach was quite effective also in strengthening the children’s social behavior and improving their mechanical knowledge and manual abilities.
KeywordsSocial robots Children Learning by doing Educational construction Do-it-yourself DIY
- 1.Taipale S, Sarrica M, de Luca F, Fortunati L. How European citizens face up to robots. Paper presented at the strategic workshop the future concept and reality of social robotics: challenges, perception and applications. Role of social robotics in current and future society. Cost, Brussels, 10–13 June 2013.Google Scholar
- 2.Sugiyama S, Vincent J, editors. Social robots and emotion: transcending the boundary between humans and ICTs. No. 1 (1) in special issue of intervalla: platform for intellectual exchange; 2013. Accessed 5 Dec 2013. http://www.fc.edu/intervalla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=3.
- 5.Druin A, Hendler J. Robots for kids: exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers; 2000.Google Scholar
- 6.Botball. Botball Educational Robotics Program; 2009. Accessed 5 Dec 2013. http://www.botball.org.
- 7.Eisenberg M. Pervasive fabrication: making construction ubiquitous in education. In: PerCom Workshops. IEEE Computer Society; 2007. p. 193–198.Google Scholar
- 9.Oh K, Kim M. Social attributes of robotic products: observations of child–robot interactions in a school environment. Int J Design. 2010;4(1):45–55.Google Scholar
- 10.Eisenberg M, Buechley L, Elumeze N. Computation and construction kits: toward the next generation of Tangible building media for children. In: Kinshuk, Sampson DG, Isaías PT, editors. CELDA, proceedings of the IADIS international conference, Lisbon, Portugal, 15–17 Dec 2004. p. 423–426.Google Scholar
- 11.Stewart J, Williams R, Rohracher H. The wrong trousers? Beyond the design fallacy: social learning and the user. In: Rohracher H, editor. User involvement in innovation processes: strategies and limitations from a socio-technical perspective. Profil Verlag; 2005. p. 39–71.Google Scholar
- 12.Bartlett FC. Remembering: an experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1932.Google Scholar
- 13.Neisser U. Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Emory symposia in cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
- 15.Dewey J. Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi; 1938.Google Scholar
- 16.Holtzman B, Hughes C, Van Meter K. Do it yourself and the movement beyond capitalism. In: Graeber D, Shukaitis S, Biddle E, editors. Constituent imagination. Militant investigations, collective theorization. Oakland: AK Press; 2007. p. 44–61.Google Scholar
- 17.Levine F, Heimerl C. Handmade nation: the rise of DIY, art, craft, and design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 18.Sennett R. The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 20.Jeffries A. At Maker Faire New York, the DIY movement pushes into the mainstream. The Verge; 2013. Accessed 14 Feb 2014. http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/23/4760212/maker-faire-new-york-diy-movement-pushes-into-the-mainstream.
- 21.Buechley L, Elumeze N, Eisenberg M. Electronic/computational textiles and children’s crafts. In: Proceedings of the 2006 conference on interaction design and children. IDC ’06. New York: ACM; 2006. p. 49–56.Google Scholar
- 22.Hamner E, Lauwers T, Bernstein D, Nourbakhsh IR, DiSalvo CF. Robot diaries: broadening participation in the computer science pipeline through social technical exploration. In: AAAI spring symposium: using AI to motivate greater participation in computer science. AAAI; 2008. p. 38–43.Google Scholar
- 23.Hamner E, Lauwers T, Bernstein D, Stubbs K, Crowley K, Nourbakhsh I. Robot diaries interim project report: development of a technology program for middle school girls. Pittsburgh: Robotics Institute; 2008. CMU-RI-TR-08-25.Google Scholar
- 24.Hamner E, Lauwers T, Bernstein D. The debugging task: evaluating a robotics design workshop. In: AAAI spring symposium: educational robotics and beyond. AAAI; 2010. p. 20–25.Google Scholar
- 25.Cole M, Derry J. We have met technology and it is us. In: Sternberg RJ, Preiss DD, editors. Intelligence and technology: the impact of tools on the nature and development of human abilities. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 209–28.Google Scholar
- 26.Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.Google Scholar
- 30.Bailey KD. Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press; 1982.Google Scholar
- 31.Bales RF. Interaction process analysis. A method for the study of a small group. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1950.Google Scholar
- 32.Fahy PJ. Use of the Bales model for analysis of small group communications in the analysis of interaction in computer-based asynchronous conferences. In: Boumedine M, Ranka S, editors. Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on knowledge sharing and collaborative engineering. Calgary: ACTA Press; 2004. p. 44–49.Google Scholar
- 33.Fahy PJ. Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA). Eur J Open Distance eLearn. 2006;1:1–10. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htm.
- 35.Nourbakhsh IR. Robot futures. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2013.Google Scholar