International Journal of Social Robotics

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 295–307 | Cite as

How Could Companion Robots Be Useful in Rural Schools?

  • Elizabeth Broadbent
  • Danielle Alexis Feerst
  • Seung Ho Lee
  • Hayley Robinson
  • Jordi Albo-Canals
  • Ho Seok Ahn
  • Bruce A. MacDonald
Article

Abstract

Robots in schools are generally seen as useful for teaching students about engineering and robotics, and as teaching assistants for scientific or foreign language subjects. Robots may be particularly useful in rural schools, due to the challenges rural areas face with low student numbers, low funding, a lack of specialist teachers, and isolation. To date, no studies have specifically investigated how companion robots might be useful in rural schools. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate student and teacher views about how two companion robots could be useful in rural educational settings. 207 students and 22 teachers participated in 30-min sessions with two popular companion robots, Paro and iRobiQ. Questionnaires were given to all participants and observer ratings were made of student interactions with the robots. Overall, the robots were well-received. The majority of participants said they would like to have the robots at their schools. Girls gave significantly more positive responses about the robots than boys, although boys were more engaged with iRobiQ than girls. Children aged 5–12 and their teachers responded the most positively. Participants wanted the robots to be more interactive, and perceived that the most useful functions were helping children with autism, comforting children in sick bay, and repeating exercises for children who need help. This study suggests that in addition to having an assistant teacher role, companion robots may have a useful comforting role. The results inform designers about which applications to develop for robots in rural schools and which age groups to develop them for.

Keywords

Education robots Companion Age Gender Students Teachers 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a University of Auckland Cares Seed Funding grant. We acknowledge the support of Buller and Central Plateau REAPs.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

E.Broadbent, B.MacDonald, & H.S.Ahn received funding from Yujin Robot Co. Ltd. for research on healthcare robots.

References

  1. 1.
    Rus D (2006) Teaching robotics everywhere. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 13:15–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J et al (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:962–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S et al (2013) A review of the application of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Papert S (1993) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Resnicj M, Bruckman A, Martin F (1996) Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits. Interactions 3:40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2009) Toward socially assistive robotics for augmenting interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Spr Tra Adv Robot 54:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latitude. Robots @ School. http://latd.tv/Latitude-Robots-at-School-Findings.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2017
  8. 8.
    Han J, Jo M, Park S et al (2005) The educational use of home robots for children. In: IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 378–383Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malec J (2001) Some thoughts on robotics for education. AAAI Spring symposium on robotics and education, Stanford University. http://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Personal/Jacek_Malec/psfiles/aaai01rae.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2017
  10. 10.
    Sans-Cope O, Barco A, Albo Canals J et al. (2014) Robotics@ Montserrat: a case of Learning through robotics community in a primary and secondary school. In: Workshop of child–robot interaction: social bonding, learning and ethics, international conference on interaction design & children, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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: Conference on educational multimedia. Hypermedia and telecommunications, Vienna, Austria, pp 175–183Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel F (2015) Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. Int J Soc Robot 7:875–888.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleming TM, Clark T, Denny S, Bullen P, Crengle S, Peiris-John R, Robinson E, Rossen FV, Sheridan J, Lucassen M (2014) Stability and change in the mental health of New Zealand secondary school students 2007–2012: results from the national adolescent health surveys. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 48:472–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Werner-Seidler A, Perry Y, Calear AL, Newby JM, Christensen H (2017) School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 51:30–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howley A, Rhodes M, Beall J (2009) Challenges facing rural schools: implications for gifted students. J Educ Gift 32:515–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owens EW, Waxman HC (1995) Differences among urban, suburban, and rural schools on technology access and use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. J Educ Technol Syst 24:83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandygulova A, Isteleyev M (2017) Investigating the effect of age and gender with educational robots. https://icsrwonder2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/p9-sandygulova.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2017
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Causo A, Vo GT, Chen IM et al (2016) Design of robots used as education companion and tutor. In: Zeghloul S, Laribi MA, Gazeau JP (eds) Robotics and mechatronics. Springer, Cham, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Younbo J, Kwan ML (2004) Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. In: Proceedings of \(7{{\rm th}}\) international workshop on presence, Valencia, pp 80–87Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shibata T, Mitsui T, Wada K, Touda A, Kumasaka T, Tagami K, Tanie K (2001) Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children. In: Proceedings advanced intelligent mechatronics, IEEE/ASME international conference, vol 2, pp 1053–1058Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hyun E, Yoon H (2009) Characteristics of young children’ utilisation of a robot during play time: a case study. IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 675–680Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Han J, Jo M, Jones V et al (2008) Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. J Inf Process Syst 4:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hsiao H, Chang C, Lin C et al (2015) iRobiQ: the influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior. Interact Learn Environ 23:269–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N et al (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomised controlled trial. JAMDA 14:661–667Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Han J (2010) Robot-aided learning and r-learning services. In: Chen D (ed) Human–robot interaction. InTech, Croatia.  https://doi.org/10.5772/8143 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tanaka F, Kimura T (2010) Care-receiving robot as a tool of teachers in child education. Interact Stud 11:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Toh LPE, Causo A, Tzuo PW, Chen I, Yeo SH (2016) A review on the use of robots in education and young children. J Educ Technol Soc 19:148Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu EZ (2010) Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. Br J Educ Technol 41:E41–E47Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A et al (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological MedicineUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Occupational TherapyTufts UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  4. 4.La SalleRamon Lull UniversityBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations