Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring University Students’ Preferences for Educational Robot Design by Means of a User-Centered Design Approach

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User-centered design approaches have become more prominent in various domains and have slowly been adopted in robotics research. Previous research on user-centered design highlights the beneficial effects of actively involving end users into the design process. Results further imply that end users have different notions about ideal robot design, placing special demands on social robots depending on the context and personal factors. In the present exploratory research, we applied a user-centered design method and investigated university students’ (N = 116) preferences regarding the design of educational robots. With regard to robot design, university students prefer a medium-sized machinelike robot with human characteristics and minimal facial features. Our results further suggest that a robot should primarily interact via speech and be able to display basic emotions, especially the positive ones. Additionally, from a university students’ perspective, an ideal educational robot should display behavior that is marked by conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness. We discuss implications of our results for educational robot design, and highlight the gains of user involvement in design decisions for human–robot interaction research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comp Educ 58:978–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong JJ (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel FA (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Serholt S, Barendregt W (2014) Students’ attitudes towards ethical dilemmas in the possible future of social robots in education. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE Press, pp 955–960

  5. Kennedy J, Lemaignan S, Belpaeme T (2016) The cautious attitude of teachers towards social robots in schools. In: Proceedings of the 21st international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, workshop on robots for learning. IEEE Press

  6. Obaid M, Barendregt W, Alves-Oliveira P, Paiva A, Fjeld M (2015) Designing robotic teaching assistants: interaction design students’ and children’s views. Lect Notes Comp Sci 9388:502–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Woods S, Dautenhahn K, Schulz J (2004) The design space of robots: investigating children’s views. In: Proceedings of the 13th international workshop on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE Press, pp 47–52

  8. Oros M, Nikolic M, Borovac B, Jerkovic I (2014) Children’s preference of appearance and parents’ attitudes towards assistive robots. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE Press, pp 360–365

  9. Selwyn N (2007) The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective. J Comput Assit Lear 23:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Mutual shaping of society and technology as a framework for social robot design. Int J Soc Robot 2:439–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. International Federation of Robotics Statistical Department: Service Robot Statistics. http://www.ifr.org/service-robots/statistics/

  12. Miller DP, Nourbakhsh IR, Siegwart R (2008) Robots for education. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1283–1301

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Sanders EBN, Dandavate U (1999) Design for experiencing: new tools. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design and emotion. Delft University of Technology, pp 87–92

  14. Holmlid S (2009) Participative, co-operative, emancipatory: from participatory design to service design. In: Proceedings of the 1st Nordic conference on service design and service innovation. Linköping University Electronic Press, pp 105–118

  15. Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Doroftei D et al (2017) User-centered design. In: De Cubber G et al (eds) Search and rescue robotics. From theory to practice. IntechOpen, London, pp 19–36

    Google Scholar 

  17. Randall T, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2007) User design of customized products. Mark Sci 26:268–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Franke N, Keinz P, Steger CJ (2009) Testing the value of customization: When do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? J Mark 73:103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Norton MI, Mochon D, Ariely D (2012) The IKEA effect. When labor leads to love. J Consum Psychol 22:453–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Franke N, Schreier M, Kaiser U (2010) The “I Designed It Myself” effect in mass customization. Manag Sci 56:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Krishnaswamy K (2017) Participatory design: repositioning, transferring, and personal care robots. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 351–352

  22. Šabanović S, Chang WL, Bennett CC, Piatt JA, Hakken D (2015) A robot of my own: participatory design of socially assistive robots for independently living older adults diagnosed with depression. Lect Notes Comp Sci 9193:104–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee HR, Šabanović S, Chang WL, Nagata S, Piatt JA, Bennett CC, Hakken D (2017) Steps toward participatory design of social robots: mutual learning with older adults with depression. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 244–253

  24. Azenkot S, Feng C, Cakmak M (2016) Enabling building service robots to guide blind people a participatory design approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 3–10

  25. Gockley R, Bruce A, Forlizzi J, Michalowski M, Mundell A, Rosenthal S, Sellner B, Simmons R, Snipes K, Schultz AC, Wang J (2005) Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE Press, pp 2199–2204

  26. Šabanović S, Michalowski M, Simmons R (2006) Robots in the wild: observing human–robot social interaction outside the lab. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on advanced motion control. IEEE Press, pp 576–581

  27. Kwak SS, Kim JS, Choi JJ (2017) The effects of organism-versus object-based robot design approaches on the consumer acceptance of domestic robots. Int J Soc Robot 9:359–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Breazeal C, Scassellati B (1999) How to build robots that make friends and influence people. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE/RSJ Press, pp 858–863

  29. DiSalvo C, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM Press, pp 321–326

  30. Lee MK, Forlizzi J, Rybski P, Crabbe FL, Chung WC, Finkle J, Glaser E, Kiesler S (2009) The Snackbot: documenting the design of a robot for long-term human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 244–253

  31. Doering N, Poeschl S, Gross HM, Bley A, Martin C, Boehme HJ (2015) User-centered design and evaluation of a mobile shopping robot. Int J Soc Robot 7:203–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Benítez Sandoval E, Penaloza CI (2012) Children’s knowledge and expectations about robots: a survey for future user-centered design of social robots. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 107–108

  33. Obaid M, Yantaç AE, Barendregt W, Kırlangıç G, Göksun T (2016) Robo2Box: a toolkit to elicit children’s design requirements for classroom robots. Lect Notes Comp Sci 9979:600–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cerpa N, Verner J (1996) Prototyping: some new results. Inform Softw Technol 38:743–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sless D (2008) Measuring information design. Inform Des J 16:250–258

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vink P, Imada AS, Zink KJ (2008) Defining stakeholder involvement in participatory design processes. Appl Ergon 39:519–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Paulovich B (2015) Design to improve the health education experience: using participatory design methods in hospitals with clinicians and patients. Vis Lang 49:108–123

    Google Scholar 

  38. TNS Opinion & Social. 2015. Special Eurobarometer 427. Autonomous Systems. European Commission

  39. McCrae RR, Costa P (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ekman P, Friesen WV (1975) Unmasking the face. A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Spectrum Prentice-Hall, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  41. Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel FA (2016) (Ir)relevance of Gender? On the influence of gender stereotypes on learning with a robot. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 166–176

  42. Castro-González A, Admoni H, Scassellati B (2016) Effects of form and motion on judgments of social robots’ animacy, likability, trustworthiness and unpleasantness. Int J Hum–Comput Stud 90:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reich-Stiebert N, Eyssel FA (2016) Robots in the classroom: what teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. Lect Notes Comp Sci 9979:671–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ray C, Mondada F, Siegwart R (2008) What do people expect from robots? In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE Press, pp 3816–3821

  45. Goetz J, Kiesler S (2002) Cooperation with a robotic assistant. In: Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, pp 578–579

  46. Syrdal DS, Dautenhahn K, Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL (2007) Looking good? Appearance preferences and robot personality inferences at zero acquaintance. In: Proceedings of the symposium on multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics. AAAI Press, pp 86–92

  47. Meerbeek B, Hoonhout J, Bingley P, Terken JMB (2008) The influence of robot personality on perceived and preferred level of user control. Interact Stud 9:204–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Komarraju M, Karau SJ, Schmeck RR, Avdic A (2011) The big five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Pers Indiv Differ 51:472–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Verešová M (2015) Learning strategy, personality traits and academic achievement of university students. Soc Behav Sci 147:3473–3478

    Google Scholar 

  50. Chamorro-Premuzic T, Furnham A (2003) Personality predicts academic performance: evidence from two longitudinal university samples. J Res Pers 37:319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Arnold L, Lee KJ, Yip JC (2016) Co-designing with children: an approach to social robot design. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press

  52. Kanda T, Shimada M, Koizumi S (2012) Children learning with a social robot. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 351–358

  53. Pekrun R, Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Barchfeld P, Perry RP (2011) Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp Educ Psychol 36:36–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fredrickson BL (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am Psychol 56:218–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Breazeal CL (2002) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Calo R (2010) Robots and privacy. In: Lin P, Bekey G, Abney K (eds) Robot ethics: the ethical and social implications of robotics. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 187–202

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ingram B, Jones D, Lewis A, Richards M, Rich C, Schachterle L (2010) A code of ethics for robotics engineers. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM Press, pp 103–104

  58. Pekrun R (1992) The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Appl Psychol 42:359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gumora G, Arsenio WF (2002) Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school children. J School Psychol 40:395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. O’Regan JK (2012) How to build a robot that is conscious and feels. Mind Mach 22:117–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jahna Otterbacher and Eduardo Benítez Sandoval for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We further thank Janik Sachse for his effort in preparing the graphical material.

Funding

This research has been conducted in the framework of the European Project CODEFROR (FP7 PIRSES-2013-612555) and it was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Applied Social Psychology and Gender Research, CITEC, Bielefeld University, Inspiration 1, 33619, Bielefeld, Germany

    Natalia Reich-Stiebert & Friederike Eyssel

  2. Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

    Charlotte Hohnemann

Authors
  1. Natalia Reich-Stiebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friederike Eyssel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charlotte Hohnemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Reich-Stiebert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any interests that might be interpreted as influencing the research. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standard

Our research is approved by the ethics committee of Bielefeld University (approval ID: 2016 – 173). We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reich-Stiebert, N., Eyssel, F. & Hohnemann, C. Exploring University Students’ Preferences for Educational Robot Design by Means of a User-Centered Design Approach. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 227–237 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00554-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00554-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation