Children Teach Handwriting to a Social Robot with Different Learning Competencies


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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19


  1. 1.

    Softbank Robotics:

  2. 2.

  3. 3.


  4. 4.



  1. 1.

    Allen V (1976) Children as teachers: theory and research on tutoring. Educational psychology. Academic Press, Cambridge.

  2. 2.

    Allen VL, Feldman RS (1974) Tutor attributions and attitude as a function of tutee performance. J Appl Soc Psychol 4(4):311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bandura A (1986) Social foundation of thought and action: a social-cognitive view. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google 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):e0178126

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berry K (1989) The VMI: developmental test of visual-motor integration. Pearson, Cleveland

    Google 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):33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bitchener J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. J Second Lang Writ 17(2):102–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bloom S (1975) Peer and cross-age tutoring in the schools: an individualized supplement to group instruction

  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 30:65–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Carroll M (1996) Peer tutoring: can medical studies teach biochemistry? Biochem Educ 24(1):13–15

    MathSciNet  Article  Google 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 167–172

  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 539–544

  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 215–225

  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 1490–1492

  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 41–49

  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):441–453

    Article  Google 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 180–196

  20. 20.

    Damon W (1984) Peer education: the untapped potential. J Appl Dev Psychol 5(4):331–343

    Article  Google 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.

  22. 22.

    Falchikov N (2001) Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. Psychology Press, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Feder K, Majnemer A, Synnes A (2000) Handwriting: current trends in occupational therapy practice. Can J Occup Ther 67(3):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Feder KP, Majnemer A (2007) Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev Med Child Neurol 49(4):312–317

    Article  Google 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 1338–1343

  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):49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Graham S, Weintraub N, Berninger V (2001) Which manuscript letters do primary grade children write legibly? J Educ Psychol 93(3):488

    Article  Google 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 255–256

  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):159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81–112

    Article  Google 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 83–90

  33. 33.

    Hoy MM, Egan MY, Feder KP (2011) A systematic review of interventions to improve handwriting. Can J Occup Ther 78(1):13–25

    Article  Google 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 199–200

  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 187–192

  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 239–246

  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 533–538

  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):439–454

    Article  Google 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):303

    Article  Google 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):61–84

    Article  Google 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):962–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Karlsdottir R, Stefansson T (2002) Problems in developing functional handwriting. Percept Motor Skills 94(2):623–662

    Article  Google 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.

  44. 44.

    Kozima H, Michalowski MP, Nakagawa C (2009) Keepon. Int J Soc Robot 1(1):3–18

    Article  Google 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 298–307

  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 367–374

  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):329–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Leite I, Martinho C, Paiva A (2013) Social robots for long-term interaction: a survey. Int J Soc Robot 5(2):291–308

    Article  Google 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):56–66

    Article  Google 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 423–430

  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):258–267

    Article  Google 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 339–344

  53. 53.

    McKeganey SPN (2000) The rise and rise of peer education approaches. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 7(3):293–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Medwell J, Wray D (2008) Handwriting—a forgotten language skill? Lang Educ 22(1):34–47

    Article  Google 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):13

    Google 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 390–395

  57. 57.

    O’Reilly C, Plamondon R (2009) Development of a sigma–lognormal representation for on-line signatures. Pattern Recognit 42(12):3324–3337

    MATH  Article  Google 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 IVAs

  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 Series

  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):240

    Article  Google 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):534–574

    Article  Google 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 1613–1622

  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 563–568

  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):93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Sarbin TR (1966) Role theory: concepts and research. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Sassoon R (1990) Handwriting: a new perspective. Stanley Thornes, Cheltenham

    Google 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 98–107

  68. 68.

    Simner ML (1979) Mirror-image reversals in children’s printing: preliminary findings

  69. 69.

    Simner ML (1980) Role of the mirror-image counterpart in producing reversals when children print

  70. 70.

    Simner ML (1981) The grammar of action and children’s printing. Dev Psychol 17(6):866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Simner ML (1982) Printing errors in kindergarten and the prediction of academic performance. J Learn Disabil 15(3):155–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Stewart S, Simon C (1985) Development of written language proficiency: methods for teaching text structure. Commun Skills Classr Success 341–361

  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 558–560

  74. 74.

    Tanaka F, Kimura T (2010) Care-receiving robot as a tool of teachers in child education. Interact Stud 11(2):263

    Article  Google 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):78–95

    Article  Google 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):321–345

    Article  Google 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):673–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Woods S (2006) Exploring the design space of robots: children’s perspectives. Interact Comput 18(6):1390–1418

    Article  Google 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)

  80. 80.

    Zimmerman BJ (2000) Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):82–91

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


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.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shruti Chandra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 108 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chandra, S., Dillenbourg, P. & Paiva, A. Children Teach Handwriting to a Social Robot with Different Learning Competencies. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 721–748 (2020).

Download citation


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