Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Functions and Behaviours of Social Robots for In-Class Learning Activities: Teachers’ Perspective

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

Abstract

With advances in artificial intelligence, research is increasingly exploring the potential functions that social robots can play in education. As teachers are a critical stakeholder in the use and application of educational technologies, we conducted a study to understand teachers’ perspectives on how a social robot could support a variety of learning activities in the classroom. Through interviews, robot puppeteering, and group brainstorming sessions with five elementary and middle school teachers from a local school in Canada, we take a socio-technical perspective to conceptualize possible robot functions and behaviours, and the effects they may have on the current way learning activities are designed, planned, and executed. Overall, the teachers responded positively to the idea of introducing a social robot as a technological tool for learning activities, envisioning differences in usage for teacher-robot and student-robot interactions. Further, Engeström’s Activity System Model—a framework for analyzing human needs, tasks, and outcomes—illustrated a number of tensions associated with learning activities in the classroom. We discuss the fine-grained robot functions and behaviours conceived by teachers, and how they address the current tensions—providing suggestions for improving the design of social robots for learning activities.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the pedagogical literature, this system of classifying learners is controversial. Here, we report teachers’ perspectives as is without a critical analysis of their validity.

References

  1. Ahmad MI, Mubin O, Orlando J (2016) Understanding behaviours and roles for social and adaptive robots in education: Teacher’s perspective. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on human agent interaction, ACM, pp 297–304

  2. Alemi M, Meghdari A, Ghazisaedy M (2014) Employing humanoid robots for teaching English language in Iranian junior high-schools. Int J Hum Robot 11(03):1450022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bainbridge WA, Hart JW, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2011) The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. Belpaeme T, Kennedy J, Ramachandran A, Scassellati B, Tanaka F (2018) Social robots for education: a review. Sci Robot 3(21):eaat5954

  6. Belpaeme T, Vogt P, Van den Berghe R et al (2018) Guidelines for designing social robots as second language tutors. Int J Soc Robot 10(3):325–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Broadbent E, Feerst DA, Lee SH, Robinson H, Albo-Canals J, Ahn HS, MacDonald BA (2018) How could companion robots be useful in rural schools? Int J Soc Robot 10(3):295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bryant SL, Forte A, Bruckman A (2005) Becoming wikipedian: transformation of participation in a collaborative online encyclopedia. In: Proceedings of international ACM SIGGROUP conference on support group work, ACM, pp 1–10

  10. Cha E, Chen S, Mataric MJ (2017) Designing telepresence robots for k-12 education. In: 26th International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 683–688

  11. Chang CW, Lee JH, Chao PY, Wang CY, Chen GD (2010) Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. J Educ Technol Soc 13(2):13–24

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chase CC, Chin DB, Oppezzo MA, Schwartz DL (2009) Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18(4):334–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Diep L, Cabibihan JJ, Wolbring G (2015) Social robots: views of special education teachers. In: Proceedings of 3rd workshop ICTs improve patients rehabilitation research technology, ACM, REHAB ’15, pp 160–163

  14. Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit Oy, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  15. Engeström Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. J Educ Work 14(1):133–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Engeström Y, Sannino A (2010) Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educ Res Rev 5(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fernandes E, Fermé E, Oliveira R (2010) The robot race: understanding proportionality as a function with robots in mathematics class. In: Proceedings of the sixth congress of European research in mathematics education, pp 1211–1220

  18. Fridin M (2014) Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput Educ 70:53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gaudiello I, Zibetti E (2016) Learning robotics, with robotics, by robotics: educational robotics. Wiley

  20. Gordon G, Breazeal C (2015) Bayesian active learning-based robot tutor for children’s word-reading skills. In: Proceedings of the 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI Press, pp 1343–1349

  21. Hashimoto T, Verner I, Kobayashi H (2013) Human-like robot as teacher’s representative in a science lesson: an elementary school experiment. In: 1st International conference on robot intelligence technology and applications, Springer, pp 775–786

  22. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 7(2):174–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

  24. Huang CM, Mutlu B (2012) Robot behavior toolkit: generating effective social behaviors for robots. In: Proceedings of 7th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, pp 25–32

  25. Ej H, Sy K, 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: 17th International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), IEEE, pp 187–192

  26. Janssen JB, van der Wal CC, Neerincx MA, Looije R (2011) Motivating children to learn arithmetic with an adaptive robot game. In: International conference on social robotic, Springer, pp 153–162

  27. 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(1–2):61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

  29. Kaptelinin V, Nardi B (2012) Activity theory in HCI: fundamentals and reflections. Synth Lect Hum Cent Inform 5(1):1–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaptelinin V, Nardi BA (2006) Acting with technology: activity theory and interaction design. MIT press

  31. Kim MG, Oosterling I, Lourens T, Staal W, Buitelaar J, Glennon J, Smeekens I, Barakova E (2014) Designing robot-assisted pivotal response training in game activity for children with autism. In: International conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), IEEE, pp 1101–1106

  32. Kory-Westlund J, Gordon G, Spaulding S, Lee JJ, Plummer L, Martinez M, Das M, Breazeal C (2016) Lessons from teachers on performing HRI studies with young children in schools. In: 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, pp 383–390

  33. 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 

  34. Leontiev A (1978) Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  35. Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Toneva M, Scassellati B (2012) The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. Proc Annu Meet Cogn Sci Soc 34(34):1882–1887

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leyzberg D, Spaulding S, Scassellati B (2014) Personalizing robot tutors to individuals’ learning differences. In: Proceedings of ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, ACM, pp 423–430

  37. Lubold N, Walker E, Pon-Barry H (2016) Effects of voice-adaptation and social dialogue on perceptions of a robotic learning companion. In: 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, IEEE Press, p 255–262

  38. Mikropoulos TA, Bellou I (2013) Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes Sci Technol Educ 6(1):5–14

    Google Scholar 

  39. Movellan J, Eckhardt M, Virnes M, Rodriguez A (2009) Sociable robot improves toddler vocabulary skills. In: Proceedings of 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on human and robot interaction, ACM, pp 307–308

  40. Mubin O, Stevens C, Shadid S, Al Mahmud A, Dong J (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Murphy E, Rodriguez-Manzanares MA (2008) Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Aust J Educ Technol 24(4):442–457

    Google Scholar 

  42. Newton DP, Newton LD (2019) Humanoid robots as teachers and a proposed code of practice. Front Educ 4:125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nordkvelle YT, Olson J (2005) Visions for ict, ethics and the practice of teachers. Educ Inf Technol 10(1–2):21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rhorbach B (1969) Kreative nach regeln: methode 635, eine neue technik zum losen von problemen. Absatzwirtschaft 12:73–75

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenberg-Kima RB, Koren Y, Gordon G (2020) Robot-supported collaborative learning (RSCL): social robots as teaching assistants for higher education small group facilitation. Front Robot AI 6:148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Šabanović S (2010) Robots in society, society in robots. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):439–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 1613–1622

  48. Serholt S, Barendregt W, Leite I, Hastie H, Jones A, Paiva A, Vasalou A, Castellano G (2014) Teachers’ views on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. In: 23rd international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, IEEE, pp 955–960

  49. Serholt S, Barendregt W, Vasalou A, Alves-Oliveira P, Jones A, Petisca S, Paiva A (2017) The case of classroom robots: teachers deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI Soc 32(4):613–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press

  51. 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 

  52. Tanaka F, Cicourel A, Movellan JR (2007) Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(46):17954–17958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. van Ewijk G, Smakman M, Konijn EA (2020) Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: an exploratory case study. In: Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference, ACM, pp 273–280

  54. Winograd T, Flores F (1987) On understanding computers and cognition: a new foundation for design—a response to the reviews. Artif Intell 31(2):250–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Yardi S, Bruckman A (2011) Social and technical challenges in parenting teens’ social media use. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, pp 3237–3246

  56. You ZJ, Shen CY, Chang CW, Liu BJ, Chen GD (2006) A robot as a teaching assistant in an English class. In: 6th International conference on advanced learning technologies, IEEE Computer Society, pp 87–91

  57. Zaga C, Lohse M, Truong KP, Evers V (2015) The effect of a robot’s social character on children’s task engagement: Peer versus tutor. In: Tapus A, André E, Martin JC, Ferland F, Ammi M (eds) Social robotics, ICSR 2015. Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Cham, vol 9388, pp 704–713

Download references

Funding

This work was made possible by funding from

NSERC Discovery Grant RGPIN-2015-0454.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Jessy Ceha & Edith Law

  2. Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia

    Dana Kulić

  3. Centre Inria Bordeaux - Sud-Ouest, 200 Avenue de la Vieille Tour, 33405, Talence, France

    Pierre-Yves Oudeyer & Didier Roy

Authors
  1. Jessy Ceha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edith Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dana Kulić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Didier Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessy Ceha.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study obtained ethics clearance from the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee (ORE #40392).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants recruited for 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

Ceha, J., Law, E., Kulić, D. et al. Identifying Functions and Behaviours of Social Robots for In-Class Learning Activities: Teachers’ Perspective. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 747–761 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00820-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00820-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation