Skip to main content

Approaching Social Robots Through Playfulness and Doing-It-Yourself: Children in Action

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The conference “RIE (Robotics and Innovations in Education)” held in Modena (Italy) on November 18–19, 2013, tried to map and discuss all the initiatives carried out in Italy about robotics and educational innovations.

  2. 2.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/29/google-raspberry-pi-s and http://www.coderdojo.com.

  3. 3.

    Among these projects it is worth mentioning: (a) the CLOHE project devoted to enabling primary classroom teachers and their students to build moving toys (called Automata) in order to widen their experience and learning competencies (http://www.clohe-movingtoys.eu/www/Home_EN/Home.htm); (b) the PIE Institute project consisting of a network of educators exploiting practical educational activities to teach science, art, and technology (http://www.exploratorium.edu/pie/ideas.html); (c) the High-Low tech group that developed the LilyPad platform (http://hlt.media.mit.edu/); (d) the Code Club project whose aim was to teach children, aged 10–11 years old, to assemble and program their own operating system and hardware (http://www.codeclub.org.uk/).

References

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 3.

    Liu EZF. Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. Br J Educ Technol. 2010;41:E44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ceci SJ, Williams WM, Barnett SM. Women’s underrepresentation in science: sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychol Bull. 2009;135(2):218–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Druin A, Hendler J. Robots for kids: exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman Publishers; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Botball. Botball Educational Robotics Program; 2009. Accessed 5 Dec 2013. http://www.botball.org.

  7. 7.

    Eisenberg M. Pervasive fabrication: making construction ubiquitous in education. In: PerCom Workshops. IEEE Computer Society; 2007. p. 193–198.

  8. 8.

    Woods S. Exploring the design space of robots: children’s perspectives. Interact Comput. 2006;18(6):1390–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 12.

    Bartlett FC. Remembering: an experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Neisser U. Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Emory symposia in cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Smith ER, Semin GR. Socially situated cognition: cognition in its social context. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2004;36:53–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dewey J. Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi; 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

  17. 17.

    Levine F, Heimerl C. Handmade nation: the rise of DIY, art, craft, and design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sennett R. The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Anzai Y, Simon HA. The theory of learning by doing. Psychol Rev. 1979;86(2):124–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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. 26.

    Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Davidson E. A technological frames perspective on information technology and organizational change. J Appl Behav Sci. 2006;42(1):23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans Inf Syst. 1994;12(2):174–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Orlikowski WJ. Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ Sci. 2000;11(4):404–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bailey KD. Methods of social research. New York: The Free Press; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 34.

    Corder GW, Foreman DI. Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: a step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Nourbakhsh IR. Robot futures. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Waytz A, Gray K, Epley N, Wegner DM. Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trend Cogn Sci. 2010;14(8):383–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Gray HM, Gray K, Wegner DM. Dimensions of mind perception. Science. 2007;315(5812):619.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leopoldina Fortunati.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fortunati, L., Esposito, A., Ferrin, G. et al. Approaching Social Robots Through Playfulness and Doing-It-Yourself: Children in Action. Cogn Comput 6, 789–801 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9303-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social robots
  • Children
  • Learning by doing
  • Educational construction
  • Do-it-yourself
  • DIY