Designing Robotic Teaching Assistants: Interaction Design Students’ and Children’s Views
This paper presents an exploratory study on children’s contributions to the design of a robotic teaching assistant for use in the classroom. The study focuses on two main questions: 1) How do children’s designs differ from interaction designers’? 2) How are children’s designs influenced by their knowledge of robotics (or lack thereof)? Using a creative drawing approach we collected robot drawings and design discussions from 53 participants divided into 11 groups: 5 groups of interaction designers (24 participants), 3 groups of children with robotics knowledge (14 participants), and 3 groups of children without formal robotics knowledge (15 participants). These data revealed that (1) interaction designers envisioned a small or child-sized non-gendered animal- or cartoon-like robot, with clear facial features to express emotions and social cues while children envisioned a bigger human-machine robot (2) children without formal robotics knowledge, envisioned a robot in the form of a rather formal adult-sized human teacher with some robotic features while children with robotics knowledge envisioned a more machine-like child-sized robot. This study thus highlights the importance of including children in the design of robots for which they are the intended users. Furthermore, since children’s designs may be influenced by their knowledge of robotics it is important to be aware of children’s backgrounds and take those into account when including children in the design process.
KeywordsSocial Robot Assistant Robot Robot Design Human Teacher Domestic Robot
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Dautenhahn, K.: Human-robot interaction. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. The Interaction Design Foundation (2014)Google Scholar
- 2.Lee, H.R., Sung, J., Sabanovic, S., Han, J.: Cultural design of domestic robots: a study of user expectations in korea and the united states. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN, pp. 803–808, September 2012Google Scholar
- 3.Mubin, O., Stevens, C.J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., Dong, J.J.: A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning 1 (2013)Google Scholar
- 4.Riek, L.D., Howard, D.: A code of ethics for the human-robot interaction profession. In: Proceedings of We Robot (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Sciutti, A., Rea, F., Sandini, G.: When you are young, (robot’s) looks matter. developmental changes in the desired properties of a robot friend. In: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2014 RO-MAN, pp. 567–573, August 2014Google Scholar
- 6.Shin, N., Kim, S.: Learning about, from, and with robots: students’ perspectives. In: The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2007, pp. 1040–1045, August 2007Google Scholar
- 8.Woods, S., Davis, M., Dautenhahn, K., Schulz, J.: Can robots be used as a vehicle for the projection of socially sensitive issues? exploring childrens attitudes towards robots through stories. In: 2005 IEEE International Workshop on Robots and Human Interactive Communication (2005)Google Scholar
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.