Does a Robot Tutee Increase Children’s Engagement in a Learning-by-Teaching Situation?

  • Markus LindbergEmail author
  • Kristian Månsson
  • Birger Johansson
  • Agneta Gulz
  • Christian Balkenius
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)


This paper presents initial attempts to combine a humanoid robot with the teachable agent approach. Several design choices are discussed, including the decision to use a robot instead of a virtual agent and which behaviours to implement in the robot. A pilot study explored how the interaction with a robot seemed to influence children’s engagement as well as their attribution of mental states to a robot and to a virtual agent. Eight children participated and the interaction was measured via an observational protocol and a conversational interview. A main outcome was large individual differences between the children’s interaction with the robot compared to the virtual agent.


Learning-by-teaching Virtual agent Robot 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Seneca, L.A.: Moral letters to Lucilius I, 7. 8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., Schwartz, D.: Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. J. of Science Education and Technology 18, 334–352 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., Sjödén, B.: Matching and mismatching between pedagogical design principles and actual practices of play. J. of Computer Assisted Learning 27, 90–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haake, M., Axelsson, A., Clausen-Bruun, M., Gulz, A.: Scaffolding mentalizing via a play-&-learn game for preschoolers. Computers & Education 90, 13–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Werfel, J.: Embodied teachable agents: learning by teaching robots. In Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pareto, L.: Robot as tutee. In: Merdan, M., Lepuschitz, W., Koppensteiner, G., Balogh, R. (eds.) Robotics in education. AISC, vol. 457, pp. 271–277. Springer, Cham (2017). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-42975-5_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lemaignan, S., Jacq, A., Hood, D., Garcia, F., Paiva, A., Dillenbourg, P.: Learning by teaching a robot: The case of handwriting. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 23(2), 56–66 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husain, L., Gulz, A., Haake, M.: Supporting Early Math – Rationales and Requirements. J. of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 34(4), 409–429 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D.: Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. In: Metrics for HRI Workshop, Technical Report, vol. 471, pp. 37–44, March 2008Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindberg, M.: Design and Influence of a Robot as Teachable Agent in an Educational Game. Master thesis. Lund University (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Lindberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristian Månsson
    • 1
  • Birger Johansson
    • 1
  • Agneta Gulz
    • 1
  • Christian Balkenius
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund University Cognitive ScienceLundSweden

Personalised recommendations