Advertisement

Interactions with an Empathic Robot Tutor in Education: Students’ Perceptions Three Years Later

  • Sofia SerholtEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)

Abstract

In 2015, and three years prior to the writing of this chapter, a three-month field study of a humanoid empathic robot tutor was conducted at a primary school in Sweden with children in grades 4–6. At that time, video analysis of the children’s interactions with the robot revealed that the children responded socially to the robot, but also that breakdowns often occurred during the interactions. Studies of robots in education are typically considered complete when the trial ends, which means that lasting or long-term implications of the child–robot relationship are seldom explored. The aim of this chapter is to explore children’s retrospective perceptions of the child–robot relationship in an educational setting. In a follow-up study at the school in question, the children responded to a survey and participated in discussion groups in which they were asked about their relationships with the robot, their recollections of breakdowns and how this has affected their normative perspectives of robots, as well as their views on robots in relation to the notion of inclusive education. A key finding in this study is that, when compared to their peers without robot experience, the students had become more critical towards the idea of emotion recognition in robots.

Keywords

Child–Robot Interaction  Emotion recognition Robots Education Special needs Students’ perceptions 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank all students for participating in this study, as well as their teachers for making the study possible. I also thank my colleagues in the START project for helping me develop the questionnaire and discussion questions, and for assisting in transporting Pepper to the school. Thanks also to Dennis Küster for providing valuable feedback on statistical methods. This work was partially supported by the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation and was funded in part by the project START (Student Tutor and Robot Tutee). The author is solely responsible for the content of this publication. It does not represent the opinion of the Wallenberg Foundation, and the Wallenberg Foundation is not responsible for any use that might be made of data appearing therein.

References

  1. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21).  https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., Kory Westlund, J. M., Dickens, L., & Jeong, S. (2016). Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(2), 481–491.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Leeuw, E. D. (2011). Improving data quality when surveying children and adolescents: Cognitive and social development and its role in questionnaire construction and pretesting. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://www.aka.fi/globalassets/awanhat/documents/tiedostot/lapset/presentations-of-the-annual-seminar-10-12-may-2011/surveying-children-and-adolescents_de-leeuw.pdf.
  5. Haug, P. (2016). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(3), 206–217.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Liles, K. R., & Beer, J. M. (2015). Rural minority students’ perceptions of Ms. An, The Robot Teaching Assistant, as a social teaching tool. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 372–376.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lin, Y.-C., Liu, T.-C., Chang, M., & Yeh, S.-P. (2009). Exploring children’s perceptions of the robots. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, G.-D. Chen, & M. Hirose (Eds.), Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development (Vol. 5670, pp. 512–517). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03364-3_63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Obaid, M., Aylett, R., Barendregt, W., Basedow, C., Corrigan, L. J., Hall, L., et al. (2018). Endowing a robotic tutor with empathic qualities: Design and pilot evaluation. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 15(6).  https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219843618500251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Okita, S. Y., Ng-Thow-Hing, V., & Sarvadevabhatla, R. K. (2011). Multimodal approach to affective human-robot interaction design with children. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 1(1), 5:1–5:29.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2030365.2030370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ros, R., Nalin, M., Wood, R., Baxter, P., Looije, R., Demiris, Y., et al. (2011). Child-robot interaction in the wild: Advice to the aspiring experimenter. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, Alicante, Spain (pp. 335–342).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2070481.2070545.
  12. Šabanović, S. (2010). Robots in society, society in robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 2(4), 439–450.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0066-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Serholt, S. (2017). Child–robot interaction in education (Doctoral thesis). University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2077/52564.
  14. Serholt, S. (2018). Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 250–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Serholt, S., & Barendregt, W. (2016). Robots tutoring children: Longitudinal evaluation of social engagement in child-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’16), Gothenburg, Sweden.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971536.
  16. Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Küster, D., Jones, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., & Paiva, A. (2016). Students’ normative perspectives on classroom robots. In J. Seibt, M. Nørskov & S. Schack Andersen (Eds.), What social robots can and should do: Proceedings of robophilosophy 2016/TRANSOR 2016 (pp. 240–251). IOS Press.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-708-5-240.
  17. Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S., et al. (2017). The case of classroom robots: Teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI & SOCIETY, 32(4), 613–631.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0667-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Severinson-Eklundh, K., Green, A., & Hüttenrauch, H. (2003). Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00377-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharkey, A. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Westlund, J. M. K., Park, H. W., Williams, R., & Breazeal, C. (2018). Measuring young children’s long-term relationships with social robots. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations