NAO as a Copresenter in a Robotics Workshop - Participant’s Feedback on the Engagement Level Achieved with a Robot in the Classroom

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 784)


Robotics, combined with computer science and human-centered studies, can have a substantial impact in areas such as education and innovation. Robots have proven to be a good tool to gain and maintain users’ involvement in different activities. In education, robots can be used as teaching assistants to improve participation, enhance concentration or just to get students’ attention. In this research, we involved an NAO, a humanoid robot, in a workshop presentation with the aim of measuring the impact of this technique on the level of engagement showed by the participants. The robot was programmed to simulate speech and gesticulate while it talked to apply the Wizard of Oz technique.


Human-robot collaboration Humanoid robots Education robots Human-robot interaction 



This work was partially supported by Centro de Investigaciones en Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación (CITIC), Escuela de Ciencias de la Computación e Informática (ECCI) both at Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR). Grand No. 834-B7-267. We would like to thank Programa de Posgrado en Computación e Informatica and Sistema de Estudios de Posgrado at UCR for their support. Additionally, thanks to the User Interaction Group (USING) for providing ideas to refine and complete the research.


  1. 1.
    Geun, C., Park, J.: From Mechanical Metamorphosis to Empathic Interaction: A Historical Overview of Robotic Creatures. Seoul National University, South Korea (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wood, L., Dautenhahn, K., Rainer, A., Robins, B., Lehmann, H.: Robot-mediated interviews - how effective is a humanoid robot as a tool for interviewing young children? PLoS ONE 8, e59448 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., Ahrenberg, L.: Wizard of Oz Studies—Why And How. Natural Language Processing Laboratory, Sweden (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dautenhahn, K.: Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction. School of Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baxter, P., Ashurst, E., Read, R., Kennedy, J., Belpaeme, T.: Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: personalisation promotes child learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0178126 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Mäkelä, K., Salonen, E., Turunen, M., Hakulinen, J., Raisamo, R.: Conducting a Wizard of Oz Experiment on a Ubiquitous Computing System Doorman. University of Tampere, Finland (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Koizumi, S., Ishiguro, H., Hagita, N.: Group Attention Control for Communication Robots with Wizard of OZ Approach, Japan (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiss, A., Bartneck, C.: Meta analysis of the usage of the godspeed questionnaire series. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Kobe, Japan, pp. 381–388 (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Costa RicaSan JoseCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations