Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing the Computational Competences Acquired by K-12 Students When Lectured by Robotic and Human Teachers

Can a Robot Teach Computational Principles to Pre-university Students?

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robots have been proposed as teaching assistants for children, but few studies have measured their effectiveness. This paper describes an experiment using the Baxter robot for teaching basic computational principles. We compare acquired abilities in students with a control group lectured by a human teacher in a traditional way. These abilities are focused on the application of computational principles to a different domain. Experiment description, data analysis and discussion of the results are also presented in this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.cstr.ed.ac.uk/projects/festival/.

  2. http://www.ros.org/.

  3. https://scratch.mit.edu/.

  4. http://education.minecraft.net/.

References

  1. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Mahmud AA, Dong J (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sierra JFG, Lera FJR, Llamas CF, Olivera VM (2015) Using robots and animals as motivational tools in ICT courses. VAEP-RITA (ISSN: 1932-8540), 10(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2015.2391391

  3. Takcs A, Eigner G, Kovcs L, Rudas IJ, Haidegger T (2016) Teacher’s kit: development, usability and communities of modular robotic kits for classsroom education. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):30–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shin N, Kim S (2007) Learning about, from, and with robots: students perspectives. In: The 16th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007, pp 1040–1045

  5. Okita SY, Schwartz DL (2013) Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: the importance of recursive feedback. J Learn Sci 22(3):375–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Castellano G, Leite I, Paiva A, McOwan PW (2012) Affective teaching: learning more effectively from empathic robots. Awareness magazine: self-awareness in autonomic systems

  7. Tanaka F, Matsuzoe S (2012) Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):78–95

  8. Saerbeck M, Schut T, Bartneck C, Janse MD (2010) Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor CHI 2010, April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

  9. Hood D, Lemaignan S, Dillenbourg P (2015) When children teach a robot to write: an autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 83–90

  10. Hall L, Hume C, Tazzyman S, Deshmukh A, Janarthanam S, Hastie H, Aylett R, Castellano G, Papadopoulos F, Jones A, Corrigan LJ, Paiva A, Oliveira PA, Ribeiro T, Barendregt W, Serholt S, Kappas A (2016) Map reading with an empathic robot tutor. In: 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), Christchurch (New Zealand)

  11. J Kennedy, P Baxter, E Senft, T Belpaeme (2016) Heart vs hard drive: children learn more from a human tutor than a social robot. In: 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), Christchurch, pp 451–452

  12. Sofia 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, pp. 64-1, 64-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971536

  13. Entwistle NJ (2016) Styles of learning and teaching: an integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sharkey AJ (2016) Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics Inf Technol 18(4):283–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. You ZJ, Shen CY, Chang CW, Liu BJ, Chen GD (2006) A robot as a teaching assistant in an English class. In: Sixth IEEE international conference on in advanced learning technologies, pp 87–91

  16. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hashimoto T, Kato N, Kobayashi H (2011) Development of educational system with the android robot SAYA and evaluation. Int J Adv Rob Syst 8(3):28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Verner IM, Polishuk A, Krayner N (2016) Science class with the RoboThespian. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23(2):74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Riek Laurel D (2012) Wizard of Oz studies in HRI: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):119–136. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bordens KS, Abbott BB (2002) Research design and methods: a process approach. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2012) Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Organ 81(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagan D, Markham S (2000) Does it help to have some programming experience before beginning a computing degree program? SIGCSE Bull 32(3):25–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/353519.343063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkins T (2002) On the difficulty of learning to program. Paper presented at the 3rd annual conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences

  24. Verd E, Regueras LM, Verd MJ, Leal JP, de Castro JP, Queirs R (2012) A distributed system for learning programming on-line. Comput Educ 58(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Raju PS, Lonial SC, Glynn Mangold W (1995) Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: an exploratory investigation. J Consum Psychol 4(2):153–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0402_04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Radecki CM, Jaccard J (1995) Perceptions of knowledge, actual knowledge, and information search behaviour. J Exp Soc Psychol 31(2):107–138. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Resnick M, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A, Rusk N, Eastmond E, Brennan K, Millner A, Rosenbaum E, Silver J, Silverman B et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fessakis G, Gouli E, Mavroudi E (2013) Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: a case study. Comput Educ 63:87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Law N, Pelgrum WJ, Plomp T (eds) (2008) Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study, vol 23. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  30. Condie R, Munro B (2007) The impact of ICT in schools: landscape review. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA)

  31. Almerich Cerver G, Surez Rodrguez JM, Jornet Meli JM, Orellana Alonso MN (2011) Las competencias y el uso de las Tecnologas de Informacin y Comunicacin (TIC) por el profesorado: estructura dimensional. Revista electrnica de investigacin educativa 13(1):28–42

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2015) The robot who tried too hard: Social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, Portland, Oregon, pp 67–74

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grupo de Robótica, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071, León, Spain

    Camino Fernández-Llamas, Miguel Ángel Conde, Francisco J. Rodríguez-Sedano & Vicente Matellán-Olivera

  2. Computer Science and Communications Research Unit (CSC), University of Luxembourg, Campus Belval 6, rue avenue de la Fonte, 4364, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

    Francisco J. Rodríguez-Lera

Authors
  1. Camino Fernández-Llamas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel Ángel Conde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco J. Rodríguez-Sedano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francisco J. Rodríguez-Lera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vicente Matellán-Olivera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Camino Fernández-Llamas.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernández-Llamas, C., Conde, M.Á., Rodríguez-Sedano, F.J. et al. Analysing the Computational Competences Acquired by K-12 Students When Lectured by Robotic and Human Teachers. Int J of Soc Robotics 12, 1009–1019 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0440-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0440-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation