skip to main content
10.1145/3369457.3369517acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Humanoid Robots as Teaching Assistants in an Arab School

Published:10 January 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

The proliferation of educational robots has led to an investigation of suitable roles that humanoids robots can take in the classroom. In the recent past, the focus has been on humanoids being used in student focused roles or as peer learners. Coupled with the seemingly absence of any case studies of educational robots in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or the Arab world, we present a study where we employed the Nao robot as a teaching assistant in a local primary school in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The Nao robot was used to revise a topic in Mathematics and its efficacy in comparison to a human teaching assistant was measured through pre and post test scores, facial expressions and indirect verbal responses. Our results showed that while there no significant differences in test scores, the children were much more engaged when interacting with the Nao robot. We conclude with a positive outlook towards the implementation of humanoid robots in UAE classrooms.

References

  1. Kasumi Abe, Chie Hieida, Muhammad Attamimi, Takayuki Nagai, Takayuki Shimotomai, Takashi Omori, and Natsuki Oka. 2014. Toward playmate robots that can play with children considering personality. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Human-agent interaction. ACM, 165--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Muneeb Imtiaz Ahmad, Omar Mubin, and Joanne Orlando. 2016. Understanding behaviours and roles for social and adaptive robots in education: teacher's perspective. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on human agent interaction. ACM, 297--304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Muneeb Imtiaz Ahmad, Omar Mubin, and Joanne Orlando. 2017. Adaptive social robot for sustaining social engagement during long-term children--robot interaction. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction 33, 12 (2017), 943--962.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Fady S Alnajjar, Abdulrahman Majed Renawi, Massimiliano Cappuccio, and Omar Mubin. 2019. A Low-Cost Autonomous Attention Assessment System for Robot Intervention with Autistic Children. In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 787--792.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Paul Baxter, Emily Ashurst, James Kennedy, Emmanuel Senft, Séverin Lemaignan, and Tony Belpaeme. 2015. The wider supportive role of social robots in the classroom for teachers. In 1st Int. Workshop on Educational Robotics at the Int. Conf. Social Robotics. Paris, France, Vol. 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics 3, 21 (2018), eaat5954.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernando Garcia-Sanjuan, Javier Jaen, Vicente Nacher, and Alejandro Catala. 2015. Design and evaluation of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten instruction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, 3.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. David Gouaillier, Vincent Hugel, Pierre Blazevic, Chris Kilner, Jérôme Monceaux, Pascal Lafourcade, Brice Marnier, Julien Serre, and Bruno Maisonnier. 2009. Mechatronic design of NAO humanoid. In Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA'09. IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 769--774.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mohanad Halaweh. 2018. artificial intelligence government (Gov. 3.0): the UAE leading model. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 62 (2018), 269--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Henderson, Neil Selwyn, and Rachel Aston. 2017. What works and why? Student perceptions of 'useful' digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher Education 42, 8 (2017), 1567--1579.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. James Kennedy, Séverin Lemaignan, and Tony Belpaeme. 2016. The cautious attitude of teachers towards social robots in schools. In Robots 4 Learning Workshop at IEEE RO-MAN 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacqueline Kory Westlund, Goren Gordon, Samuel Spaulding, Jin Joo Lee, Luke Plummer, Marayna Martinez, Madhurima Das, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2016. Lessons from teachers on performing HRI studies with young children in schools. In The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction. IEEE Press, 383--390.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Nikolaos Mavridis, Marina-Selini Katsaiti, Silvia Naef, Abdullah Falasi, Abdulrahman Nuaimi, Hamdan Araifi, and Ahmed Kitbi. 2012. Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI & society 27, 4 (2012), 517--534.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Omar Mubin, Catherine J Stevens, Suleman Shahid, Abdullah Al Mahmud, and Jian-Jie Dong. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning 1, 209--0015 (2013), 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Natalia Reich-Stiebert and Friederike Eyssel. 2016. Robots in the classroom: what teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In Intl Conf on Social Robotics. Springer, 671--680.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Maha Salem, Micheline Ziadee, and Majd Sakr. 2014. Marhaba, how may I help you? Effects of politeness and culture on robot acceptance and anthropomorphization. In 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 74--81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sofia Serholt, Wolmet Barendregt, Asimina Vasalou, Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Aidan Jones, Sofia Petisca, and Ana Paiva. 2017. The case of classroom robots: Teachers' deliberations on the ethical tensions. Ai & Society 32, 4 (2017), 613--631.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Amanda JC Sharkey. 2016. Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology 18, 4 (2016), 283--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Softbank Robotics 2017. Softbank Robotics. https://www.ald.softbankrobotics.com/en/robots/nao.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Elizabeth Würtz. 2005. Intercultural communication on web sites: A cross-cultural analysis of web sites from high-contextcultures and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 1 (2005), 274--299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Humanoid Robots as Teaching Assistants in an Arab School

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      OzCHI '19: Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction
      December 2019
      631 pages
      ISBN:9781450376969
      DOI:10.1145/3369457

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 January 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader