Table Of ContentLearning Robotics, with Robotics, by Robotics
Human-Machine Interaction Set
coordinated by
Jérôme Dinet
Volume 3
Learning Robotics, with
Robotics, by Robotics
Educational Robotics
Ilaria Gaudiello
Elisabetta Zibetti
First published 2016 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2016
The rights of Ilaria Gaudiello and Elisabetta Zibetti to be identified as the authors of this work have been
asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947850
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-099-7
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Chapter 1. Learning Robotics: Users’
Representation of Robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1. Introduction: the ontological and
pedagogical status of robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. What do we mean by robot representation? . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1. The place of robots in our common-sense ontology . . . . . 3
1.2.2. Categories: essentialist versus graded . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.3. The NOC hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.4. Shifting between the different pedagogical
roles of a robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.5. How do we investigate robot representations
and the impact of learning robotics on these representations? . . . 8
1.3. Study 1: Robot representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.1. Aims and rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.2. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.3. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4.1. Which representation of robots for
familiar and unfamiliar students? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
vi Learning Robotics, with Robotics, by Robotics
1.4.2. The living and non-living items most
frequently associated with robots (pre-questionnaire) . . . . . . . . 18
1.4.3. Gradation in robot categorization: essentialist
versus non-essentialist stance (pre-questionnaire) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.4.4. The educational roles most frequently
envisaged for robots (pre-questionnaire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.5. Gradation in the educational roles
envisaged for a robot (pre-questionnaire) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4.6. The impact of building and programming
a robot on students’ judgment about the ontological
status of robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.7. The impact of robot making on graded
versus all-or-nothing categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.4.8. Does familiarity with robots
influence their categorization? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.4.9. Dichotomous versus multiple categorization
of robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4.10. The impact of robot making on the
educational roles envisaged for robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.4.11. The impact of robot making on shift
between the educational roles envisaged for robots . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.4.12. Does previous experience influence
the educational role attributed to robots? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.6. Conclusions, limits and perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Chapter 2. Learning with Robotics: Functional
and Social Acceptance of Robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.1. Functional and social acceptance of robots . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2. Trust as a fundamental indicator of acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.1. Commonly used measures of
human–robot trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.2. Conformation as an innovative
measure of human–robot trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.3. Factors influencing robot trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.3. Study 2: robot acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.1. Aims and rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.3.2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Contents vii
2.4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.4.1. Do participants conform their answer
more to iCub’s answer in the functional
task than in the social task? (H1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.4.2. Do participants who conform to
iCub in the social task also conform in
the functional task? (H2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.4.3. Does the imagined HRI scenario
influence trust in iCub? (H3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.4.4. Is there a correlation between negative
attitudes to the robot’s social influence and the
trust in the robot’s social savvy? (H4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.4.5. Is there a correlation between the
human DFC and the trust in the robot’s
functional and social savvy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chapter 3. Learning by Robotics: The Impact
of Educational Robots on Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.1. Combining RBI and inquiry-based science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2. IBSE and the four dimensions of learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.1. The cognitive dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.2. The affective dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.2.3. The social dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.2.4. The meta-cognitive dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.2.5. Self-regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2.6. RBI and inquiry-based learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.3. Study 3: impacts of ER on learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.3.1. Aims and rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3.3.2. The RObeeZ project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.3.3. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
3.3.4. Experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.4. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.4.1. Are the subject-specific knowledge
and competencies of pupils enhanced at
the end of RObeeZ project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
3.4.2. Are pupils’ transversal competencies
enhanced at the end of the project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
viii Learning Robotics, with Robotics, by Robotics
3.4.3. Does the combination of RBI and IBSE
have an impact on the four dimensions of learning? . . . . . . . . . 130
3.5. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Conclusion and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Appendix 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Appendix 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Appendix 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Foreword
There has been a growing interest in the use of educational robots
in schools. In the 1960s, after Seymour Paper introduced the LOGO
programming language and the floor turtle, robotics became an issue
in the educational environment. Robots are slowly being incorporated
into our society and currently, the number of service and/or assistance
robots has outnumbered industrial robots. So robots are slowly
beginning a process of seamless integration into our everyday lives
both at home and at school where their applicability is at the core of
an increasing number of studies [ALI 13, MUB 13]. However, this
does not include “robots for kids”: the impact of educational robotics
is even more crucial for children and teenagers, where robots can be
used for their cognitive development and intellectual growth. As a
consequence, greater attention must be paid to how educational robots
can be better integrated into the lives and into the education of young
people.
Traditionally, the majority of studies investigating “educational
robotics” has attracted the interest of teachers and researchers as a
valuable tool to develop cognitive and social skills for students from
pre-school to high school and to support learning in different domains
such as science, mathematics, technology, informatics and other
school subjects or interdisciplinary learning activities. Even though a
review of the scientific literature reveals that educational robotics is a
growing field with the potential to significantly impact the nature of
x Learning Robotics, with Robotics, by Robotics
science and technology education at all levels, from kindergarten to
university, this book is very original for three reasons:
1) In this book, educational robotics is viewed from a
psychological point of view, i.e. from a human-centred approach. For
some researchers, the main goal of our project is to understand the
current and future needs of the robotics industry, the current robotics
curriculum, and to analyze the gap that might occur between the two.
In my opinion, the main goal is to understand the current and future
needs of the users, the users being learners and teachers;
2) If there are many attitudes and opinions about educational
robotics produced without scientific arguments, this book provides
serious scientific answers to three questions:
– is educational robotics just a servant of other subjects? No. A
wider range of possible robotic applications has the potential to
engage young people with a wider range of interests [AMI 12].
Pursuing this challenge we need to develop new and innovative ways
to increase the attractiveness and learning benefits of robotics projects.
And different strategies exist for engaging a broad range of young
learners in robotics [RUS 08]: projects focusing on themes, not just
challenges; projects combining art and engineering; projects
encouraging storytelling; organizing exhibitions, rather than
competitions;
– is educational robotics just a fad? Yes and no. Even if robots
can have positive educational benefits, they are no panacea [AMI 12].
In the scientific literature, there have been some studies reporting
non-significant impact on learners observed in some cases [BEN 11].
It’s the reason why the impact of the Educational Robotics in
promoting student learning and in developing sensori-motor and/or
cognitive skills needs to be validated through research evidence and
scientific proofs. But …
– is educational robotics an excellent tool for teaching? It
depends … Empirical and experimental studies are presented.
3) If educational robotics is a broad term that refers to a vast
collection of different activities, instructional programs, physical
Foreword xi
platforms, educational resources and pedagogical philosophy, this
books proposes an innovative distinction between the following
approaches associated with educational robotics:
– for “learning robotics”, students use a robot as a platform to
learn robotics, or, more broadly, engineering (i.e. mechanics,
electronics, and programming) in a hands-on and collaborative way;
– for “learning with robotics”, robots are used as human-like
(e.g. robots such as Nao, Qrio, Rubi, Roobovie, iCub) or animal-like
(e.g. robots such as Aibo, Pleo) assistants for teachers (e.g. displaying
multimodal content) or companions for pupils and students (e.g.
connecting images and words, memorizing new words of a foreign
language).
Finally and as Alimisis [ALI 13] said, “the role of educational
robotics should be seen as a tool to foster essential life skills
(cognitive and personal development, team working) through which
people can develop their potential to use their imagination, to express
themselves and make original and valued choices in their lives.
Robotics benefits are relevant for all children”.
Jérôme DINET
University of Lorraine
July 2016
