Attitudes of Slovenian School Teachers Towards Smart Educational Humanoid Robots in the Classroom
Abstract
Robots are becoming an increasingly important part of our everyday lives and, consequently, of the education landscape. They can take many forms in education, from simple robots that students assemble and program to more complex (humanoid) robots that can, for example, travel distances when working remotely. The attitude of Slovenian teachers towards the introduction of smart educational humanoid robots into everyday school life was explored. A questionnaire was designed, and the current state of teachers’ attitudes was analysed based on the responses of participating teachers. The results show that negative attitudes towards the use of robots in the classroom prevail and that teachers do not feel qualified to integrate smart educational humanoid robots in education. Statistically significant differences between male and female teachers also emerge in some of the statements. However, teachers expressed positive attitudes towards concrete examples of robot use.
Downloads
References
Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods (pp. 11–26). ASPETE.
Alves-Oliveira, P., Sequeira, P., & Paiva, A. (2016). The role that an educational robot plays. In 25th IEEE International symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN) (pp. 817-822). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745213
Angel-Fernandez, J. M., & Vincze, M. (2018). Towards a definition of educational robotics. In P. Zech, & J. Piater (Eds.), Proceedings of the Austrian Robotics Workshop 2018 (pp. 37–42). Innsbruck university press. https://doi.org/10.15203/3187-22-1
Aoun, J. E. (2017). Robot-proof: Higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11456.001.0001
Belpaeme, T., & Tanaka, F. (2021). Social robots as educators. In OECD Digital Education Outlook 2021: Pushing the Frontiers with Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain and Robots (pp. 143–157). OECD Publishing.
Chevalier, M., Riedo, F., & Mondada, F. (2016). Pedagogical Uses of Thymio II: How Do Teachers Perceive Educational Robots in Formal Education?. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 23(2), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2535080
Conti, D., Di Nuovo, S., Buono, S., & Di Nuovo, A. (2017). Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: A study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. International Journal of Social Robotics, 9(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0359-6
Devillers, L. (2021). O robotih in ljudeh [About robots and people]. Mladinska knjiga.
Gasparetto, A., & Scalera, L. (2019). A Brief History of Industrial Robotics in the 20th Century. Advances in Historical Studies, 8(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2019.81002
Hockstein, N.G., Gourin, C.G., Faust, R.A., & Terris D. J. (2007). A history of robots: from science fiction to surgical robotics. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 1, 113–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-007-0021-2
Hrastinski, S., Olofsson, A. D., Arkenback, C., Ekström, S., Ericsson, E., Fransson, G., Jaldemark, J., Ryberg, T., Öberg, L. M., Fuentes, A., Gustafsson, U., Humble, N., Mozelius, P., Sundgren, M., & Utterberg, M. (2019). Critical imaginaries and reflections on artificial intelligence and robots in postdigital K-12 education. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00046-x
International Organization for Standardization. (2021). Robotics — Vocabulary (ISO Standard No. 8373:2021). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:8373:ed-3:v1:en
Istenic, A., Bratko, I., & Rosanda, V. (2021). Are pre‐service teachers disinclined to utilise embodied humanoid social robots in the classroom?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(6), 2340–2358. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13144
Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., & Belpaeme, T. (2015). The robot who tried too hard: Social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ‘15) (pp. 67–74). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696457
Konijn, E. A., Smakman, M., & Berghe, R. (2020). Use of robots in education. In The international encyclopedia of media psychology (pp. 1–8). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0318
Kory-Westlund, J. M., & Breazeal, C. (2019). A long-term study of young children’s rapport, social emulation, and language learning with a peer-like robot playmate in preschool. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00081
Kory-Westlund, J., Gordon, G., Spaulding, S., Lee, J. J., Plummer, L., Martinez, M., Das, M., & Breazeal, C. (2016). Lessons From Teachers on Performing HRI Studies with Young Children in Schools. 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 383–390). IEEE Press. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451776
Lebeničnik, M., Pitt, I., & Istenič Starčič, A. (2015). Use of Online Learning Resources in the Development of Learning Environments at the Intersection of Formal and Informal Learning: The Student as Autonomous Designer. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.144
Macmurray, J. (2012). Learning to be human. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 661–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2012.745958
Mubin, O., & Ahmad, M. I. (2016, November 6). Robots likely to be used in classrooms as learning tools, not teachers. The Conversation.com. https://theconversation.com/robots-likely-to-be-used-in-classrooms-as-learning-tools-not-teachers-66681
Mubin, O., Alhashmi, M., Baroud, R., & Alnajjar, F. S. (2019). Humanoid robots as teaching assistants in an Arab school. Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (pp. 462–466). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3369457.3369517
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.2316/journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
Negrini, L. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics in compulsory school. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1136
Rao, L. N., & Ab Jalil, H. (2021). A Survey on Acceptance and Readiness to Use Robot Teaching Technology Among Primary School Science Teachers. Asian Social Science, 17(11), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v17n11p115
Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2015). Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7, 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9
Reich-Stiebert, N., & Eyssel, F. (2016). Robots in the classroom: What teachers think about teaching and learning with education robots. In A. Agah, JJ. Cabibihan, A. Howard, M. Salichs, & H. He (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (pp. 671–680). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_66
Reuters. (2022, January 14). Avatar robot goes to school for ill German boy. https://www.reuters.com/technology/avatar-robot-goes-school-ill-german-boy-2022-01-14/
Saari, U. A., Tossavainen, A., Kaipainen, K., & Mäkinen, S. J. (2022). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of social robots among early adopters and mass market representatives. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104033
Serholt, S., & Barendregt, W. (2014). Students’ Attitudes towards the Possible Future of Social Robots in Education. Workshop proceedings of RO-MAN. Retrieved October 11, 2023, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262932496_Students’_Attitudes_towards_the_Possible_Future_of_Social_Robots_in_Education
Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S., & Paiva, A. (2017). The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI & Soc, 32, 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0667-2
Serholt, S., Wolmet, B., Vasalou, A., Alves-Oliveira, P., Jones, A., Petisca, S., & Paiva, A. (2017). The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on the ethical tensions. AI & Soc, 32, 613–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0667-2
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers?: AI and the future of education. John Wiley & Sons.
Tuna, A., & Tuna, G. (2019). The Use of Humanoid Robots with Multilingual Interaction Skills in Teaching a Foreign Language: Opportunities, Research Challenges and Future Research Directions. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 9(3), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.679
van Ewijk, G., Smakman, M., & Konijn, E. A. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on social robots in education: an exploratory case study. Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference (pp. 273–280). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394397
Xia, Y., LeTendre, G. (2020). Robots for Future Classrooms: A Cross-Cultural Validation Study of “Negative Attitudes Toward Robots Scale” in the U.S. Context. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00669-2
Yousif, M. (2021). Humanoid Robot Enhancing Social and Communication Skills of Autistic Children. Artificial Intelligence & Robotics Development Journal, 1(2), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.52098/airdj.202129
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
