Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articles/Articoli

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2021): Evaluation, feedback, equity: a challenge in education

Using a social robot for different types of feedback during university lectures

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ess2-2021oa12485
Submitted
settembre 7, 2021
Published
2021-12-21

Abstract

In this paper we present a long-term study in which a social robot was used as an embodied feedback channel during a series of university lectures spanning over one academic year. We used a Pepper robot from Softbank Robotics within an enactive didactics framework in order to reinforce the structural coupling between the teacher, the students and the content of the lecture. The robot provided different types of feedback during the lectures. In this paper we will focus on feedback that informed the students of their learning progress and that helped the teacher to understand how the students were able to follow each lecture. At the end of the lecture series we used questionnaires as qualitative measures for how the students perceived the feedback of the robot. Our results show a positive response of the students to the robot. We asked the students also how they thought the robot’s feedback affected their learning progress. The vast majority of the students reported that the robot indeed helped them to reflect about their level of understanding of the content of the lecture and facilitated the initiation of interventions to improve their learning.

References

  1. Ahmad M.K., Adnan A.H.M., Azamri N.M., Idris K.B., Norafand N.N. and Ishak N.I. (2019, February). Education 4.0 technologies for English language teaching and learning in the Malaysian context. In Proceedings of the International Invention, Innovative & Creative (InIIC) Conference, Series (6-16).
  2. Airenti G. (2015). The cognitive bases of anthropomorphism: from relatedness to empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(1): 117-127.
  3. Belpaeme T., Kennedy J., Ramachandran A., Scassellati B., & Tanaka F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics, 3(21): eaat5954.
  4. Benitti F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education, 58: 978-988.
  5. Brown J.S., Collins A. and Duguid P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1): 32-42.
  6. Carless D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5): 705-714.
  7. Damiano L., Dumouchel P. and Lehmann H. (2015). Towards human-robot affective co-evolution overcoming oppositions in constructing emotions and empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(1): 7-18.
  8. Damiano L. and Dumouchel P. (2018), Anthropomorphism in human–robot co-evolution. Frontiers in psychology, 9: 468.
  9. Gorostiza J.F., Barber R., Khamis A.M., Malfaz M., Pacheco R., Rivas R. and Salichs M.A. (2006). Multimodal human-robot interaction framework for a personal robot. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on (39-44). IEEE.
  10. Han J. and Kim D. (2009). r-Learning services for elementary school students with a teaching assistant robot. In Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on (255-256). IEEE.
  11. Hattie J. and Clarke S. (2018). Visible Learning: Feedback. Routledge.
  12. Ishiguro H., Ono T., Imai M., Maeda T., Kanda T. and Nakatsu R. (2001). Robovie: an interactive humanoid robot. Industrial robot: An international journal, 28(6): 498-504.
  13. Kanda T., Hirano T., Eaton D. and Ishiguro H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2): 61-84.
  14. Laurillard D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
  15. Laurillard D. (2013). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.
  16. Lehmann H. & Rossi P.G. (2018). Enactive Robot Assisted Didactics (ERAD): The Role of the Maker Movement. In Educational Robotics in the Context of the Maker Movement. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer.
  17. Lehmann H. & Rossi P.G. (2020a). Robot sociali come mediatori educativi in classe. SISTEMI INTELLIGENTI, 1: 167-179.
  18. Lehmann H. & Rossi P.G. (2020b). Social robots in educational contexts: Developing an application in enactive didactics. Journal of e-Learning and knowledge Society, 15(2).
  19. Lehmann H. (2020). Social Robots for Enactive Didactics. p. 1-128, Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  20. Maturana H.R. and Varela F.J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. New Science Library/Shambhala Publications.
  21. Nicol D. (2018). Unlocking generative feedback through peer reviewing. In: V. Grion V. and Serbati A. (Eds.). Assessment of learning or assessment for learning? Towards a culture of sustainable assessment in higher education (47-59). Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.
  22. Rossi P.G. (2011). Didattica enattiva. Complessità, teorie dell’azione, professionalità docente. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  23. Rossi P.G., Pentucci M., Fedeli L., Giannandrea L. and Pennazio V. (2018). From the informative feedback to the generative feedback. Education Sciences & Society, 9(2): 83-107.
  24. Senft E., Lemaignan S., Bartlett M., Baxter P. and Belpaeme T. (2018). Robots in the classroom: Learning to be a Good Tutor.
  25. Shamsuddin S., Ismail L.I., Yussof H., Zahari N.I., Bahari S., Hashim H. and Jaffar A. (2011). Humanoid robot NAO: Review of control and motion exploration. In Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE), 2011 IEEE International Conference on (511-516).
  26. Softbank Robotics (2018). Retrieved 12.12.2018 from https://www.softbankrobotics.com/emea/en/pepper.
  27. Varela F., Thompson E. and Rosch E. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  28. Vogt P., De Haas M., De Jong C., Baxter P. and Krahmer E. (2017). Child-robot interactions for second language tutoring to preschool children. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11(73).
  29. Vygotsky L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...