Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Active and Critical Engagement in Human-Robot Interaction to Develop Programming Skills: A Pilot Study

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design, User Experience, and Usability (HCII 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14033))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 668 Accesses

Abstract

Humanoid robots can help improve the spatial programming skills of children by making abstract concepts playful, tangible, concrete, and thereby understandable. However, active and critical engagement with robots creates its own challenges, originating from participants or robots. In this study, we explored to what extent programming a humanoid robot is engaging when the robot helps visualize the coding, instructions, and outcome of the process. The results of the study showed that a teaching session before the experiment was helpful, even though participants had previous experience programming with robots. The participants found programming the robot more enjoyable when compared to programming on a PC. They believed that robots could be useful as learning companions under the guidance of a regular teacher to improve their programming skills.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abe, K., et al.: Toward playmate robots that can play with children considering personality. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Human-agent Interaction, pp. 165–168 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2658861.2658913

  2. Ahmad, M.I., Mubin, O., Orlando, J.: Adaptive social robot for sustaining social engagement during long-term children-robot interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 33(12), 943–962 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1300750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alves-Oliveira, P., Sequeira, P., Paiva, A.: The role that an educational robot plays. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 817–822 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745213

  4. Angeli, C., et al.: A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(3), 47–57 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arthur, L.: The early years learning framework: building confident learners. Early Childhood Australia (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benitti, F.B.V.: Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58(3), 978–988 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Benvenuti, M., Mazzoni, E.: Enhancing wayfinding in pre-school children through robot and socio-cognitive conflict. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 51(2), 436–458 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bers, M.U., González-González, C., Armas-Torres, M.B.: Coding as a playground: promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Comput. Educ. 138, 130–145 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chalmers, C., Keane, T., Boden, M., Williams, M.: Humanoid robots: programing at school. In: Proceedings of the 5th International STEM in Education Conference: Integrated Education for the Real World (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corral, J.M.R., Ruiz-Rube, I., Balcells, A.C., Mota-Macías, J.M., Morgado-Estévez, A., Dodero, J.M.: A study on the suitability of visual languages for non-expert robot programmers. IEEE Access 7, 17535–17550 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2895913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Lieto, M.C., et al.: Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: a pilot study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 16–23 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diyas, Y., Brakk, D., Aimambetov, Y., Sandygulova, A.: Evaluating peer versus teacher robot within educational scenario of programming learning. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 425–426 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451788

  13. Edwards, A., Edwards, C., Westerman, D., Spence, P.R.: Initial expectations, interactions, and beyond with social robots. Comput. Hum. Behav. 90, 308–314 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Keane, T., Chalmers, C., Boden, M., Williams, M.: Humanoid robots: learning a programming language to learn a traditional language. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 28(5), 533–546 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1670248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kanero, J., Geçkin, V., Oranç, C., Mamus, E., Küntay, A.C., Göksun, T.: Social robots for early language learning: current evidence and future directions. Child Dev. Perspect. 12(3), 146–151 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanero, J., Oranç, C., Koşkulu, S., Kumkale, G.T., Göksun, T., Küntay, A.C.: Are tutor robots for everyone? The influence of attitudes, anxiety, and personality on robot-led language learning. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 14(2), 297–312 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00789-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T.: The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 67–74 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Manzi, F., Massaro, D., Di Lernia, D., Maggioni, M.A., Riva, G., Marchetti, A.: Robots are not all the same: young adults’ expectations, attitudes, and mental attribution to two humanoid social robots. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 24(5), 307–314 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Michaelis, J.E., Mutlu, B.: Someone to read with: design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 301–312 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025499

  21. Mioduser, D., Levy, S.T.: Making sense by building sense: kindergarten children’s construction and understanding of adaptive robot behaviors. Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn. 15(2), 99–127 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9163-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mishra, D., Parish, K., Lugo, R.G., Wang, H.: A framework for using humanoid robots in the school learning environment. Electronics 10(6), 756 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10060756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moors, L., Sheehan, R.: Aiding the transition from novice to traditional programming environments. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 509–514 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3084317

  24. Prakash, A., Rogers, W.A.: Why some humanoid faces are perceived more positively than others: effects of human-likeness and task. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 7(2), 309–331 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0269-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Strawhacker, A., Bers, M.U.: “I want my robot to look for food”: comparing kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 25(3), 293–319 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Subedi, A., Pandey, D., Mishra, D.: Programming Nao as an educational agent: a comparison between Choregraphe and Python SDK. In: Ben Ahmed, M., Boudhir, A.A., Karaș, İR., Jain, V., Mellouli, S. (eds.) SCA 2021. LNNS, vol. 393, pp. 367–377. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94191-8_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Sullivan, A., Elkin, M., Bers, M.U.: KIBO robot demo: engaging young children in programming and engineering. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 418–421 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771868

  28. Toh, L.P.E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.W., Chen, I.M., Yeo, S.H.: A review on the use of robots in education and young children. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(2), 148–163 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tokmurzina, D., Sagitzhan, N., Nurgaliyev, A., Sandygulova, A.: Exploring child-robot proxemics. In: Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, pp. 257–258 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177083

  30. Turner, S., Hill, G.: Robotics within the teaching of problem-solving. Innov. Teach. Learn. Inf. Comput. Sci. 7(1), 108–119 (2008). https://doi.org/10.11120/ital.2008.07010108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zaga, C., Lohse, M., Truong, K.P., Evers, V.: The effect of a robot’s social character on children’s task engagement: peer versus tutor. In: Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.C., Ferland, F., Ammi, M. (eds.) Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol. 9388. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_70

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway

    Deepti Mishra, Guillermo Arroyo Romero & Rumi Rajbhandari

  2. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Hamar, Norway

    Karen Parish

  3. Department of Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway

    Yavuz Inal

Authors
  1. Deepti Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yavuz Inal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Parish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guillermo Arroyo Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rumi Rajbhandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepti Mishra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aaron Marcus and Associates, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Aaron Marcus

  2. World Usability Day and Bubble Mountain Consulting, Newton Center, MA, USA

    Elizabeth Rosenzweig

  3. Southern University of Science and Technology – SUSTech, Shenzhen, China

    Marcelo M. Soares

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mishra, D., Inal, Y., Parish, K., Romero, G.A., Rajbhandari, R. (2023). Exploring Active and Critical Engagement in Human-Robot Interaction to Develop Programming Skills: A Pilot Study. In: Marcus, A., Rosenzweig, E., Soares, M.M. (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14033. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35708-4_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35708-4_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35707-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35708-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation