Abstract
Robots in schools are generally seen as useful for teaching students about engineering and robotics, and as teaching assistants for scientific or foreign language subjects. Robots may be particularly useful in rural schools, due to the challenges rural areas face with low student numbers, low funding, a lack of specialist teachers, and isolation. To date, no studies have specifically investigated how companion robots might be useful in rural schools. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate student and teacher views about how two companion robots could be useful in rural educational settings. 207 students and 22 teachers participated in 30-min sessions with two popular companion robots, Paro and iRobiQ. Questionnaires were given to all participants and observer ratings were made of student interactions with the robots. Overall, the robots were well-received. The majority of participants said they would like to have the robots at their schools. Girls gave significantly more positive responses about the robots than boys, although boys were more engaged with iRobiQ than girls. Children aged 5–12 and their teachers responded the most positively. Participants wanted the robots to be more interactive, and perceived that the most useful functions were helping children with autism, comforting children in sick bay, and repeating exercises for children who need help. This study suggests that in addition to having an assistant teacher role, companion robots may have a useful comforting role. The results inform designers about which applications to develop for robots in rural schools and which age groups to develop them for.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12369-017-0460-5/MediaObjects/12369_2017_460_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs12369-017-0460-5/MediaObjects/12369_2017_460_Fig2_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rus D (2006) Teaching robotics everywhere. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 13:15–94
Lee KM, Jung Y, Kim J et al (2006) Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents? The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human–robot interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64:962–973
Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S et al (2013) A review of the application of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1:1–7. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
Papert S (1993) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Harper Collins, New York
Resnicj M, Bruckman A, Martin F (1996) Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits. Interactions 3:40–50
Feil-Seifer D, Mataric MJ (2009) Toward socially assistive robotics for augmenting interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Spr Tra Adv Robot 54:201–210
Latitude. Robots @ School. http://latd.tv/Latitude-Robots-at-School-Findings.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2017
Han J, Jo M, Park S et al (2005) The educational use of home robots for children. In: IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 378–383
Malec J (2001) Some thoughts on robotics for education. AAAI Spring symposium on robotics and education, Stanford University. http://fileadmin.cs.lth.se/cs/Personal/Jacek_Malec/psfiles/aaai01rae.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2017
Sans-Cope O, Barco A, Albo Canals J et al. (2014) Robotics@ Montserrat: a case of Learning through robotics community in a primary and secondary school. In: Workshop of child–robot interaction: social bonding, learning and ethics, international conference on interaction design & children, Aarhus, Denmark, pp 1–5
Lee E, Lee Y, Kye B, Ko B (2008) Elementary and middle school teachers, students and parents perception of robot-aided education in Korea. In: Conference on educational multimedia. Hypermedia and telecommunications, Vienna, Austria, pp 175–183
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. Int J Soc Robot 7:875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9
Fleming TM, Clark T, Denny S, Bullen P, Crengle S, Peiris-John R, Robinson E, Rossen FV, Sheridan J, Lucassen M (2014) Stability and change in the mental health of New Zealand secondary school students 2007–2012: results from the national adolescent health surveys. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 48:472–80
Werner-Seidler A, Perry Y, Calear AL, Newby JM, Christensen H (2017) School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 51:30–47
Howley A, Rhodes M, Beall J (2009) Challenges facing rural schools: implications for gifted students. J Educ Gift 32:515–536
Owens EW, Waxman HC (1995) Differences among urban, suburban, and rural schools on technology access and use in eighth-grade mathematics classrooms. J Educ Technol Syst 24:83–92
Sandygulova A, Isteleyev M (2017) Investigating the effect of age and gender with educational robots. https://icsrwonder2015.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/p9-sandygulova.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2017
Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Comput Interact 19:61–84
Causo A, Vo GT, Chen IM et al (2016) Design of robots used as education companion and tutor. In: Zeghloul S, Laribi MA, Gazeau JP (eds) Robotics and mechatronics. Springer, Cham, pp 75–84
Younbo J, Kwan ML (2004) Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. In: Proceedings of \(7{{\rm th}}\) international workshop on presence, Valencia, pp 80–87
Shibata T, Mitsui T, Wada K, Touda A, Kumasaka T, Tagami K, Tanie K (2001) Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children. In: Proceedings advanced intelligent mechatronics, IEEE/ASME international conference, vol 2, pp 1053–1058
Hyun E, Yoon H (2009) Characteristics of young children’ utilisation of a robot during play time: a case study. IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, RO-MAN, pp 675–680
Han J, Jo M, Jones V et al (2008) Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. J Inf Process Syst 4:159–168
Hsiao H, Chang C, Lin C et al (2015) iRobiQ: the influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior. Interact Learn Environ 23:269–294
Robinson H, MacDonald B, Kerse N et al (2013) The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomised controlled trial. JAMDA 14:661–667
Han J (2010) Robot-aided learning and r-learning services. In: Chen D (ed) Human–robot interaction. InTech, Croatia. https://doi.org/10.5772/8143
Tanaka F, Kimura T (2010) Care-receiving robot as a tool of teachers in child education. Interact Stud 11:263–268
Toh LPE, Causo A, Tzuo PW, Chen I, Yeo SH (2016) A review on the use of robots in education and young children. J Educ Technol Soc 19:148
Liu EZ (2010) Early adolescents’ perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. Br J Educ Technol 41:E41–E47
Leite I, Castellano G, Pereira A et al (2014) Empathic robots for long-term interaction. Int J Soc Robot 6:329–341
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by a University of Auckland Cares Seed Funding grant. We acknowledge the support of Buller and Central Plateau REAPs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
E.Broadbent, B.MacDonald, & H.S.Ahn received funding from Yujin Robot Co. Ltd. for research on healthcare robots.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Broadbent, E., Feerst, D.A., Lee, S.H. et al. How Could Companion Robots Be Useful in Rural Schools?. Int J of Soc Robotics 10, 295–307 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0460-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-017-0460-5