Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dimensions of robotic education quality: teachers’ perspectives as teaching assistants in Thai elementary schools

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educational robots have been used in many countries as teaching assistants in elementary schools but robotic education quality is not well established in Thailand. The primary objective of this study was to identify and confirm quality dimensions in robotic education from the teachers’ perspectives. The sample size was 510 teachers who were observed in Thai elementary schools. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) indicated a good fit of a six-factor model to the observed data. The construct of CFA revealed six dimensions of robotic education quality as Social interaction, Cognitive function, Teaching method, Learner characteristics, Main features and Content. Results were similar to previous studies. Prototype development of an educational robot was proposed in relation to the Thai educational context. Further research, including large random comparative studies, needs to be performed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alimisis, D. (2012). Robotics in education & education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education.

  • Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, A., Wollherr, D., & Buss, M. (2008). Human–robot collaboration: a survey. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 5(01), 47–66.

  • Bekele, T. A., & Menchaca, M. P. (2008). Research on internet-supported learning: A review. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(4), 373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbunan-Fich, R., & Hiltz, S. R. (2003). Mediators of the effectiveness of online courses. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 298–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beran, T. N., Ramirez-Serrano, A., Kuzyk, R., Fior, M., & Nugent, S. (2011). Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child–robot interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(7–8), 539–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickmore, T., & Schulman, D. (2007). Practical approaches to comforting users with relational agents. Paper presented at the CHI'07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems.

  • Brave, S., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K. (2005). Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(2), 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., Kory Westlund, J. M., Dickens, L., & Jeong, S. (2016). Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(2), 481–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, W. S., Harlow, D. B., Nilsen, K. J., Perlin, K., Freed, N., Jensen, C. N., ... Muldner, K. (2018). Active Learning Environments with Robotic Tangibles: Children's Physical and Virtual Spatial Programming Experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 96–106.

  • Cabibihan, J. J., Javed, H., Ang, M., & Aljunied, S. M. (2013). Why robots? A survey on the roles and benefits of social robots in the therapy of children with autism. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(4), 593–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacco, L., & Moro, M. (2014). When a Bee meets a Sunflower. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics Teaching with Robotics and 5th International Conference on Robotics in Education, Padova, Italy.

  • Cañamero, L., & Fredslund, J. (2001). I show you how I like you-can you read it in my face?[robotics]. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and humans, 31(5), 454–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, H. (2008). Developing conceptual understanding of mechanical advantage through the use of Lego robotic technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4).

  • Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Chao, P. Y., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2).

  • Chen, N. S., Quadir, B., & Teng, D. C. (2011). A Novel approach of learning English with robot for elementary school students. Paper presented at the International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment.

  • Chersi, F. (2012). Learning through imitation: A biological approach to robotics. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 4(3), 204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, W. J., Ford, T., Perova, N., & Rogers, C. (2010). Physics With Robotics-Using LEGO MINDSTORMS In High School Education. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium: Educational Robotics and Beyond.

  • Cramer, H., Goddijn, J., Wielinga, B., & Evers, V. (2010). Effects of (in) accurate empathy and situational valence on attitudes towards robots. Paper presented at the Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Datteri, E., Zecca, L., Laudisa, F., & Castiglioni, M. (2013). Learning to explain: The role of educational robots in science education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dautenhahn, K., Walters, M., Woods, S., Koay, K. L., Nehaniv, C. L., Sisbot, A., ... Siméon, T. (2006). How may I serve you?: a robot companion approaching a seated person in a helping context. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction.

  • De Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., & Van Breemen, A. (2005). Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with Computers, 17(5), 522–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deublein, A., Pfeifer, A., Merbach, K., Bruckner, K., Mengelkamp, C., & Lugrin, B. (2018). Scaffolding of motivation in learning using a social robot. Computers & Education, 125, 182–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J. (2011). Socially assistive robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 18(1), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 143–166.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot: First meeting and ethical issues. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 262–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., & Hagman, J. (2003). Hardware companions?: What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems.

  • Fujita, M. (2001). AIBO: Toward the era of digital creatures. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 20(10), 781–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, D. (2018). Personal and social robots in education. Retrieved from http://elc.blogs.uoc.edu/personal-and-social-robots/

  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate data analysis, 7th Pearson new international ed. Harlow: Pearson.

  • Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2006). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerink, M. (2010). Assessing acceptance of assistive social robots by aging adults. Universiteit van Amsterdam [Host].

  • Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving.

  • Hirst, A. J., Johnson, J., Petre, M., Price, B. A., & Richards, M. (2003). What is the best programming environment/language for teaching robotics using Lego Mindstorms? Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(3), 124–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hone, K. (2006). Empathic agents to reduce user frustration: The effects of varying agent characteristics. Interacting with Computers, 18(2), 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, J. C., Yu, K. C., & Chen, M. Y. (2011). Collaborative learning in technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooijdonk, R. V. (2018). The Future of Education Retrieved from https://richardvanhooijdonk.com/en/ebooks/the-future-of-education/

  • Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1–2), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition: The New Media Consortium.

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide: Scientific Software International.

  • Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for Young children. Sustainability, 10(4), 905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn Jr, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., ... Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now”: Children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303.

  • Karim, M. E., Lemaignan, S., & Mondada, F. (2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? Paper presented at the Advanced Robotics and its Social Impacts (ARSO), 2015 IEEE International Workshop on.

  • Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 47, 1991–1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten social assistive robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 400–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, C. D., Taggart, W., & Turkle, S. (2006). A sociable robot to encourage social interaction among the elderly. Paper presented at the Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on.

  • Klein, J., Moon, Y., & Picard, R. W. (2002). This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computers, 14(2), 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kory, J., & Breazeal, C. (2014). Storytelling with robots: Learning companions for preschool children's language development. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2014 RO-MAN: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on.

  • Kozima, H., & Nakagawa, C. (2007). A robot in a playroom with preschool children: Longitudinal field practice. Paper presented at the Robot and Human interactive Communication, 2007. RO-MAN 2007. The 16th IEEE International Symposium on.

  • Kubilinskiene, S., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V., & Sinkevièius, V. (2017). Applying Robotics in School Education: a Systematic Review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 5(1), 50.

  • Leite, I., Martinho, C., & Paiva, A. (2013). Social robots for long-term interaction: A survey. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 291–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looije, R., Cnossen, F., & Neerincx, M. A. (2006). Incorporating guidelines for health assistance into a socially intelligent robot. Paper presented at the Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2006. ROMAN 2006. The 15th IEEE International Symposium on.

  • Lu, Y., Chen, C., Chen, P., Chen, X., & Zhuang, Z. (2018). Smart Learning Partner: An Interactive Robot for Education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education.

  • Malik, N. A., Hanapiah, F. A., Rahman, R. A. A., & Yussof, H. (2016). Emergence of socially assistive robotics in rehabilitation for children with cerebral palsy: A review. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 13(3), 135.

  • Martínez Ortiz, A. (2015). Examining Students' proportional reasoning strategy levels as evidence of the impact of an integrated LEGO robotics and mathematics learning experience. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 46–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathers, N., Goktogen, A., Rankin, J., & Anderson, M. (2012). Robotic mission to mars: Hands-on, minds-on, web-based learning. Acta Astronautica, 80, 124–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, S., & Howell, J. (2012). Watching, creating and achieving: Creative technologies as a conduit for learning in the early years. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 641–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLurkin, J., Rykowski, J., John, M., Kaseman, Q., & Lynch, A. J. (2013). Using multi-robot systems for engineering education: Teaching and outreach with large numbers of an advanced, low-cost robot. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriguchi, Y., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Shimada, Y., & Itakura, S. (2011). Can young children learn words from a robot? Interaction Studies, 12(1), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mubin, O., Bartneck, C., Feijs, L., Hooft van Huysduynen, H., Hu, J., & Muelver, J. (2012). Improving speech recognition with the robot interaction language. Disruptive Science and Technology, 1(2), 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J.-J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1(209–0015), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutlu, B., Forlizzi, J., & Hodgins, J. (2006). A storytelling robot: Modeling and evaluation of human-like gaze behavior. Paper presented at the Humanoid robots, 2006 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on.

  • Nag, S., Katz, J. G., & Saenz-Otero, A. (2013). Collaborative gaming and competition for CS-STEM education using SPHERES zero robotics. Acta Astronautica, 83, 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogata, T., & Sugano, S. (2000). Emotional communication robot: WAMOEBA-2R emotion model and evaluation experiments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

  • Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an inovative educational technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas: Basic Books, Inc.

  • Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.): Basic Books, Inc.

  • Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education.

  • Picard, R. W., & Liu, K. K. (2007). Relative subjective count and assessment of interruptive technologies applied to mobile monitoring of stress. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 361–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. R. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran, A., Huang, C.-M., Gartland, E., & Scassellati, B. (2018). Thinking Aloud with a Tutoring Robot to Enhance Learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction.

  • Severinson-Eklundh, K., Green, A., & Hüttenrauch, H. (2003). Social and collaborative aspects of interaction with a service robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42(3–4), 223–234.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shimada, M., Kanda, T., & Koizumi, S. (2012). How can a Social Robot facilitate children’s collaboration? Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics.

  • Sim, D. Y. Y., & Loo, C. K. (2015). Extensive assessment and evaluation methodologies on assistive social robots for modelling human–robot interaction–A review. Information Sciences, 301, 305–344.

  • Spolaôr, N., & Benitti, F. B. V. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97–107.

  • Stafford, T. F. (2005). Understanding motivations for internet use in distance education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(2), 301–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, M. (2011). A mobile mixed-reality environment for children's storytelling using a handheld projector and a robot. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(3), 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, W., Turkle, S., & Kidd, C. D. (2005). An interactive robot in a nursing home: Preliminary remarks. Paper presented at the Towards social mechanisms of android science: a COGSCI workshop.

  • Tamura, T., Yonemitsu, S., Itoh, A., Oikawa, D., Kawakami, A., Higashi, Y., ... Nakajima, K. (2004). Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 59(1), M83-M85.

  • Tapus, A., & Mataric, M. J. (2008). Socially Assistive Robots: The Link between Personality, Empathy, Physiological Signals, and Task Performance. Paper presented at the AAAI spring symposium: emotion, personality, and social behavior.

  • Toh, E., Poh, L., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and Young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2).

  • van den Heuvel, R. J., Lexis, M. A., Gelderblom, G. J., Jansens, R. M., & de Witte, L. P. (2016). Robots and ICT to support play in children with severe physical disabilities: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(2), 103–116.

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425–478.

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003). Psychological, physiological and social effects to elderly people by robot assisted activity at a health service facility for the aged. Paper presented at the Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 2003. AIM 2003. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/ASME International Conference on.

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003a). Effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. Paper presented at the Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003.(IROS 2003). Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on.

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003b). Psychological and social effects of robot assisted activity to elderly people who stay at a health service facility for the aged. Paper presented at the Robotics and Automation, 2003. Proceedings. ICRA'03. IEEE International Conference on

  • Wada, K., Shibata, T., Saito, T., & Tanie, K. (2003c). Relationship between familiarity with mental commit robot and psychological effects to elderly people by robot assisted activity. Paper presented at the Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, 2003. Proceedings. 2003 IEEE International Symposium on.

  • Wei, C. W., & Hung, I. (2011). A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(2), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westlund, J. M. K., Dickens, L., Jeong, S., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., & Breazeal, C. L. (2017a). Children use non-verbal cues to learn new words from robots as well as people. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westlund, K., Jacqueline, M., Jeong, S., Park, H. W., Ronfard, S., Adhikari, A., et al. (2017b). Flat vs. expressive storytelling: Young children’s learning and retention of a social robot’s narrative. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittier, L. E., & Robinson, M. (2007). Teaching evolution to non-English proficient students by using Lego robotics. American Secondary Education, 19-28.

  • Wolfe, J. (2000). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood education: Piney branch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong Wai Hong, N., Chew, E., & Wong Sze-Meng, J. (2017). The Review of Educational Robotics Research and the Need for Real-World Interaction Analysis.

  • Wood, L. (2018). Educational Robots: Worldwide Market Opportunity Forecast to 2023 - Huge Potential in Developing Countries Retrieved from https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180706005261/en/.

  • Wu, P., & Miller, C. (2005). Results from a field study: The need for an emotional relationship between the elderly and their assistive technologies. Foundations of Augmented Cognition, 11, 889–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, S. S. C., Wang, Y. H., & Jang, J. S. R. (2010). Exploring perceptions of integrating tangible learning companions in learning English conversation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), E78–E83.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by Ratchadapisek Somphot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University. Also Authors would like to express our sincere appreciation to National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and extend special thanks to Educational Invention and Innovation Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Technology and Communications, Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Suparoek Chootongchai & Noawanit Songkram

  2. Educational Invention and Innovation Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Noawanit Songkram

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Krerk Piromsopa

Authors
  1. Suparoek Chootongchai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noawanit Songkram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Krerk Piromsopa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noawanit Songkram.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chootongchai, S., Songkram, N. & Piromsopa, K. Dimensions of robotic education quality: teachers’ perspectives as teaching assistants in Thai elementary schools. Educ Inf Technol 26, 1387–1407 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10041-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10041-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation