Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role Assignment Analysis of an Assistive Robotic Platform in a High School Mathematics Class, Through a Gamification and Usability Evaluation

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This project implements an assistive robotic platform in a mathematics high school class to support the professor’s teaching process while analyzing its performance by using a gamification approach and the Octalysis framework. The results obtained from this study evaluated both the platform usability and the general class perception from the students and the professors involved in the experimentation. This paper demonstrates that the implementation of a robotic platform as a supportive tool for the professor improves the class’ dynamism and the cooperative behavior of the students, by following the Octalysis approach. Finally, the results helped to determine a better role assignment for future cases where the professor implements a robotic platform during class, leaving the theoretical explanations and class control to the professor, and giving the robot the role of enhancing the activities and review exercises.

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

  1. Andrist S, Ziadee M, Boukaram H, Mutlu B, Sakr M (2015) Effects of culture on the credibility of robot speech: a comparison between english and arabic. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, pp 157–164

  2. Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang CW, Lee JH, Chao PY, Wang CY, Chen GD (2010) Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. J Educ Technol Soc 13(2):13–24

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheong C, Cheong F, Filippou J (2013) Quick quiz: a gamified approach for enhancing learning. In: PACIS 2013 Proceedings, p 206. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2013/206

  5. Chou YK (2019) Actionable gamification: beyond points, badges, and leaderboards. Packt Publishing Ltd

  6. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Denny P (2013) The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 763–772

  8. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference: envisioning future media environments. ACM, pp 9–15

  9. Dillon A (2001) User acceptance of information technology. Taylor and Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. DomíNguez A, Saenz-De-Navarrete J, De-Marcos L, FernáNdez-Sanz L, PagéS C, MartíNez-HerráIz JJ (2013) Gamifying learning experiences: practical implications and outcomes. Comput Educ 63:380–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dong T, Dontcheva M, Joseph D, Karahalios K, Newman M, Ackerman M (2012) Discovery-based games for learning software. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 2083–2086. ACM

  12. España JJG, Builes JAJ, Bedoya JWB (2013) Robotic kit teac 2 h-ri for applications in education and research. In: 2013 IEEE 8th conference on industrial electronics and applications (ICIEA). IEEE, pp 1687–1691

  13. Feldman KA (1976) The superior college teacher from the students’ view. Res High Educ 5(3):243–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fenollar P, Román S, Cuestas PJ (2007) University students’ academic performance: an integrative conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Br J Educ Psychol 77(4):873–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitz-Walter Z, Tjondronegoro D, Wyeth P (2011) Orientation passport: using gamification to engage university students. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer–human interaction conference. ACM, pp 122–125

  16. Goodrich MA, Schultz AC et al (2008) Human–robot interaction: a survey. Found Trends Hum Comput Interact 1(3):203–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hakulinen L, Auvinen T, Korhonen A (2013) Empirical study on the effect of achievement badges in trakla2 online learning environment. In: 2013 learning and teaching in computing and engineering. IEEE, pp 47–54

  18. Halan S, Rossen B, Cendan J, Lok B (2010) High score!-motivation strategies for user participation in virtual human development. In: International conference on intelligent virtual agents. Springer, pp 482–488

  19. Hamari J (2013) Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: a field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electron Commer Res Appl 12(4):236–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamari J, Eranti V (2011) Framework for designing and evaluating game achievements. In: Digra conference. Citeseer

  21. Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H et al (2014) Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. HICSS 14:3025–3034

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2009) Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. In: RO-MAN 2009—the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 528–533

  23. Imbernón Cuadrado LE, Manjarrés Riesco Á, De La Paz López F (2016) Artie: an integrated environment for the development of affective robot tutors. Front Comput Neurosci 10:77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kember D, Wong A (2000) Implications for evaluation from a study of students’ perceptions of good and poor teaching. High Educ 40(1):69–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kolitch E, Dean AV (1999) Student ratings of instruction in the USA: hidden assumptions and missing conceptions about goods teaching. Stud High Educ 24(1):27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lindh J, Holgersson T (2007) Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Comput Educ 49(4):1097–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marsh HW (1987) Students’ evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. Int J Educ Res 11(3):253–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mavridis N, Katsaiti MS, Naef S, Falasi A, Nuaimi A, Araifi H, Kitbi A (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the middle east. AI Soc 27(4):517–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Park E, Kwon SJ (2016) The adoption of teaching assistant robots: a technology acceptance model approach. Program 50(4):354–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Plaza P, Sancristobal E, Fernandez G, Castro M, Pérez C (2016) Collaborative robotic educational tool based on programmable logic and arduino. In: 2016 technologies applied to electronics teaching (TAEE). IEEE, pp 1–8

  31. 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(5):875–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Robotics A Nao—technical overview. Technical report. http://doc.aldebaran.com/2-1/family/robots/index_robots.html#all-robots

  33. Rodríguez A (2013) Learning by teaching robotics with mobile devices in rural areas. In: International conference on information society (i-Society 2013). IEEE, pp 117–122

  34. Santos JRA (1999) Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. J Ext 37(2):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roblocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on multimodal interfaces. ACM, pp 72–75

  36. Serholt S (2018) Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: a longitudinal study. Comput Hum Behav 81:250–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Serholt S, Barendregt W (2016) Robots tutoring children: longitudinal evaluation of social engagement in child–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 9th nordic conference on human–computer interaction. ACM, p 64

  38. Serholt S, Basedow CA, Barendregt W, Obaid M (2014) Comparing a humanoid tutor to a human tutor delivering an instructional task to children. In: 2014 IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots. IEEE, pp 1134–1141

  39. Sharkey AJ (2016) Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics Inf Technol 18(4):283–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sheridan TB (2016) Human–robot interaction: status and challenges. Hum Factors 58(4):525–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Soc Robot 7(5):641–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ruiz-del Solar J, Avilés R (2004) Robotics courses for children as a motivation tool: the chilean experience. IEEE Trans Educ 47(4):474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Spolaôr N, Benitti FBV (2017) Robotics applications grounded in learning theories on tertiary education: a systematic review. Comput Educ 112:97–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sullivan A, Bers MU (2016) Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. Int J Technol Des Educ 26(1):3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q: 425–478

  46. Wadkar SK, Singh K, Chakravarty R, Argade SD (2016) Assessing the reliability of attitude scale by cronbach’s alpha’. J Glob Commun 9(2):113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yan H, Ang MH, Poo AN (2014) A survey on perception methods for human–robot interaction in social robots. Int J Soc Robot 6(1):85–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the participation of Katya Eugenia Romo Medrano, Luis Yépez Pérez, Rosa María Guadalupe García Castelán, Brenda Alejandra Jiménez Robledo, Patricia Ramírez Tlalpan, Daniela Magallán Ramírez, Jorge David Martínez Aguilar, Exa Lizet Rosas Jácome, and Ximena Alexandra Marroquín Arrevillaga during the realization of this project. Also, the authors acknowledge the financial support of Writing Lab, TecLabs, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, in the production of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Sciences, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Calle del Puente 222, Mexico City, Mexico

    Germán E. Baltazar Reyes, Edgar López & Pedro Ponce

  2. Faculty of Psychology, UNAM, Avenida Universidad 3004, Mexico City, Mexico

    Nancy Mazón

Authors
  1. Germán E. Baltazar Reyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edgar López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pedro Ponce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nancy Mazón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Germán E. Baltazar Reyes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Reyes, G.E.B., López, E., Ponce, P. et al. Role Assignment Analysis of an Assistive Robotic Platform in a High School Mathematics Class, Through a Gamification and Usability Evaluation. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 1063–1078 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00698-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00698-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation