Laura Malinverni
ABSTRACT
The article describes an ideographic study conducted with 10 to 11 years old students to investigate their perceptions, ideas and imaginaries about robots. Its objective is to use this understanding to expand the ways of thinking the pedagogy of educational robotics. The study employed an art-based research approach and focused on involving students in the process of producing a fictional audiovisual narrative about robots. We analyzed their creative process and the resulting video through a multimodal approach. This analysis allowed identifying the different imaginaries, discourses and ideas that the participants have around the concept of "robot". These axes are used as cornerstones to begin a reflexive process to problematize and enable new perspectives to the pedagogy of educational robotics.
- Alessandri, G. and Paciaroni, M. 2012. Educational robotics: Robotics from fantasy medium to medium for fantasy. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society. 8, 1 (2012), 71--78.Google Scholar
- Alimisis, A.D. and Kynigos, C. 2009. Constructionism and robotics in education. Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. 11--26.Google Scholar
- Alimisis, D. 2013. Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education. 6, 1 (2013), 63--71.Google Scholar
- Alimisis, D. 2012. Robotics in Education & Education in Robotics: Shifting Focus from Technology to Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education (2012), 7--14.Google Scholar
- Alves-Oliveira, P. et al. 2017. Yolo, a robot for creativity: A co-design study with children. IDC 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (2017), 423--429.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anwar, S. and Bascou, N.A. 2019. A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER). 9, 2 (2019).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barker, J. and Weller, S. 2003. Is it fun?" developing children centred research methods. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 23, 1 (2003), 33--58. ). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barone, T. and Eisner, E. 1997. Arts-based educational research. Complementary methods for research in education. 75--115.Google Scholar
- Bartlett, B. et al. 2004. Dogs or Robots - Why do Children See Them as Robotic Pets Rather Than Canine Machines? BT - Fifth Australasian User Interface Conference (AUIC2004). Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, (2004), 7--14.Google Scholar
- Bartneck, C. 2004. From Fiction to Science - A Cultural Reflection on Social Robots. Robotics (2004), 1--4.Google Scholar
- Bartneck, C. et al. 2007. The influence of people's culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI and Society. 21, 1 (2007), 217--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bascou, N.A. and Menekse, M. 2016. Robotics in K-12 formal and informal learning environments: A review of literature. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (2016).Google Scholar
- Benitti, F.B.V. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education. 58, 3 (2012), 978--988. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beran, T.N. and Ramirez-Serrano, A. 2011. Can Children Have a Relationship with a Robot? Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 49--56.Google Scholar
- Bethel, C.L. et al. 2016. Using robots to interview children about bullying: Lessons learned from an exploratory study. 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2016. November 2017 (2016), 712--717. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Blancas, M. et al. 2017. Analyzing children's expectations from robotic companions in educational settings. 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids) (Nov. 2017), 749--755.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Braidotti, R. 2015. Lo Posthumano. Editorial Gedisa.Google Scholar
- Bruckenberger, U. et al. 2013. The Good, The Bad, The Weird: Audience Evaluation of a "Real" Robot in Relation to Science Fiction and Mass Media. International Conference on Social Robotics (2013), 301--310.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Buechley, L. et al. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino. 423. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bumby, K. and Dautenhahn, K. 1999. Investigating children's attitudes towards robots: A case study. Proc. CT99, The Third International Cognitive Technology Conference. (1999), 391--410. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cavallo, D. et al. 2004. 'RoBallet: Exploring Learning through Expression in the Arts through Constructing in a Technologically Immersive Environment. \rInternational Conference of the Learning Sciences. March 2014 (2004), 105--112.Google Scholar
- Chung, S. and Walsh, D. 2000. Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal of curriculum studies. 32, 2 (2000), 215--234.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, A. 2005. Listening to and involving young children: A review of research and practice. Early Child Development and Care. 175, 6 (2005), 489--505.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, C.D. 2011. In A Younger Voice: Doing Child-Centered Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dautenhahn, K. et al. 2005. What is a Robot Companion - Friend, Assistant or Butler? 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2005), 291--299.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Druin, A. 2002. The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology. Behaviour and information technology. 21, 1 (2002), 1--25.Google Scholar
- Eguchi, A. 2017. Learner-Centered Approach with Educational Robotics. Handbook of Research on Learner-Centered Pedagogy in Teacher Education and Professional Development. IGI Global. 350--372.Google Scholar
- Frauenberger, C. et al. 2012. Challenges, opportunities and future perspectives in including children with disabilities in the design of interactive technology. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '12. (2012), 367. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hannon, C. 2016. Gender and status in voice user interfaces. interactions. 23, 3 (2016), 34--37.Google Scholar
- Hernandez, F. 2008. La investigación basada en las artes. Propuestas para repensar la investigación en educación. Education Siglo XXI. 26, (2008), 85--118.Google Scholar
- Iversen, O.S. et al. 2017. Child as Protagonist: Expanding the Role of Children in Participatory Design. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (2017), 27--37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jewitt, C. 2013. Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. The SAGE handbook of digital technology research. S. Price and C. Jewitt, eds. SAGE Publications Ltd. 250--265.Google Scholar
- Johnson, B.D. 2014. Brain machines. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 18, 4 (2014), 811--817. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kafai, Y.B. et al. 2014. Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American Indian youth and communities. SIGCSE 2014 - Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2014), 241--246.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kato, K. et al. 2005. A cross-cultural study on attitudes towards robots. HCII '05: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. (2005), 1981--1983. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kazemitabaar, M. et al. 2015. MakerShoe: Towards a wearable e-textile construction kit to support creativity, playful making, and self-expression. Proceedings of IDC 2015: The 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. i (2015), 449--452. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lammer, L. et al. 2015. The 5-Step Plan: A Holistic Approach to Investigate Children's Ideas on Future Robotic Products. ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 02-05-March-2015, (2015), 69--70. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lindley, J. and Coulton, P. 2015. Back to the future: 10 years of design fiction. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (2015), 210--211.Google Scholar
- Liu, E.Z.F. 2010. Early adolescents' perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics. British Journal of Educational Technology. 41, 3 (2010), 44--47. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maguth, B.M.. 2012. In defense of the social studies: social studies programs in STEM education. Social Studies Research & Practice. 7, 2 (2012), 65--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malinverni, L. et al. 2016. Towards methods for evaluating and communicating participatory design: A multimodal approach. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 94, (2016), 53--63. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Van Mechelen, M. et al. 2017. The GLID method: Moving from design features to underlying values in co-design. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. 97, (2017), 116--128. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nomura, T. et al. 2006. Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots. Interaction Studies. 7, 3 (2006), 437--454. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oliveira, D. et al. 2012. Uma proposta de ensino-aprendizagem de programação utilizando robótica educativa e storytelling. In II Congresso Internacional TIC de Educação, Lisboa (p. 10)Google Scholar
- Precel, K. and Mioduser, D. The effect of constructing a robot's behavior on young children's conceptions of behaving artifacts and on their Theory of Mind (ToM) and Theory of Artificial Mind (ToAM). Children Youth, Environments Journal. 1--47.Google Scholar
- Qi, J. et al. 2015. Crafting technology with circuit stickers. Proceedings of IDC 2015: The 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (2015), 438--441.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Read, J. et al. 2014. Giving ideas an equal chance: Inclusion and representation in participatory design with children. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on ... (2014), 105--114.Google Scholar
- Riek, L.D. and Howard, D. 2014. A Code of Ethics for the Human-Robot Interaction Profession. We Robot Conference. (2014), 1--10.Google Scholar
- Rusk, N. et al. 2008. New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology 17, 59--69.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Searle, K.A. and Kafai, Y.B. 2015. Boys' needlework: understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (2015), 31--39.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Silver, J. et al. 2012. Makey Makey: Improvising Tangible and Nature-Based User Interfaces Beginner's Mind Collective. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI '12). (2012), 367--370.Google Scholar
- Spiel, K. et al. 2017. Participatory Evaluation with Autistic Children. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17 (New York, New York, USA, 2017), 5755--5766.Google Scholar
- Stager, G. 2005. Papertian Constructionism and the Design of Productive Contexts for Learning. EuroLogo X.Google Scholar
- Sullins, J.P. 2015. Applied Professional Ethics for the Reluctant Roboticist. The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction Workshop. (2015).Google Scholar
- Sullivan, A. and Bers, M.U. 2018. Dancing robots: integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore's early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 28, 2 (2018), 325--346. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Turkle, S. and Papert, S. Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices within the Computer Culture.Google Scholar
- Wien, C.A. et al. 2011. Learning to Document in Reggio-inspired Education. Early Childhood Research & Practice. 13, 2 (2011).Google Scholar
- Wood, L.J. et al. 2013. Robot-Mediated Interviews - How Effective Is a Humanoid Robot as a Tool for Interviewing Young Children? PLoS ONE. 8, 3 (2013). Google ScholarCross Ref
- Woods, S. 2006. Exploring the design space of robots: Children's perspectives. Interacting with Computers. 18, 6 (2006), 1390--1418. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zawieska, K. 2020. Roboethics as a Research Puzzle. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 731726 (2020), 612--613.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- What is a robot?: an artistic approach to understand children's imaginaries about robots
Recommendations
I am my robot: the impact of robot-building and robot form on operators
HRI '09: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interactionAs robots become more pervasive, operators will develop richer relationships with them. In a 2 (robot form: humanoid vs. car) x 2 (assembler: self vs. other) between-participants experiment (N=56), participants assembled either a humanoid or car robot. ...
Evaluating Peer Versus Teacher Robot within Educational Scenario of Programming Learning
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot InteractionThis research explores the concept of edutainment where the basics of programming are introduced to children while playing a game with a social humanoid robot. The goal of the game is to exit the maze: the child is asked by the robot to make the robot ...
Programming Embodied Interactions with a Remotely Controlled Educational Robot
Special Section on ML Education and Regular ArticlesContemporary research has explored educational robotics, but it has not examined the development of computational thinking in the context of programming embodied interactions. Apart from the goal of the robot and how the robot will interact with its ...
Comments