Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning

This study investigates young children’s perspectives in explaining a self-regulating mobile robot, as they learn to program its behaviors from rules. We explore their descriptions of a robot in action to determine the nature of their explanatory frameworks: psychological or technological. We have also studied the role of an adult’s intervention in their reasoning. The study was conducted individually with six kindergarten children along five sessions that included tasks, ordered by increasing difficulty. We developed and used a robotic control interface. We have found that the children employed two modes of explanation: “engineering” mode focused on the technological building blocks which make up the robot’s operation; “bridging” mode tended to combine and align two explanatory frameworks – technological and psychological. However, this was not consistent across tasks. In the easiest tasks, involving one condition–action rule, most of the children used a technological perspective. When the task became more difficult, most children shifted to a psychological perspective. Further experience in programming was associated with a shift to technological or combined explanatory frameworks. The results are discussed with respect to developmental literature on children’s explanatory frameworks, and with regard to educational implications of incorporating such learning environments in early childhood classes.

[1]  Kathleen E. Metz Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge , 1991 .

[2]  M. Scaife,et al.  “Because a robot's brain hasn't got a brain, it just controls itself” — Children's attributions of brain related behaviour to intelligent artefacts , 1996 .

[3]  V. Braitenberg Vehicles, Experiments in Synthetic Psychology , 1984 .

[4]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[5]  Mike van Duuren,et al.  Do computers have brains ? What children believe about intelligent artifacts , 1995 .

[6]  Marilyn Fleer,et al.  Working Technologically: Investigations into How Young Children Design and Make During Technology Education , 2000 .

[7]  Léonie J. Rennie,et al.  Factors that Influence Children's Developing Perceptions of Technology , 1998 .

[8]  D. Laplane Thought and language. , 1992, Behavioural neurology.

[9]  David Mioduser,et al.  Episodes to scripts to rules: concrete-abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behavior , 2009 .

[10]  Hiroaki Kitano,et al.  Robot entertainment , 2000 .

[11]  R. Siegler,et al.  Developmental Differences in Rule Learning: A Microgenetic Analysis , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Diane Poulin-Dubois,et al.  Infants' concept of animacy. , 1996 .

[13]  Allison Druin,et al.  Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning , 2000 .

[14]  D. K. Nelson,et al.  Principle-Based Inferences in Young Children's Categorization: Revisiting the Impact of Function on the Naming of Artifacts. , 1995 .

[15]  S. Turkle,et al.  Epistemological Pluralism and the Revaluation of the Concrete. , 1992 .

[16]  Paul Bloom Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[17]  Suzanne K. Damarin,et al.  The second self: Computers and the human spirit , 1985 .

[18]  Karen F. Zuga Improving Technology Education Research on Cognition , 2004 .

[19]  H. Wellman,et al.  Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. , 2001, Child development.

[20]  J. Hendler,et al.  PETS: a personal electronic teller of stories , 2000 .

[21]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Naming in young children: a dumb attentional mechanism? , 1996, Cognition.

[22]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[23]  L. Quéré Cognition in Practice , 1996 .

[24]  David Mioduser,et al.  Students' perceptions and designs of simple control systems , 1996 .

[25]  Margaret Anne Defeyter,et al.  Acquiring an understanding of design: evidence from children's insight problem solving , 2003, Cognition.

[26]  M. Scaife,et al.  How do children represent intelligent technology? , 1995 .

[27]  Susan Carey,et al.  Developmental changes within the core of artifact concepts , 2001, Cognition.

[28]  Rubi Hammer,et al.  Mapping the similarity space of children and adults’ artifact categories , 2003 .

[29]  Dawn Robinson,et al.  Gauging Children’s Understanding of Artificially Intelligent Objects: A Presentation of “Counterfactuals” , 1998 .

[30]  H. Wellman,et al.  The emergence of children's causal explanations and theories: evidence from everyday conversation. , 2001, Developmental psychology.

[31]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[32]  E. Ackermann,et al.  The "Agency" Model of Transactions: Toward an Understanding of Children's Theory of Control. , 1991 .

[33]  Naomi Miyake,et al.  Constructive Interaction and the Iterative Process of Understanding , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  Programming without a computer: a new interface for children under eight , 2000, Proceedings First Australasian User Interface Conference. AUIC 2000 (Cat. No.PR00515).

[35]  Marilyn Fleer The Science of Technology: Young Children Working Technologically , 1999 .

[36]  Margaret Carr,et al.  Technological Affordance, Social Practice and Learning Narratives in an Early Childhood Setting , 2000 .

[37]  J. Piaget The Child's Conception of Physical Causality , 1927 .

[38]  Marina Umaschi Bers,et al.  Teaching Partnerships: Early Childhood and Engineering Students Teaching Math and Science Through Robotics , 2005 .