How Could Companion Robots Be Useful in Rural Schools?

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.

[1]  F. Tanaka,et al.  Care-receiving robot as a tool of teachers in child education , 2010 .

[2]  I-Ming Chen,et al.  Design of Robots Used as Education Companion and Tutor , 2016 .

[3]  Helen Christensen,et al.  School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, Clinical psychology review.

[4]  Takanori Shibata,et al.  Mental commit robot and its application to therapy of children , 2001, 2001 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics. Proceedings (Cat. No.01TH8556).

[5]  Daniela Rus.  Teaching robotics everywhere , 2006, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[6]  Catherine J. Stevens,et al.  A review of the applicability of robots in education , 2013 .

[7]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu.  Early adolescents' perceptions of educational robots and learning of robotics , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[8]  Jeonghye Han.  Robot-Aided Learning and r-Learning Services , 2010 .

[9]  Hsien-Sheng Hsiao,et al.  “iRobiQ”: the influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior , 2015, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[10]  A. Howley,et al.  Challenges Facing Rural Schools: Implications for Gifted Students , 2009 .

[11]  Emiel W. Owens,et al.  Differences among Urban, Suburban, and Rural Schools on Technology Access and Use in Eighth-Grade Mathematics Classrooms , 1995 .

[12]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Effects of Physical Embodiment on Social Presence of Social Robots , 2004 .

[13]  B. MacDonald,et al.  The psychosocial effects of a companion robot: a randomized controlled trial. , 2013, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association.

[14]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Toward Socially Assistive Robotics for Augmenting Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders , 2008, ISER.

[15]  I-Ming Chen,et al.  A Review on the Use of Robots in Education and Young Children , 2016, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[16]  Sang Ryong Kim,et al.  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 , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  Jeonghye Han,et al.  Comparative Study on the Educational Use of Home Robots for Children , 2008, J. Inf. Process. Syst..

[18]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Empathic Robots for Long-term Interaction , 2014, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[19]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Pianos not stereos: creating computational construction kits , 1996, INTR.

[20]  Marta Díaz Boladeras,et al.  Robotics@Montserrat: A case of Learning through robotics community in a primary and secondary school , 2014 .

[21]  Mathijs Lucassen,et al.  Stability and change in the mental health of New Zealand secondary school students 2007–2012: Results from the national adolescent health surveys , 2014, The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry.

[22]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Whose job is it anyway? a study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task , 2004 .

[23]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  Learning with Educational Companion Robots? Toward Attitudes on Education Robots, Predictors of Attitudes, and Application Potentials for Education Robots , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

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