PRE2018 4 Group4

Student	Student Number
Anne Aarts	1026630
Rick van Beek	1243355
Bjarne Kraak	1262580
Paul van Dijk	1278347
Pelle Schram	1252089

First meeting (6 may 2019)

Literature search pointed out that acceptance of robots in educational roles is a difficult subject. We chose to focus on educational robots in elementary school or below, as it includes a major part of child upbringing. We will focus on a robot with a more supportive role than an actual replacement. There is high demand for teachers, and robots form a solution to fill this gap between supply and demand. We want to conduct research on the possible functions the robot can fill in the classroom, to subsequently compare them and create an expectation. This expectation can thereafter be compared to a practical example (asking teachers), to subsequently elaborate and conclude the best function. Furthermore, we want to program this function in to an actual robot if possible (i.e. "Nao" robot).

We want to research the possible social functions the robot could fill combined with the ethical questions that arise when doing so, as this is the main problem with acceptance towards robots used for educational purposes in early stages of life.

Problem statement

Develop a robot technology in kindergarten which assists the teacher in education and reliefs work stress, with the quality of education staying the same or improving. Conduct extensive literature research and acquire practical experience to determine the best placement fit for the robot.

Target audience: kindergarten (4-6 years). Children are in one of their primary development stages, robots can have a major influence on them.
Objectives: educational quality stays the same/improves with the use of assistive robots. Elevating stress for the teachers.

With the pracitcal research, we want to ask teachers where they would see the robot fit best, rather than asking whether or not they want a robot in their classroom.

---

Users:

• Children: same quality of education. More equal distribution of attention among the children. More personal attention in general.
• Teacher: relief work stress.
• Parents: acceptance of the robots in the environment of the child. Give away a part of the child’s nursery.
• Government: better quality of education, less money spent if possible.
• Enterprises: want business opportunities.

Approach

The approach of this project will be as following:

1. Literature research to generate mutual understanding of the subject.
2. Create a plan where the robot could fit, a general idea and discuss the several functions of a kindergarten teacher.
3. Subsequently, visit a kindergarten class and experience the environment. Ask the teacher what their perspective is on the best placement of the robot in the class by discussing the previously made plan.
4. Thereafter, discuss and choose the best placement of the robot in the class.
5. Lastly, program the Nao to perform that certain function.

Milestones: know best position for the robot. Robot performs an actual task.
Deliverable: lend “Nao” robot and program a task.

SotA - Literature Study

The scientific articles found are divided in the next topics for easy classification:

• Roles
• Ethics
• Acceptance

Roles
The next articles are classified under the topic roles:

• Feil-Seifer, D., & Matarić, M. J. (2010). Dry your eyes: Examining the roles of robots for childcare applications. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.2.05fei

Summary: There are many valid reasons to be concerned about how childcare robotics could lead to neglect on the part of parents. In summary, as child-care robots move closer to becoming a reality, parents, roboticists, and legislators should remain vigilant about ethical issues, but take care to separate what undesirable human (including parent, marketers, etc.) behavior may be facilitated by robotics technology from what may be caused by robotics, and for that matter any other technology in our daily lives.

• Osada, J., Ohnaka, S., & Sato, M. (2006). The scenario and design process of childcare robot, PaPeRo. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology - ACE '06, . https://doi.org/10.1145/1178823.1178917
• Tanaka, F., Cicourel, A., & Movellan, J. R. (2007). Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(46), 17954–17958. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707769104

Acceptance
The next articles are classified under the topic acceptance:

• Shiomi, M., & Hagita, N. (2015). Social acceptance of a childcare support robot system. 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), . https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2015.7333658

Ethics
The next articles are classified under the topic ethics:

• Ruiz-del-Solar, J. (2010). Additional elements on the use of robots for childcare. Interaction Studies, 11(2), 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.11.2.12rui