PRE2018 4 Group4

From Control Systems Technology Group
Revision as of 16:08, 11 May 2019 by S161694 (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Student Student Number
Anne Aarts 1026630
Rick van Beek 1243355
Bjarne Kraak 1262580
Paul van Dijk 1278347
Pelle Schram 1252089


Planning

Week Datum start ToDo/Milestones Taakverdeling
1 29 April Werkplan, Literatuuronderzoek, Nao robot regelen. Nao robot regelen: Anne, Literatuur onderzoek: iedereen, wikipedia inrichten: Pelle
2 6 May Literatuur onderzoek bespreken en bedenken op welke plek de robot op zijn plaats zou zijn. Scholen benaderen. Enquête maken: Paul, scholen benaderen: Rick
3 13 May Drie scholen bezoeken. Iedereen
4 20 May Praktijkonderzoek bespreken, taken kiezen die uit het onderzoek zijn gekomen. Iedereen
5 27 May Taak uitwerken. Iedereen
6 3 June Robot programmeren. Programmeren: Rick en Bjarne
7 10 June Robot programmeren en testen in praktijk. Iedereen
8 17 June 20 June presentatie, wiki afronden. Iedereen


Problem statement

In the Netherlands, one out of five teachers experiences symptoms of burnout (CBS, 2015). Also, a report of the NFER shows that in England job-related stress is higher among teachers than other professionals (NFER, 2019). The high amount of burnout cases among teachers is, among others, caused by the high workload and due to the high degree of emotional involvement. Nursery teachers told that robots could help them decreasing the workload in two ways: taking over a part of the paper work; and entertain the toddler for a moment (Shiomi; Hagita, 2015). In this paper, we will research the second term: entertaining the children. The focus will be on a robot with a more supportive role than an actual replacement, as actual replacement can have many harmful effects (Feil-Seifer; Matarić, 2010). Thus, this paper focuses on in which way a robot (misschien hier NaO van maken, en zeggen waarom je NaO kiest) can support teachers by entertaining the children, such that that the workload of the teacher is decreased while the education level is not changed.

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.


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.

Orientational Literature Study

To earn some insights on the topic of robots in childcare, a broad literature study has been performed. The problem statement as formulated in the introduction is based on the literature found. A small summary of every article is provided. The scientific articles found are divided in the next topics for easy classification:

  • Teachers and burnouts
  • Roles
  • Acceptance
  • Ethics
  • Areas

Teachers and burnouts
The next articles are classified under the topic 'Teachers and burnouts':

Summary:

Summary: Study comparing teachers of regular schools and specialized schools with regard to, among others, stress and burnout. Specialized teachers are less emotionally exhausted, as they have adjustment due to their training, experience, and tailored classroom conditions.

  • Adrijana Višnjić Jevtić & Antonija Halavuk (2018) Early childhood teachers burn-out syndrome – perception of Croatian teachers, Early Years, DOI: 10.1080/09575146.2018.1482260

Summary:

Summary:

Roles
The next articles are classified under the topic roles:

  • The scenario and design process of childcare robot, PaPeRo. (Osada, Ohnaka & Sato, 2006)

Summary: Eight applications for the use of robots in childcare were looked into, concerning the development of personal robots: conversation, face recognition, touch, roll-call, quiz-master, phoning, greetings and story teller. After testing in the field, the most important conclusion was that giving a robot a personality made it more interesting for toddlers.

  • Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. (Tanaka, Cicourel & Movellan, 2007)

Summary: This paper tried to find out whether real bonding between robots and toddlers was possible, as it was not really shown in the past. By immersing a SotA robot in in a nursery school, it was found that contact between the toddlers and the robot improved over time and they begun to more and more treat it as a human being. In this research, the robot was not operating autonomous but it is concluded that the technology available should be able to autonomous bond and socialize with human toddlers for a significant period of time.

  • Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I.-M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A Review on the Use of Robots in Education and Young Children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148-163. https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/handle/10220/42422

Summary: The robot's influence on children's skills development could be grouped into four major categories: cognitive, conceptual, language and social skills.

  • Should we welcome robot teachers? (Sharkey, 2016)

Summary: This article investigates robots in classrooms in four different scenario’s: a robot teacher, a robot companion/peer, a care-elicting robot and a telepresence robot. Multiple ethical issues are identified: the privacy of students, the loss of human contact, the deception of students and the question of accountability. The writer concludes that human teachers should not be replaced by robot teachers, and robots’ primary use in classrooms should be for tasks that a human teacher can’t do. In tasks the teacher normally does, the human will outperform the robot.

Acceptance
The next articles are classified under the topic acceptance:

  • Social acceptance of a childcare support robot system. (Shiomi, & Hagita, 2015)

Summary: This journal article looks into the social acceptance of robot technologies in childcare in comparison to two present childcare technologies, like baby food. Therefore, a web-based survey as well as a field test was performed. Confirming their hypothesis, the social acceptance of childcare robot system was less than of the known childcare support technologies. However, when tested in the field, the social acceptance was higher than following the web-based survey. To investigate acceptance, three points of view were used: safety and trustworthy, diligence, and decreasing workload. For designing a childcare support system, they interviewed teachers at nursery schools. They found out that there were two options where a robot could help: 1. robot system that helps with paperwork; and 2. robot system that entertains children.

Summary: SAR has great potential in teaching realm. The successful adaptation and integration of SAR in preschool and elementary school classrooms depends on the teachers’ acceptance of it.

Summary: This study looks into the first time acceptance (SAR) of primary and school teachers.

  • Serholt, S. (2018). Breakdowns in children's interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study

Summary: There are some problems faced in reality with a robotic tutor four of them stood out these were (1) the robot's inability to evoke initial engagement and identify misunderstandings, (2) confusing scaffolding, (3) lack of consistency and fairness, and finally, (4) controller problems.

  • Kulviwat, S. , Bruner II, G. C., Kumar, A. , Nasco, S. A. and Clark, T. (2007), Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology & Marketing, 24: 1059-1084. doi:10.1002/mar.20196

Summary: findings suggest that substantial improvement in the prediction of technology adoption decisions is possible by use of the CAT model with its integration of affect and cognition.


Ethics
The next articles are classified under the topic ethics:

  • Additional elements on the use of robots for childcare. (Ruiz-del-Solar, 2010)

Summary: In other articles, issues like privacy, deception and psychological damage are raised concerning robots for childcare. This article contributes to that discussion. Following this article, four things should be looked in to: 1. Regulate robot usages such at with toys or some sport installations. Including informative messages could help. 2. Change the analysis based on the age of the group. Beneath 5 years, it is shown that using robots can be harmful, above, it isn't. 3. Use data stored by robots in ethical way and destroy it in the cases where the parents don't are the owner. Storing (and destroying) the data should be law enforced. 4. Receiving no care, which happens when children are left alone, is way worse than receiving robot care. Robots could be a solution to the problems that arise from being home alone often.

  • Dry your eyes: Examining the roles of robots for childcare applications. (Feil-Seifer & Matarić, 2010)

Summary: Sharkey & Sharkey (2010) rose ethical questions about using robots for childcare. The argument for this was that the use of robots could lead to social neglect of the child. For this scenario to happen, the parents and children should be convinced that the robot is more capable than it actually is. It is shown that even children see the limitations of robots in an early stage. Thus, robots may facilitate some issues, they are not specific to robots as humans are very well capable of detecting the flaws. Detecting them not is just bad parenting. The argument is based on the assumption that robots will replace human interaction. However, it is shown that robot technologies can also improve human-human interaction by supplementing it.

  • Robot Lies in Health Care: When Is Deception Morally Permissible? (Matthias, 2015)

Summary: This article deals with the ethical problem of social robots being deceptive towards humans. It concludes with four requirements that would make deception morally permissible.


Areas
The next articles are classified under the topic areas:

  • Keren, G., & Ben-David, A., & Fridin, M. (2012). Kindergarten assistive robotics (KAR) as a tool for spatial cognition development in pre-school education. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6385645

Summary: Kindergarten Assistive Robotics (KAR) is an innovative tool that promotes children's development through social interaction. Humanoid assistive technology can be applied in a kindergarten to assist the educational staff in educational tasks. The procedure presented promotes children’s geometrical thinking and spatial cognition.

Summary: NAO facilitates kindergarten educational process by utilizing a Humanoid robot called NAO. NAO robot will be programmed to support fun learning through providing many activities and games.

Summary: In most of the studies incorporating robotic systems in the educational process (Benitti, 2012), robots have been used as platforms for the teaching of subjects closely related to the robotics field. In contrast, the KindSAR system, using social interaction as a basis, serves to actively assist teachers in a preschool educational setting. Once accepted by the children, and under the vigilance of the teacher, the KindSAR robot has the potential to become an important instrument in promoting children’s cognitive and social development, and in improving routine educational work in kindergarten settings.

Summary: In most of the studies that incorporate robotic systems in the educational process (Benitti, 2011), robots have been used as platforms for the teaching of subjects closely related to the robotics field. In contrast, the KindSAR system, using social interaction as a basis, serves to actively assist teachers in a preschool educational setting.

  • Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review (Benitti, 2012)

Summary: This article contains a systematic review of literature on performance of (mostly) educational robots in classrooms. It concludes that robots often have a positive impact on students’ learning of new concepts, especially in the STEM area. It also notes that the research on educational robot effectiveness is still quite limited.

Technology

  • Autonomous spherical mobile robot for child-development studies. (Michaud et al., 2005)

Summary: This article concerns the design of a robot aimed at children aged 12-24 months. It gives insight into factors that are important when designing a robot for young children: for example it should be robust and easy to understand. Another factor is showing intentionality. Children will be more engaged with objects when the objects seem to have a will, e.g. they can move independently.

  • Child’s Perception of Robot’s Emotions: Effects of Platform, Context and Experience (Cohen, Looije & Neerincx, 2014)

Summary: Two robots are compared: the NAO which cannot change its facial features but has a movable body and the iCat, which can change its facial features but does not have a body. The conclusion is that children correctly recognized emotions in both robots at a high rate. Therefore facial features are not required for robots to express emotions.

Possibilities of entertaining children

Five possibilities of entertaining toddler with the NAO robot are elaborated below:

  • Pelle
  • Anne
  • Paul
  • Rick
  • Touch (Bjarne)

It has been proven that touch can be very important for the development of children. For example, more touch contributed to a faster growth of newborns (Rausch, 1981). Therefore, touching robots can also be beneficial for toddlers. A study suggested that touching and viewing the robots was just as effective in improving the relationship towards the robot (Vickers, Ohlsson, Lacy & Horsley, 2004). In the same paper, a test or game was made using the NaO robot. This game could be further elaborated on and used for toddlers as well. In this way, touch could be used to get the attention of toddlers.

Interviewing nursery school teachers

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://dsdwiki.wtb.tue.nl/index.php?title=PRE2018_4_Group4&oldid=74859"