Social Robots for (Second) Language Learning in (Migrant) Primary School Children

Social robots in a translanguaging pedagogy: A review to identify opportunities for robot-assisted (language) learning

This mini review discusses the use of social robots in a translanguaging pedagogy: the use of robots to enable students to use their full linguistic repertoire within schools, so any language that they speak at home or in another aspect of their lives. Current research on robot-assisted second-language learning is reviewed with the aim of finding out whether students’ languages have been employed strategically to support learning of another language. A total of 83 articles has been analyzed on the use of first and second languages in student-robot interactions. Most interactions were either exclusively in the second language, or exclusively in the first language, with only target words in the second language. Few studies strategically mixed the two languages to bootstrap learning, and only one study used the first language of students with migrant backgrounds to learn the second language. The review concludes with recommendations for future use of social robots in a translanguaging pedagogy.

Social/dialogical roles of social robots in supporting children’s learning of language and literacy—A review and analysis of innovative roles

One of the many purposes for which social robots are designed is education, and there have been many attempts to systematize their potential in this field. What these attempts have in common is the recognition that learning can be supported in a variety of ways because a learner can be engaged in different activities that foster learning. Up to now, three roles have been proposed when designing these activities for robots: as a teacher or tutor, a learning peer, or a novice. Current research proposes that deciding in favor of one role over another depends on the content or preferred pedagogical form. However, the design of activities changes not only the content of learning, but also the nature of a human–robot social relationship. This is particularly important in language acquisition, which has been recognized as a social endeavor. The following review aims to specify the differences in human–robot social relationships when children learn language through interacting with a social robot. After proposing categories for comparing these different relationships, we review established and more specific, innovative roles that a robot can play in language-learning scenarios. This follows Mead’s (1946) theoretical approach proposing that social roles are performed in interactive acts. These acts are crucial for learning, because not only can they shape the social environment of learning but also engage the learner to different degrees. We specify the degree of engagement by referring to Chi’s (2009) progression of learning activities that range from active, constructive, toward interactive with the latter fostering deeper learning. Taken together, this approach enables us to compare and evaluate different human–robot social relationships that arise when applying a robot in a particular social role.

A Trustworthy Robot Buddy for Primary School Children

Social robots hold potential for supporting children’s well-being in classrooms. However, it is unclear which robot features add to a trustworthy relationship between a child and a robot and whether social robots are just as able to reduce stress as traditional interventions, such as listening to classical music. We set up two experiments wherein children interacted with a robot in a real-life school environment. Our main results show that regardless of the robotic features tested (intonation, male/female voice, and humor) most children tend to trust a robot during their first interaction. Adding humor to the robots’ dialogue seems to have a negative impact on children’s trust, especially for girls and children without prior experience with robots. In comparing a classical music session with a social robot interaction, we found no significant differences. Both interventions were able to lower the stress levels of children, however, not significantly. Our results show the potential for robots to build trustworthy interactions with children and to lower children’s stress levels. Considering these results, we believe that social robots provide a new tool for children to make their feelings explicit, thereby enabling children to share negative experiences (such as bullying) which would otherwise stay unnoticed.

Do Robotic Tutors Compromise the Social-Emotional Development of Children?

Social robots are reported to hold great potential for education. However, both scholars and key stakeholders worry about children’s social-emotional development being compromised. In aiming to provide new insights into the impact that social robots can have on the social-emotional development of children, the current study interviewed teachers who use social robots in their day-to-day educational practice. The results of our interviews with these experienced teachers indicate that the social robots currently used in education pose little threat to the social-emotional development of children. Children with special needs seem to be more sensitive to social-affective bonding with a robot compared to regular children. This bond seems to have positive effects in enabling them to more easily connect with their human peers and teachers. However, when robots are being introduced more regularly, daily, without the involvement of a human teacher, new issues could arise. For now, given the current state of technology and the way social robots are being applied, other (ethical) issues seem to be more urgent, such as privacy, security and the workload of teachers. Future studies should focus on these issues first, to ensure a safe and effective educational environment for both children and teachers.

When Preschoolers Interact with an Educational Robot, Does Robot Feedback Influence Engagement?

In this paper, we examine to what degree children of 3–4 years old engage with a task and with a social robot during a second-language tutoring lesson. We specifically investigated whether children’s task engagement and robot engagement were influenced by three different feedback types by the robot: adult-like feedback, peer-like feedback and no feedback. Additionally, we investigated the relation between children’s eye gaze fixations and their task engagement and robot engagement. Fifty-eight Dutch children participated in an English counting task with a social robot and physical blocks. We found that, overall, children in the three conditions showed similar task engagement and robot engagement; however, within each condition, they showed large individual differences. Additionally, regression analyses revealed that there is a relation between children’s eye-gaze direction and engagement. Our findings showed that although eye gaze plays a significant role in measuring engagement and can be used to model children’s task engagement and robot engagement, it does not account for the full concept and engagement still comprises more than just eye gaze.