Learning in Summer Camp with Social Robots: A Morphological Study | International Journal of Social Robotics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Learning in Summer Camp with Social Robots: A Morphological Study

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social robots are gradually being integrated into the educational system. However, in extracurricular settings, such as summer day camps, educational robots are usually incorporated for the purpose of teaching STEM-related material. We study the effects of a novel, easy-to-use and scalable robotic platform on integration of social robots into summer camps. To this end, we compare the ability of two very different robot morphologies, namely, the novel, noncommercial, 3D-printed, puppet-like and low-cost Patricc and the commonly used humanoid, hard-exterior, high-cost and sophisticated Nao, to deliver word morphology-related activities to groups of up to 9 children over the span of a three-week session of a summer day camp. We present both quantitative results and qualitative insights into the integration process. Our results show that the children’s impressive learning outcomes were not affected by which robotic platform they interacted with. This suggests that educational summer-camp activities for young children with social robots can be effective, regardless of the morphology of the robot.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AlHumoud S, Al-Khalifa H.S, Al-Razgan M, Alfaries A (2014) Using app inventor and lego mindstorm nxt in a summer camp to attract high school girls to computing fields. In: 2014 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON). IEEE, pp 173–177

  2. Ali S, Moroso T, Breazeal C (2019) Can children learn creativity from a social robot? In: Proceedings of the 2019 on creativity and cognition, C&C ’19. ACM, New York, NY, USA Event-place: San Diego. CA, USA, pp 359–368

  3. Baruah P, Boruah BB (2016) Positive peer pressure and behavioral support. Indian J Posit Psychol Hisar 7(2):241–243

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belpaeme T, Baxter PE, Read R, Wood R, Cuayahuitl H, Kiefer B, Racioppa S, Kruijff-Korbayova I, Athanasopoulos G, Enescu V et al (2012) Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds. J Hum Robot Interact 1(2):33–53

    Google Scholar 

  5. Belpaeme T, Kennedy J, Baxter P, Vogt P, Krahmer E.E, Kopp S, Bergmann K, Leseman P, Kuntay A.C, Goksun T (2015) L2TOR-second language tutoring using social robots. In: Proceedings of the ICSR 2015 WONDER workshop

  6. Belpaeme T, Kennedy J, Ramachandran A, Scassellati B, Tanaka F (2018) Social robots for education: a review. Sci Robot 3(21):eaat5954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Belpaeme T, Vogt P, Van den Berghe R, Bergmann K, Goksun T, De Haas M, Kanero J, Kennedy J, Kuntay AC, Oudgenoeg-Paz O (2018) Guidelines for designing social robots as second language tutors. Int J Soc Robot 10(3):325–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Benitti FBV (2011) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berman RA, Bolozky S (1978) Modern Hebrew structure. University Pub, Projects

  10. Breazeal C (2017) Social robots: from research to commercialization. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’17. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020258. Event-place: Vienna, Austria

  11. Breazeal C, Harris P.L, DeSteno D, Westlund K, Jacqueline M, Dickens L, Jeong S (2016) Young children treat robots as informants. Topics in cognitive science

  12. Breazeal CL (2004) Designing sociable robots. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Carlisle JF, Nomanbhoy DM (1993) Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Appl Psycholinguist 14(2):177–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng YW, Sun PC, Chen NS (2018) The essential applications of educational robot: requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Comput Educ 126:399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. de Wit J, Schodde T, Willemsen B, Bergmann K, de Haas M, Kopp S, Krahmer E, Vogt P (2018) The effect of a robot’s gestures and adaptive tutoring on children’s acquisition of second language vocabularies. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 50–58

  16. Gordon G, Breazeal C (2015) Bayesian active learning-based robot tutor for children’s word-reading skills. In: Twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

  17. Gordon G, Breazeal C, Engel S (2015) Can children catch curiosity from a social robot? In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’15 ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696469

  18. Gvirsman O, Koren Y, Norman T, Gordon G (2020) Patricc: A platform for triadic interaction with changeable characters. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, HRI ’20. Association for Computing Machinery, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374792

  19. Hegel F, Lohse M, Wrede B (2009) Effects of visual appearance on the attribution of applications in social robotics. In: RO-MAN 2009-the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2009.5326340

  20. Hein M, Nathan-Roberts D (2018) Socially interactive robots can teach young students language skills; a systematic review. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet 62(1):1083–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hoffman G, Ju W (2014) Designing robots with movement in mind. J Hum Robot Interact 3(1):91–122. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Hoffman

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kaboski JR, Diehl JJ, Beriont J, Crowell CR, Villano M, Wier K, Tang K (2015) Brief report: a pilot summer robotics camp to reduce social anxiety and improve social/vocational skills in adolescents with ASD. J Autism Dev Disord 45(12):3862–3869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2153-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karp T, Gale R, Lowe LA, Medina V, Beutlich E (2009) Generation NXT: building young engineers with LEGOs. IEEE Trans Educ 53(1):80–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kennedy J, Baxter P, Belpaeme T (2014) Children comply with a robot’s indirect requests. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 198–199

  25. Kory J, Breazeal C (2014) Storytelling with robots: learning companions for preschool children’s language development. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 643–648. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926325

  26. Kory-Westlund JM, Breazeal C (2019) A long-term study of young children’s rapport, social emulation, and language learning with a peer-like robot playmate in preschool. Frontiers Robot AI. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kumar Y, Singh N (2019) A comprehensive view of automatic speech recognition system—a systematic literature review. In: 2019 international conference on automation, computational and technology management (ICACTM), pp 168–173 . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACTM.2019.8776714

  28. Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM (2018) Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1(2):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee B, Xu J, Howard A (2017) Does appearance matter? Validating engagement in therapy protocols with socially interactive humanoid robots. In: 2017 IEEE symposium series on computational intelligence (SSCI), pp 1–6 . https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2017.8285303

  30. Leite I, McCoy M, Lohani M, Ullman D, Salomons N, Stokes C, Rivers S, Scassellati B (2015) Emotional storytelling in the classroom: individual versus group interaction between children and robots. In: Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction, HRI ’15, pp 75–82. ACM, New York, NY, USA . https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696481. Event-place: Portland, Oregon, USA

  31. Michaelis J.E, Mutlu B (2017) Someone to read with: design of and experiences with an in-home learning companion robot for reading. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’17, pp 301–312. ACM, New York, NY, USA . https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025499. Event-place: Denver, Colorado, USA

  32. Mitnik R, Recabarren M, Nussbaum M, Soto A (2009) Collaborative robotic instruction: a graph teaching experience. Comput Educ 53(2):330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Moore D, Tennent H, Martelaro N, Ju W (2017) Making noise intentional: a study of servo sound perception. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction, pp 12–21. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020238

  34. Mubin O, Stevens CJ, Shahid S, Mahmud AA, Dong JJ (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. J Technol Educ Learn 1(209–0015):13. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nugent G, Barker B, Grandgenett N, Welch G (2016) Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: results from a US robotics project. Robot Auton Syst 75:686–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Okita SY, Ng-Thow-Hing V, Sarvadevabhatla R (2009) Learning together: ASIMO developing an interactive learning partnership with children. In: RO-MAN 2009—the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 1125–1130

  37. Pot E, Monceaux J, Gelin R, Maisonnier B (2009) Choregraphe: a graphical tool for humanoid robot programming. In: RO-MAN 2009—the 18th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, pp 46–51

  38. Quertemont E (2011) How to statistically show the absence of an effect. Psychol Belg 51(2):109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ravid D, Schiff R (2006) Roots and patterns in Hebrew language development: evidence from written morphological analogies. Read Writ 19(8):789–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ravid DD (1995) Language change in child and adult Hebrew: a psycholinguistic perspective. Oxford University Press on Demand, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rosenberg-Kima R, Koren Y, Yachini M, Gordon G (2019) Human–robot-collaboration (HRC): social robots as teaching assistants for training activities in small groups. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 522–523 . https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673103

  42. Rusticus SA, Lovato CY (2011) Applying tests of equivalence for multiple group comparisons: demonstration of the confidence interval approach. Pract Assess Res Eval 16(1):7 ISBN: 1531-7714

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sadde RTASS, Klein S (2019) What’s wrong with Hebrew NLP? And how to make it right. EMNLP-IJCNLP 2019, p 259

  44. Scassellati B, Boccanfuso L, Huang CM, Mademtzi M, Qin M, Salomons N, Ventola P, Shic F (2018) Improving social skills in children with ASD using a long-term, in-home social robot. Sci Robot 3(21):eaat7544. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat7544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Setapen A, Breazeal C.: DragonBot (2012) a platform for longitudinal cloud-HRI. In: Human–robot interaction

  46. Shamsuddin S, Ismail L.I, Yussof,H, Zahari N.I, Bahari S, Hashim H, Jaffar A (2011) Humanoid robot NAO: review of control and motion exploration. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on control system, computing and engineering. IEEE, pp 511–516

  47. Shiomi M, Kanda T, Howley I, Hayashi K, Hagita N (2015) Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? Int J Soc Robot 7(5):641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0303-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Short E, Swift-Spong, K, Greczek J, Ramachandran A, Litoiu A, Grigore EC, Feil-Seifer D, Shuster S, Lee JJ, Huang S, Levonisova S, Litz S, Li J, Ragusa G, Spruijt-Metz D, Mataric M, Scassellati B (2014) How to train your DragonBot: socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. In: The 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Edinburgh, UK, pp 924–929. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2014.6926371

  49. Sisman B, Gunay D, Kucuk S (2019) Development and validation of an educational robot attitude scale (ERAS) for secondary school students. Interact Learn Environ 27(3):377–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Strohkorb S, Leite I, Warren N, Scassellati B (2015) Classification of children’s social dominance in group interactions with robots. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on international conference on multimodal interaction, ICMI ’15. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818346.2820735

  51. Taha H, Saiegh-Haddad E (2016) The role of phonological versus morphological skills in the development of Arabic spelling: an intervention study. J Psycholinguist Res 45(3):507–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tillinghast RC, Petersen EA, Mansouri M (2018) Comparing effectiveness of STEM outreach venues utilizing engineering challenges. In: 2018 IEEE integrated STEM education conference (ISEC), pp 57–64 . https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2018.8340505

  53. Tubitak M.A, Yalvac B, Ugurdag F, Sahin A (2013) A robotics summer camp for high school students: pipelines activities promoting careers in engineering fields. American Society for Engineering Education

  54. Vaknin-Nusbaum V, Sarid M, Raveh M, Nevo E (2016) The contribution of morphological awareness to reading comprehension in early stages of reading. Read Writ 29(9):1915–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Vogt P, van den Berghe R, de Haas M, Hoffman L, Kanero J, Mamus E, Montanier JM, Oranç C, Oudgenoeg-Paz O, García DH, Papadopoulos F, Schodde T, Verhagen J, Wallbridgell CD, Willemsen B, de Wit J, Belpaeme T, Göksun T, Kopp S, Krahmer E, Köntay AC, Leseman P, Pandey AK (2019) Second language tutoring using social robots: a large-scale study. In: 2019 14th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI), pp 497–505 . https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673077. ISSN: 2167-2148, 2167-2121

  56. Vrochidou E, Najoua A, Lytridis C, Salonidis M, Ferelis V, Papakostas GA (2018) Social robot NAO as a self-regulating didactic mediator: a case study of teaching/learning numeracy. In: 2018 26th international conference on software, telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), pp 1–5 . https://doi.org/10.23919/SOFTCOM.2018.8555764

  57. Westlund JK, Lee JJ, Plummer L, Faridi F, Gray, J, Berlin M, Quintus-Bosz H, Hartmann R, Hess M, Dyer, S et al (2016) Tega: a social robot. In: 2016 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 561–561

  58. Wolfe E, Weinberg J, Hupp S (2018) Deploying a social robot to co-teach social emotional learning in the early childhood classroom. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 13th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction

  59. Xia L, Zhong B (2018) A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Comput Educ 127:267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Yu C, Suanda SH, Smith LB (2018) Infant sustained attention but not joint attention to objects at 9 months predicts vocabulary at 12 and 15 months. Dev Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12735

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, US

    Leigh Levinson

  2. Curiosity Lab, Department of Industrial Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Omer Gvirsman & Goren Gordon

  3. Department of Hebrew language and Semitic languages, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Iris Melamed Gorodesky, Almogit Perez & Einat Gonen

Authors
  1. Leigh Levinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omer Gvirsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iris Melamed Gorodesky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Almogit Perez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Einat Gonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Goren Gordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Goren Gordon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

G. Gordon is a co-founder of Curiosity Robotics Ltd. and is on the advisory board of Intuition Robotics Ltd. O. Gvirsman is a co-founder of Curiosity Robotics Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levinson, L., Gvirsman, O., Gorodesky, I.M. et al. Learning in Summer Camp with Social Robots: A Morphological Study. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 999–1012 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00689-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00689-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation