A Child-Robot Musical Theater Afterschool Program for Promoting STEAM Education: A Case Study and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancements of machine learning and AI technologies, robots have been more widely used in our everyday life and they have also been used in education. The present study introduces a 12-week child-robot theater afterschool program designed to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education with art elements (STEAM) for elementary students using social robots. Four modules were designed to introduce robot mechanisms as well as arts: Acting (anthropomorphism), Dance (robot movements), Music and Sounds (music composition), and Drawing (robot art). These modules provided children with basic knowledge about robotics and STEM and guided children to create a live robot theater play. A total of 16 students participated in the program, and 11 of them were involved in completing questionnaires and interviews regarding their perceptions towards robots, STEAM, and the afterschool program. Four afterschool program teachers participated in interviews, reflecting their perceptions of the program and observations of children’s experiences during the program. Our findings suggest that the present program effectively maintained children’s engagement and improved their interest in STEAM by connecting social robots and theater production. We conclude with design guidelines and recommendations for future research and programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".