Identifying Functions and Behaviours of Social Robots during Learning Activities: Teachers' Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With advances in artificial intelligence, research is increasingly exploring the potential functions that social robots can play in education. As teachers are a critical stakeholder in the use and application of educational technologies, we conducted a study to understand teachers' perspectives on how a social robot could support a variety of learning activities in the classroom. Through interviews, robot puppeteering, and group brainstorming sessions with five elementary and middle school teachers from a local school in Canada, we take a socio-technical perspective to conceptualize possible robot functions and behaviours, and the effects they may have on the current way learning activities are designed, planned, and executed. Overall, the teachers responded positively to the idea of introducing a social robot as a technological tool for learning activities, envisioning differences in usage for teacher-robot and student-robot interactions. Further, Engeström's Activity System Model -- a framework for analyzing human needs, tasks, and outcomes -- illustrated a number of tensions associated with learning activities in the classroom. We discuss the fine-grained robot functions and behaviours conceived by teachers, and how they address the current tensions -- providing suggestions for improving the design of social robots for learning activities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".