Some are objects of study for students to practice programming, others are tools which assist a teacher, some can be learning companions, and others might be autonomous teachers which provide some unit of instruction more or less in its entirely e.
The purpose of this article is to consider what humanoid robots that teach can do for and to learners in the classroom, and hence, propose a code of practice for working with robot teachers. Like most innovations, there may be a good side and a bad side, and care is needed to foster the former and counter the latter. The roles of the human teacher change over time with needs, new tools and teaching aids, but the capabilities and nature of AI promote teaching robots to new levels of relationship with the teacher and the learner.
Instead of an unreflective application of such devices, we feel that there needs to be forethought about how they could and should be used. We begin by describing what humanoid robots in the classroom can and cannot do currently , and describe what people have said about their use.
We then raise some issues which have never arisen with other surrogate teachers, and discuss teachers' roles and identities which would be germane in a world where AI is likely to expand in application and ability. Clearly, as objects of study, and for students to learn about robotics, and to practice programming and control, the presence of a robot can have significant advantages for learning Keane et al.
It is not as objects of study, but the uses they are put to that is the focus of interest here. Engineers have made robots which can move around classrooms, often but not exclusively those of younger children, asking questions, providing information, noting and commenting on answers, and responding to requests. They are able to recognize individual students and maintain a record of those interactions.
Frequently working as classroom assistants, they may make useful contributions to learning. Some robots have been programmed to teach a second language, and have the capacity to do more than a human teacher is generally willing or able to do e. As well as playing games and engaging students in conversation, they can respond to students' commands in the second language Toh et al. There can be more value in this than might at first appear.
In student-teacher interaction, the human teacher generally controls the conversation, and the student responds. With a robot, the student can have a more balanced dialogue and be the instigator of actions, as would be the case in everyday conversation. Some students also suffer from a more or less crippling performance emotion, like anxiety and embarrassment, which sets up an affective barrier to the development of proficiency in speaking a second language Newton, Instead of anxiously interacting with a human teacher, or another student, talking with a robot can be less emotive, and so it provides a potentially useful bridge to conversational proficiency, less anxiety and more positive attitudes to learning Chen and Chang, ; Alemi et al.
In the same way, a robot programmed to be minimally expressive, and to interact indirectly can be a learning companion for a child with an autistic spectrum disorder ASD. Over time, such children's oversensitivity to human interaction may be reduced by slowly adjusting the robot's behavior. The robot's expression and interaction are increased to accustom these children to some human-like behavior, and help them develop socially Robins et al.
Many people feel inhibited when they have to work with others. Some are too timid to express themselves openly. Lubart has demonstrated that avatars can enable anonymous participants to take risks with their thinking, to generate ideas, and solve problems. By interacting through avatars—digital substitutes for themselves—diffidence is significantly reduced. Clearly, where direct human interaction presents problems, and where teachers feel it threatens their authority or dignity, robots can be useful Mubin et al.
A different way of using a robot in the classroom is to have it take the role of student, and the student's role is to teach the robot. Of course, the novelty of learning with something new can be engaging, although this is likely to be temporary unless what is learned is, itself, engaging e.
In the same way, there is evidence that robots can support language development, writing skills, teach sign language, enhance reasoning, and some kinds of problem solving, support self-regulated learning SLR , and foster SLR skills using prompts, help with small group work by answering questions while, at the same time, free the teacher to give more time to other groups and to individuals Pandey and Gelin, Of course, some learning and motivational effects may be due to the current novelty of the robot in the classroom, and it is not entirely certain whether, with familiarity, such benefits will persist Baxter et al.
There are indications that they can decline over time, and that, in some cases as in vocabulary development , similar learning may be achieved using other devices, like tablet computers Vogt et al. Even the social behavior of some classroom robots may, at times, be a distraction which reduces learning van den Berghe, Nevertheless, robot teachers have at least some potential to teach successfully.
Putting aside some current technological limitations in artificial intelligence's ability to recognize speech, and its ability to answer follow-up questions, limitations which are likely to become less in the future Crompton et al. They may do so in ways which achieve the same ends, but this difference creates what Serholt et al. The first one is a matter of privacy. The robot may assess a student's responses, provide feedback, and maintain records, potentially useful for a teacher.
It can also use this information to build and store personal profiles which shape its future interactions. This might make its teaching more effective, but when the data is stored without the student's consent, often a minor, it may breach data protection laws, and has the risk that it will be accessed and misused. In such an event, who is responsible for the breach or, more to the point, for preventing it?
More broadly, who is to blame for any detrimental consequences of a robot's actions Lin et al. If the robot will not have to defend its actions, will the teacher, the school, or the manufacturer be legally liable Asaro, ? Again as a matter of privacy, students can be monitored continuously by a robot, a process which has been used to erode prisoners' resistance, and has come to be known as psychological imprisonment Serholt et al.
A second concern is about the norms and values which shape a robot's program, giving it social and cultural biases. For instance, in China, it is acceptable for a child to hug a teacher as a mark of gratitude, but this would be frowned on where such physical contact is proscribed Kanda et al.
Another concern is that students may spend a lot of time interacting with robot teachers. Children in particular learn much by imitation Bandura, ; as do some robots, e.
This was also noted in the diabetes teaching study mentioned above, where the children encouraged and complimented the robot, mimicked how it spoke, and used its vocabulary. Such children can believe the robot has mental states and feelings, offer it comfort, and tell it secrets Kahn et al. This generates unease about the development of an ability to relate to one another with empathy, sympathy, consideration, discretion, tolerance, and some understanding of the human condition.
Of course, children often play at being something else, so perhaps the robot could teach them how to interact with people. These robots are given appearances that people see as friendly, and human-robot emotional attachments can form, albeit one-way Beran and Ramirez-Serrano, ; Toh et al.
Enfants sauvages , children who grow outside human contact, are known to be deficient in social abilities, and remediation can be difficult, at best Classen, We do not suggest that this extreme will be the outcome of being taught by current classroom robots. Indeed, it may be possible to use robots to support social and emotional skills. For example, Leite et al. Serholt and Barendregt point out that while children do engage socially with robots, interaction may reduce over time, and the child-robot relationship may not be the same as a child-adult or child-child relationship.
Very young children, however, have been found to treat a humanoid robot more as a peer than a toy, but the nature of the relationship is likely to change as the child develops Tanaka et al. Nevertheless, reduced interaction with people could begin to degrade human-human behavior, simply because there is less opportunity for learning its complexity and subtleties, and how to respond when human-human interaction fails.
The risk would be greater if education was automated, particularly for the young, but schooling is unlikely to be entirely automated in the near future, given AI's current limitations. Nevertheless, boundaries of automated teaching will be explored as new applications are envisaged, as when television robots are used to teach children unable to attend school due to illness or remoteness e. Yet another concern stems from the kinds of thinking and habits of mind that robots may promote.
Bakshi et al. People will be left largely with work that is currently beyond the capability of AI. Education needs to respond to this future by preparing its students for it e. Can a robot usefully support the range of purposeful thought expected of students in the classroom? As far as memorization and recall of facts, figures, and procedures are concerned, it seems likely.
Robots are increasingly able to ask questions, recognize correct answers, exercise students' recall, give immediate feedback, and record students' progress in this kind of purposeful thought.
A robot may also expound a topic, present information, direct attention to what matters, and then check for understanding with tasks requiring specific predictions and applications.
But how well a contemporary robot can cope with responses that cannot be pre-determined is unclear, as in creative thinking where its products are potentially infinite.
Similarly, it is questionable whether the robot could adequately assess thinking which involves personal values, beliefs, and goals, as in decision-making Newton, The danger is that what robots can do becomes only what is done, and that is seen as a complete education.
Of course, it could be worse if students learned to leave their thinking entirely to AI. Finally, there is the matter of how the robot teaches. It is what makes teachers devoted to their subject and to teaching, and to teach with passion, not false passion Newton, Can a robot, without deceit, feel or even communicate that devotion? Can it, with honesty and belief, bring students to love learning or a subject and give their lives to it?
And will it be remembered in years to come as the teacher who made a fundamental difference Howard, ? What do people think about robots as teachers? Care is needed here as experience of classroom robots is, as yet, relatively limited, and non-existent in some parts of the world. Some studies have collected views from those without direct experience.
Any expressed willingness to interact with robotic teachers may be due to their novelty, and may decline with familiarity e. At the same time, what classroom robots do also varies. For instance, Fridin and Belokopytov's socially assistive robot in Israel could play educational games with pre-school and elementary school students, and teachers were favorable toward using it although, in this case, they were probably pre-disposed by prior interest; Fridin and Belokopytov, But cultures and educational systems vary around the world so views in one context may not generalize entirely or at all to another.
With that in mind, we begin with some views of the general public. Two pan-European surveys found the general public to be broadly positive about robot applications in general, but with some variation, largely from northern to southern countries, with the former tending to be more favorable than the latter. While four out of ten people were comfortable with using robots in education, more than three out of ten had reservations, and few saw it as a priority.
Younger people, men, and those with more years in full-time education tended to be more favorable TNS Opinion and Social, , A thought-provoking study by Mavridis et al. Interaction with their android robot Ibn Sina, simulating an Islamic philosopher of that name of a thousand years ago provided the opportunity to collect responses from conference delegates from around the world. As far as children's education is concerned, this opens a window into what parents' responses might be.
Those from South-East Asia were more positive about the prospect of robots teaching their children than those from other parts of the world. The Far East is where there is a lot of research on such applications. Nevertheless, there can still be some hesitation about using robots as teachers Lee et al.
Those from Europe and the USA recognized that children might like it but had reservations about their use. This indicates the current climate surrounding the potential adoption of robot teachers. Conde et al. Baxter could be described as being toward the less humanoid end of the spectrum in appearance. Most of the students said that they felt comfortable interacting with robots, and the younger ones in particular thought they could be friends with them.
The effect of direct experience with the robot did tend to lessen concerns about interacting with them, and, as might be expected, the younger children tended to be less critical. Broadbent et al. Their study, in New Zealand, was of a similar age range to that of Conde et al.
It has to be remembered, however, that these robots were intended largely for use as companions in isolated rural schools with small student numbers, with some application in, for example, practicing mathematics or a language. When they are used mainly as teaching assistants, such students say they are willing to talk to them, and be their friends, although few wanted robots to grade their work, monitor their behavior, or replace human teachers Fridin and Belokopytov, Earlier studies in Japan by Kanda et al.
Serholt et al. The groups were generally positive about digital technology although none had direct experience of robot teachers. Regarding matters of privacy, the teachers pointed out that data about students were already stored electronically, but there was some concern about the nature of what would be stored, the risk of unauthorized use or use by state agencies, surveillance, and the lack of control of that data by the students or their parents.
Nevertheless, there was some feeling that this should be set against a background of society's decline in concern for privacy in the digital age. Their concern was that this would not be recognized, and autonomous robots would eventually replace teachers.
As a consequence there would be a dehumanization of children, and they would become over-reliant on robots for their thinking. Some also felt that working with robot assistants would make teachers passive and over-reliant on AI for what happened in the classroom. For these teachers, an acceptable role for the classroom robot was seen as a controlled, instrumental one.
In the UK, Kennedy et al. They point out that teachers' beliefs and attitudes are important as they at least partly determine if and how technology is used. At the same time, we must bear in mind the children's increasing exposure to digital devices in their homes.
Given these views, Johal et al. On balance, these studies indicate that, at this stage, there is a cautious interest in their use as teaching assistants. There could, however, be another side to this in the future: there is also the robot's point of view.
Baxter et al. The first cannot be held responsible for their actions while the second may, in due course, become so. If they do, how will being an informer affect their role? Steinert adds that humans may behave toward robots in various ways, and mentions that children tend to treat robots as they do animals. Children have also been observed to abuse robots when adults are absent see, e.
Few would doubt that human teachers have a right to safety and freedom from bullying in the workplace, but at what point will the robot be allowed such rights?
Aids to teaching and learning are not, of course, new. Textbooks, for instance, are long-standing surrogate teachers which have found wide application around the world, but no-one has concerns that children will behave like a book. Humanoid robots, however, are more active, even pro-active. Unlike the passive textbook, they can respond and adapt to each student, tailoring teaching to particular needs.
There is clear evidence that they have the potential to support learning, as in teaching children about their medical conditions, developing and rehearsing learning, and testing it. They can also take on teaching roles which human teachers may find time-consuming, uncomfortable, inhibiting, or unfeasible. They can even do what a teacher would find difficult by his or her presence, as in teaching an ASD student while slowly accustoming that student to social interaction.
Belpaeme et al. To set against this are concerns about privacy, malfunction, and perpetual surveillance. Matters of privacy and legal responsibility may be eased through legislation, although probably not eliminated. A fail-safe approach to robot manufacture and some form of override control may minimize malfunction effects, and time-out for the robot would give students a break from its all-seeing vigilance.
There may also be concerns about robots which make decisions about what is educationally appropriate for a particular student. AI decisions may not be the same as those of a human teacher who understands a student's motives, values, and goals, and the emotions which drive the student's behaviors, and so can exercise discretion, or tune a decision to allow for these.
There are also concerns about effects on habits of mind a robot may encourage. These robots usually work in extreme geographical conditions, weather, circumstances, etc. Examples of teleoperated robots are the human-controlled submarines used to fix underwater pipe leaks during the BP oil spill or drones used to detect landmines on a battlefield. Augmenting robots either enhance current human capabilities or replace the capabilities a human may have lost. The field of robotics for human augmentation is a field where science fiction could become reality very soon, with bots that have the ability to redefine the definition of humanity by making humans faster and stronger.
Some examples of current augmenting robots are robotic prosthetic limbs or exoskeletons used to lift hefty weights. A software robot is an abundant type of computer program which carries out tasks autonomously, such as a chatbot or a web crawler. However, because software robots only exist on the internet and originate within a computer, they are not considered robots.
In order to be considered a robot, a device must have a physical form, such as a body or a chassis. Independent robots are capable of functioning completely autonomously and independent of human operator control. These typically require more intense programming but allow robots to take the place of humans when undertaking dangerous, mundane or otherwise impossible tasks, from bomb diffusion and deep-sea travel to factory automation.
Independent robots have proven to be the most disruptive to society, eliminating low-wage jobs but presenting new possibilities for growth. Dependent robots are non-autonomous robots that interact with humans to enhance and supplement their already existing actions.
This is a relatively new form of technology and is being constantly expanded into new applications, but one form of dependent robots that has been realized is advanced prosthetics that are controlled by the human mind. A famous example of a dependent robot was created by Johns Hopkins APL in for a patient named Johnny Matheny, a man whose arm was amputated above the elbow.
The MPL is controlled via electromyography, or signals sent from his amputated limb that controls the prosthesis. Over time, Matheny became more efficient in controlling the MPL and the signals sent from his amputated limb became smaller and less variable, leading to more accuracy in its movements and allowing Matheny to perform tasks as delicate as playing the piano.
Robots are built to present solutions to a variety of needs and fulfill several different purposes, and therefore, require a variety of specialized components to complete these tasks.
Generally speaking, robotics components fall into these five categories:. Control systems are programmed to tell a robot how to utilize its specific components, similar in some ways to how the human brain sends signals throughout the body, in order to complete a specific task. These robotic tasks could comprise anything from minimally invasive surgery to assembly line packing. Sensors provide a robot with stimuli in the form of electrical signals that are processed by the controller and allow the robot to interact with the outside world.
Common sensors found within robots include video cameras that function as eyes, photoresistors that react to light and microphones that operate like ears. These sensors allow the robot to capture its surroundings and process the most logical conclusion based on the current moment and allows the controller to relay commands to the additional components.
As previously stated, a device can only be considered to be a robot if it has a movable frame or body. Actuators are the components that are responsible for this movement. These components are made up of motors that receive signals from the control system and move in tandem to carry out the movement necessary to complete the assigned task. Actuators can be made of a variety of materials, such as metal or elastic, and are commonly operated by use of compressed air pneumatic actuators or oil hydraulic actuators, but come in a variety of formats to best fulfill their specialized roles.
Like the human body requires food in order to function, robots require power. Stationary robots, such as those found in a factory, may run on AC power through a wall outlet but more commonly, robots operate via an internal battery.
Most robots utilize lead-acid batteries for their safe qualities and long shelf life while others may utilize the more compact but also more expensive silver-cadmium variety.
Some potential power sources for future robotic development also include pneumatic power from compressed gasses, solar power, hydraulic power, flywheel energy storage organic garbage through anaerobic digestion and nuclear power. End effectors are the physical, typically external components that allow robots to finish carrying out their tasks.
Robots in factories often have interchangeable tools like paint sprayers and drills, surgical robots may be equipped with scalpels and other kinds of robots can be built with gripping claws or even hands for tasks like deliveries, packing, bomb diffusion and much more. Robots have a wide variety of use cases that make them the ideal technology for the future. Soon, we will see robots almost everywhere.
We'll see them in our hospitals, in our hotels and even on our roads. The manufacturing industry is probably the oldest and most well-known user of robots. These robots and co-bots bots that work alongside humans work to efficiently test and assemble products, like cars and industrial equipment.
Shipping, handling and quality control robots are becoming a must-have for most retailers and logistics companies. Because we now expect our packages to arrive at blazing speeds, logistics companies employ robots in warehouses, and even on the road, to help maximize time efficiency.
Right now, there are robots taking your items off the shelves, transporting them across the warehouse floor and packaging them. Robots can be seen all over our homes, helping with chores, reminding us of our schedules and even entertaining our kids.
The most well-known example of home robots is the autonomous vacuum cleaner Roomba. Additionally, robots have now evolved to do everything from autonomously mowing grass to cleaning pools. Is there anything more science fiction-like than autonomous vehicles? These self-driving cars are no longer just imagination.
A combination of data science and robotics, self-driving vehicles are taking the world by storm. Automakers, like Tesla, Ford, Waymo, Volkswagen and BMW are all working on the next wave of travel that will let us sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.
Robots have made enormous strides in the healthcare industry. These mechanical marvels have use in just about every aspect of healthcare, from robot-assisted surgeries to bots that help humans recover from injury in physical therapy.
Recently, robots have been employed by pharmaceutical companies to help speed up the fight against COVID Despite their mechanical nature, people seem to impose racial identities on robots.
To provide meaningful connections, tech needs to figure out a way to differentiate online interactions. Robots are poised to displace millions of humans in various industries. What is Robotics? What are Robots? Robotics Technology. What Is Robotics? What is a Robot? A robot is the product of the robotics field, where programmable machines are built that can assist humans or mimic human actions.
Robots were originally built to handle monotonous tasks like building cars on an assembly line , but have since expanded well beyond their initial uses to perform tasks like fighting fires, cleaning homes and assisting with incredibly intricate surgeries. Each robot has a differing level of autonomy, ranging from human-controlled bots that carry out tasks that a human has full control over to fully-autonomous bots that perform tasks without any external influences.
Top Robotics Companies Hiring Now. These robotics companies have plenty of open jobs available right now. View Companies Hiring. Like all service robots, they provide value by automating tasks in a way that leads to cost-savings and productivity. Humanoid robots are a relatively new form of professional service robot.
The humanoid robots market is poised for signficant growth.
0コメント