Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2020.18.4.037

An Exploratory study on Student-Intelligent Robot Teacher relationship recognized by Middle School Students  

Lee, Sang-Soog (Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Hanyang University)
Kim, Jinhee (Department of Education, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.18, no.4, 2020 , pp. 37-44 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the relationship between Intelligent Robot Reacher(IRT)-student by examining the factors of their relationship perceived by middle school students. In doing so, we developed questionnaires based on the existing teacher-student relationship scale and conducted an online survey of 283 first graders in middle school. The collected date were analyzed using exploratory factor analyses with SPSS 23 and confirmatory factor analysis with Amos 21. The study findings identified four factors of IRT-student relationship namely "trust", "competence", "emotional exchange", and "tolerance". It is expected that the study can be used to discuss ways to enhance educationally significant interaction between students-IRT and teaching methods using intelligent robots(IRs). Also, the study will contribute to the understanding and development of various services using IRs. Based on the study finidngs, future studies should investigate the perception of various education stockholders (teachers, parets, etc) on IRT to elevate the Human-Robot Interaction in the education field.
Keywords
Intelligent robot teachers; Human-Robot Interaction; Human-Artificial Intelligence Interaction; Middle school students' perception; Factors of relationship;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 K. H. Seo. (2004). The perspectives and conceptions about good instructional practice: An interview study of teachers and students. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(4), 165-187.
2 J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, & R. L. Tatham. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River.
3 M. Brown & R. Cudeck. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models, 154, 136.
4 F. J. Martinez‐Lopez, J. C. Gazquez‐Abad, & C. M. Sousa. (2013). Structural equation modelling in marketing and business research. European Journal of Marketing. 47(1/2), 115-152.   DOI
5 J. C. Anderson & D. W. Gerbing. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.   DOI
6 .N. M. Shin & S. A. Kim. (2007). What do robots have to do with student Learning?. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 13(3), 79-99.
7 V. Kwok. (2015). Robot vs. human teacher: Instruction in the digital age for ESL learners. English Language Teaching, 8(7), 157-163.
8 J. H. Park & N. M. Shin (2017). Students' perceptions of Artificial Intelligence Technology and Artificial Intelligence Teachers. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 34(2), 169-192.   DOI
9 C. Mancini. et al, (2010). 'Contravision: exploring users' reactions to futuristic technology, Proceedings of the 28th International conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, USA.
10 Ministry of Education (2019). A plan for internalization of English education in elementary schools.
11 H. M. Yoon & E. J. Hyun. (2012) Young Children's Perception of Intelligent Service Robots and Child-Robot Interactions. Korean Journal of Child Studies 33(1), 237-259   DOI
12 T. Iio, et al. (2019). Improvement of Japanese adults' English speaking skills via experiences speaking to a robot. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(2), 228-245.   DOI
13 J. Solis, M. Bergamasco, K. Chida, S. Isoda, & A. Takanishi. (2004). The Anthropomorphic Flutist Robot WF-4 Teaching Flute Playing to Beginner Students. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA
14 B. I. Edwards & A. D. Cheok (2018). Why not robot teachers: artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32(4), 345-360.   DOI
15 J. Han. (2012). Emerging technologies: Robot assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 1-9
16 S. Song. (2019). A Study of the Task of the Ethics Education of Human Nature in the Relationship between Humans and AI Robotics. Journal of Korean Ethics Studies, 126(1), 91-115.
17 H. Cho, K. Park, J. Han, D. Min, & K. Ko. (2008). Education+Robots: the Vision and the Action Plans. Journal of KIISE, 26(4), 55-64.
18 S. Serholt et al. (2014. 10). Teachers' views on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on, Edinburgh, UK.
19 J.C. Ban, & K. Jin. (2010). Effectiveness of Using Autonomous Intelligent Robots for English Teachers on Students' Achievement and Affective Traits: A Case Study in an Elementary School. Journal of Curriculum Evaluation, 13(2), 389-410.   DOI
20 A. Billard, B. Robins, J. Nadel, & K. Dautenhahn. (2007). Building Robota, a mini-humanoid robot for the rehabilitation of children with autism. Assistive Technology, 19(1), 37-49.   DOI
21 S. Brave, C. Nass, & K. Hutchinson. (2005). Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Humane Computer Studies, 62, 161-178.   DOI
22 B. Reeves & C. Nass. (1996). Media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23 R. E. Ferdig & P. Mishra. (2004). Emotional responses to computers: Experiences in unfairness, anger, and spite. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 143-161.
24 Y. Kim & S. S. Sundar. (2012). Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless? Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 241-250.   DOI
25 C. Edwards, A. Edwards, P. R. Spence, & D. Westerman. (2016). Initial interaction expectations with robots: Testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies, 67(2), 227-238.   DOI
26 P. R. Spence, D. Westerman, C. Edwards, & A. Edwards. (2014). Welcoming our robot overlords: Initial expectations about interaction with a robot. Communication Research Reports, 31, 272-280.   DOI
27 C. Nass & Y. Moon. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.   DOI
28 C. Nass, B. J. Fogg, & Y. Moon. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.   DOI
29 Tyler. L. L. (1964). The conception of an ideal teacher-student relationship. Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 112-117.   DOI
30 Pianta, R. C. (1991). The student-teacher relationship scale. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlettesvill, VA.
31 E. L. Zi, S. G. Baek, S. H. Chae, & H. Seol. (2003). Development and Validation of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Journal of Education Evaluation, 16, 25-42.
32 J. Oh, D. Kim & C. Shin. (2013) A Search for Intimacy Factors on Teacher-Students' Relationships in Middle School Physical Education Classes. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 13(1), 81-102.