Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3623809.3623816acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshaiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Co-Learning around Social Robots with School Pupils and University Students – Focus on Data Privacy Considerations

Published: 04 December 2023 Publication History

Abstract

We adopt a novel approach of co-learning between elementary school pupils and university students around social robots and robotics. Social robots provide a motivational learning tool for various learning tasks. Having different learner groups together may bring in new insights, perspectives and learning. Although social robots provide an interesting platform for learning, they have challenges in terms of data privacy, as they track, process and transfer personal data. These matters should be carefully considered. We describe a qualitative and exploratory study including two phases: 1) design of co-learning activities (N=16), and 2) evaluation of co-learning activities (N=56). All co-learning tasks were developed by utilizing privacy-sensitive robotics approach and the tasks included some learning content about data privacy. The evaluation was conducted as co-learning workshops with school pupils of 10 to 15 years and international university students. We report findings about the co-learning experience of these learner groups, as well as their data privacy learnings on social robots. We also present considerations for educational robotics from the data privacy perspective.

References

[1]
2019. ISO 9241-210:2019(en) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
[2]
2022. Mural. https://www.mural.co/. [Online; accessed 26-September-2022].
[3]
Aino Ahtinen, Nasim Beheshtian, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2023. Robocamp at home: Exploring families’ co-learning with a social robot: Findings from a one-month study in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 331–340.
[4]
Aino Ahtinen and Kirsikka Kaipainen. 2020. Learning and teaching experiences with a persuasive social robot in primary school–findings and implications from a 4-month field study. In Persuasive Technology. Designing for Future Change: 15th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, PERSUASIVE 2020, Aalborg, Denmark, April 20–23, 2020, Proceedings 15. Springer, 73–84.
[5]
Julian M Angel-Fernandez and Markus Vincze. 2018. Introducing storytelling to educational robotic activities. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 608–615.
[6]
Saira Anwar, Nicholas Alexander Bascou, Muhsin Menekse, and Asefeh Kardgar. 2019. A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 9, 2 (2019), 2.
[7]
Nuria Arís and Lara Orcos. 2019. Educational robotics in the stage of secondary education: Empirical study on motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences 9, 2 (2019), 73.
[8]
Daniel J Barrett, Daniel J Barrett, Richard E Silverman, and Richard Silverman. 2001. SSH, the Secure Shell: the definitive guide. " O’Reilly Media, Inc.".
[9]
Nasim Beheshtian, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Kalle Kähkönen, and Aino Ahtinen. 2020. Color game: a collaborative social robotic game for icebreaking; towards the design of robotic ambiences as part of smart building services. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic Mindtrek. 10–19.
[10]
Tony Belpaeme, James Kennedy, Aditi Ramachandran, Brian Scassellati, and Fumihide Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Science robotics 3, 21 (2018), eaat5954.
[11]
Tony Belpaeme, Paul Vogt, Rianne Van den Berghe, Kirsten Bergmann, Tilbe Göksun, Mirjam De Haas, Junko Kanero, James Kennedy, Aylin C Küntay, Ora Oudgenoeg-Paz, 2018. Guidelines for designing social robots as second language tutors. International Journal of Social Robotics 10 (2018), 325–341.
[12]
Marina U Bers. 2007. Project InterActions: A multigenerational robotic learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 16 (2007), 537–552.
[13]
Bengisu Cagiltay, Hui-Ru Ho, Joseph E Michaelis, and Bilge Mutlu. 2020. Investigating family perceptions and design preferences for an in-home robot. In Proceedings of the interaction design and children conference. 229–242.
[14]
Bengisu Cagiltay, Nathan Thomas White, Rabia Ibtasar, Bilge Mutlu, and Joseph Michaelis. 2022. Understanding Factors that Shape Children’s Long Term Engagement with an In-Home Learning Companion Robot. In Interaction Design and Children. 362–373.
[15]
Ann Cavoukian 2009. Privacy by design: The 7 foundational principles. Information and privacy commissioner of Ontario, Canada 5 (2009), 12.
[16]
Cesar Cerrudo and Lucas Apa. 2017. Hacking robots before skynet. IOActive Website (2017), 1–17.
[17]
Anna Chatzimichali, Ross Harrison, and Dimitrios Chrysostomou. 2020. Toward privacy-sensitive human–robot interaction: Privacy terms and human–data interaction in the personal robot era. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 12, 1 (2020), 160–174.
[18]
Wuhui Chen, Yuichi Yaguchi, Keitaro Naruse, Yutaka Watanobe, Keita Nakamura, and Jun Ogawa. 2018. A study of robotic cooperation in cloud robotics: Architecture and challenges. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 36662–36682.
[19]
Aparajita Chowdhury, Aino Ahtinen, and Kirsikka Kaipainen. 2020. "The superhero of the university" experience-driven design and field study of the university guidance robot. (2020), 1–9.
[20]
ChanJin Chung and Elmer Santos. 2018. Robofest carnival—STEM learning through robotics with parents. In 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). IEEE, 8–13.
[21]
Carlos A Cifuentes, Maria J Pinto, Nathalia Céspedes, and Marcela Múnera. 2020. Social robots in therapy and care. Current Robotics Reports 1 (2020), 59–74.
[22]
European Council. [n. d.]. ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY Opinion 4/2007 on the concept of personal data Adopted on 20 th June THE WORKING PARTY ON THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA.
[23]
Julia Dawe, Craig Sutherland, Alex Barco, and Elizabeth Broadbent. 2019. Can social robots help children in healthcare contexts? A scoping review. BMJ paediatrics open 3, 1 (2019).
[24]
Anna Priscilla de Albuquerque Wheler, Judith Kelner, Patrick CK Hung, Bruno de Souza Jeronimo, Railton da Silva Rocha Junior, and Aluizio Fausto Ribeiro Araújo. 2021. Toy user interface design—tools for child–computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30 (2021), 100307.
[25]
Heather Draper and Tom Sorell. 2017. Ethical values and social care robots for older people: an international qualitative study. Ethics and Information Technology 19, 1 (2017), 49–68.
[26]
Johann Eck, Sabine Hirschmugl-Gaisch, Martin Kandlhofer, and Gerald Steinbauer. 2014. A cross-generational robotics project day: Pre-school children, pupils and grandparents learn together. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems 8, 1 (2014), 12–19.
[27]
Susanne Frennert, Håkan Eftring, and Britt Östlund. 2017. Case report: Implications of doing research on socially assistive robots in real homes. International Journal of Social Robotics 9, 3 (2017), 401–415.
[28]
Radhika Garg and Subhasree Sengupta. 2020. Conversational technologies for in-home learning: using co-design to understand children’s and parents’ perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13.
[29]
Alberto Giaretta, Michele De Donno, and Nicola Dragoni. 2018. Adding salt to pepper: A structured security assessment over a humanoid robot. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security. 1–8.
[30]
Tanja Heuer, Ina Schiering, and Reinhard Gerndt. 2019. Privacy-centered design for social robots. Interaction Studies 20, 3 (2019), 509–529.
[31]
Wafa Johal. 2020. Research trends in social robots for learning. Current Robotics Reports 1 (2020), 75–83.
[32]
Sung Eun Jung and Eun-sok Won. 2018. Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children. Sustainability 10, 4 (2018), 905.
[33]
Martin Kandlhofer and Gerald Steinbauer. 2016. Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 75 (2016), 679–685.
[34]
Min Kyung Lee, Karen P Tang, Jodi Forlizzi, and Sara Kiesler. 2011. Understanding users’ perception of privacy in human-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction. 181–182.
[35]
Christoph Lutz, Maren Schöttler, and Christian Pieter Hoffmann. 2019. The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews. Mobile Media & Communication 7, 3 (2019), 412–434.
[36]
Christoph Lutz and Aurelia Tamó-Larrieux. 2020. The robot privacy paradox: Understanding how privacy concerns shape intentions to use social robots. Human-Machine Communication 1 (2020), 87–111.
[37]
Philipp Mayring 2004. Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research 1, 2 (2004), 159–176.
[38]
Stanislava Naneva, Marina Sarda Gou, Thomas L Webb, and Tony J Prescott. 2020. A systematic review of attitudes, anxiety, acceptance, and trust towards social robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 12, 6 (2020), 1179–1201.
[39]
Ugo Pagallo. 2013. Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection?Computer Law & Security Review 29, 5 (2013), 501–508.
[40]
Emily Relkin, Madhu Govind, Jaclyn Tsiang, and Marina Bers. 2020. How parents support children’s informal learning experiences with robots. Journal of Research in STEM Education 6, 1 (2020), 39–51.
[41]
Kynan Robinson and Kristen Swenson. 2022. Reinventing the Classroom: Insight Into a Co-Learning Ecosystem. Childhood Education 98, 2 (2022), 56–61.
[42]
Matthew Rueben, Alexander Mois Aroyo, Christoph Lutz, Johannes Schmölz, Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel, Andrea Corti, Siddharth Agrawal, and William D Smart. 2018. Themes and research directions in privacy-sensitive robotics. In 2018 IEEE workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO). IEEE, 77–84.
[43]
Kimiko Ryokai, Michael Jongseon Lee, and Jonathan Micah Breitbart. 2009. Children’s storytelling and programming with robotic characters. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. 19–28.
[44]
M Schulz. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). https://shorturl.at/qwS69
[45]
Trenton Schulz, Jo Herstad, and Harald Holone. 2018. Privacy at home: an inquiry into sensors and robots for the stay at home elderly. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications in Health, Assistance, and Entertainment: 4th International Conference, ITAP 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15–20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 4. Springer, 377–394.
[46]
Sofia Serholt and Wolmet Barendregt. 2016. Robots tutoring children: Longitudinal evaluation of social engagement in child-robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th nordic conference on human-computer interaction. 1–10.
[47]
Zhi Sun, Zhe Li, and Toshihisa Nishimori. 2017. Development and assessment of robot teaching assistant in facilitating learning. In 2017 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT). IEEE, 165–169.
[48]
Rianne Van den Berghe, Josje Verhagen, Ora Oudgenoeg-Paz, Sanne Van der Ven, and Paul Leseman. 2019. Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research 89, 2 (2019), 259–295.
[49]
Christiane Gresse von Wangenheim, Aldo von Wangenheim, Fernando S Pacheco, Jean CR Hauck, and Miriam Nathalie F Ferreira. 2017. Teaching physical computing in family workshops. ACM Inroads 8, 1 (2017), 48–51.
[50]
Bingcheng Wang and Pei-Luen Patrick Rau. 2019. Influence of embodiment and substrate of social robots on users’ decision-making and attitude. International Journal of Social Robotics 11 (2019), 411–421.
[51]
Timothy Yuen, Melanie Boecking, Jennifer Stone, Erin Price Tiger, Alvaro Gomez, Adrienne Guillen, and Analisa Arreguin. 2014. Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education 15, 1 (2014).

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
HAI '23: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction
December 2023
506 pages
ISBN:9798400708244
DOI:10.1145/3623809
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 December 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Co-learning
  2. Data privacy
  3. Educational robots
  4. Social robots

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

HAI '23

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 121 of 404 submissions, 30%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 249
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)249
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
Reflects downloads up to 13 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media