Attitudes towards Social Robots in Education: Enthusiast, Practical, Troubled, Sceptic, and Mindfully Positive

Abstract

While social robots bring new opportunities for education, they also come with moral challenges. Therefore, there is a need for moral guidelines for the responsible implementation of these robots. When developing such guidelines, it is important to include different stakeholder perspectives. Existing (qualitative) studies regarding these perspectives however mainly focus on single stakeholders. In this exploratory study, we examine and compare the attitudes of multiple stakeholders on the use of social robots in primary education, using a novel questionnaire that covers various aspects of moral issues mentioned in earlier studies. Furthermore, we also group the stakeholders based on similarities in attitudes and examine which socio-demographic characteristics influence these attitude types. Based on the results, we identify five distinct attitude profiles and show that the probability of belonging to a specific profile is affected by such characteristics as stakeholder type, age, education and income. Our results also indicate that social robots have the potential to be implemented in education in a morally responsible way that takes into account the attitudes of various stakeholders, although there are multiple moral issues that need to be addressed first. Finally, we present seven (practical) implications for a responsible application of social robots in education following from our results. These implications provide valuable insights into how social robots should be implemented.

Do Robotic Tutors Compromise the Social-Emotional Development of Children?

“…This might be due to the relatively simple, not highly personalized child robot interaction currently used in schools. In other studies, privacy has been reported to be a major issue related to social robots in education (Sharkey, 2016;Smakman et al, 2021a). Data collection allows personalized interaction, which is one of the key benefits, according to scholars (Kanda et al, 2012;Shimada et al, 2012;Jones et al, 2017;Jones and Castellano, 2018;Woo et al, 2021).…”

“…Although social robots show potential as learning or teaching companions for children, according to a recent literature review (Johal, 2020), other studies on the use of social robots in education have reported that it is too early to conclude that robots are, for instance, effective as language tutors (van den , or more effective than human teachers or other types of technology (Woo et al, 2021). Furthermore, both scholars (Sharkey, 2016;Woo et al, 2021) and stakeholders (Smakman et al, 2021a) have voiced concerns related to social robots potentially harming children's social-emotional development.…”

“…Additionally, researchers have pointed out that the level of experience with robots could influence stakeholders' perspectives (Serholt et al, 2014). People with experience to working with robots are significantly more likely to have a positive attitude towards social robots, compared to people with little to no experience (Smakman et al, 2021a). This makes it hard to evaluate the potential harms and benefits voiced by teachers in earlier studies.…”

Social Robots for (Second) Language Learning in (Migrant) Primary School Children

“…Tolksdorf et al [67] mapped ethical concerns of applying robots in Kindergarten settings and thereby emphasize, among other aspects, the vulnerability of children as a group and the role of stakeholders (i.e., teachers and caregivers). Smakman et al [66] systematically analyzed the moral and ethical considerations of various stakeholder groups that come with the implementation of robot tutors in education. They compared stakeholders' concerns related to the values of friendship and attachment, human contact, privacy, safety, and so on.…”

Physical therapy using robotics: A project-based learning experience for undergraduate students

“…Once the educational role of the robot is decided, it is necessary to consider the moral guidelines for its responsible implementation (Smakman et al, 2021), which should be established according to the social environment and in consideration of people's different perspectives. The ethical evaluation (at least for the present time) should be specific to the robot (its capabilities and appearance) and the practice within which it has been placed (van Wynsberghe, 2016).…”