Should we welcome robot teachers?

Abstract

Current uses of robots in classrooms are reviewed and used to characterise four scenarios: (s1) Robot as Classroom Teacher; (s2) Robot as Companion and Peer; (s3) Robot as Care-eliciting Companion; and (s4) Telepresence Robot Teacher. The main ethical concerns associated with robot teachers are identified as: privacy; attachment, deception, and loss of human contact; and control and accountability. These are discussed in terms of the four identified scenarios. It is argued that classroom robots are likely to impact children's' privacy, especially when they masquerade as their friends and companions, when sensors are used to measure children's responses, and when records are kept. Social robots designed to appear as if they understand and care for humans necessarily involve some deception (itself a complex notion), and could increase the risk of reduced human contact. Children could form attachments to robot companions (s2 and s3), or robot teachers (s1) and this could have a deleterious effect on their social development. There are also concerns about the ability, and use of robots to control or make decisions about children's behaviour in the classroom. It is concluded that there are good reasons not to welcome fully fledged robot teachers (s1), and that robot companions (s2 and 3) should be given a cautious welcome at best. The limited circumstances in which robots could be used in the classroom to improve the human condition by offering otherwise unavailable educational experiences are discussed. Keywords Robot teacher Á Robot companion Á Robot ethics Á Attachment Á Deception Á Privacy Á Classroom One looks back with appreciation to the brilliant teachers, but with gratitude to those who touched our human feelings. The curriculum is so much necessary raw material, but warmth is the vital element for the growing plant and for the soul of the child. (Carl Jung 1953)

The development of assistive dementia technology that accounts for the values of those affected by its use

“…This builds on previous and concurrent investigations by other researchers into emotional assistance for people with dementia, particularly evident in the aforementioned area of socially assistive robotics (Begum et al 2015;Sharkey 2014Sharkey , 2016; Aimee van Wynsberghe 2013; A van Wynsberghe 2015). Experiments have been undertaken with various aspects of usability and interfacing, including telepresence where screens display human-like faces (Begum et al 2015), robots that appear human and others that provide audio responses, including ones that appear as pets which talk, such as the Gerijoy avatars for people with dementia, mentioned above.…”

Engineering Cheerful Robots: An Ethical Consideration

“…Nevertheless, technology-driven ethical appraisals are not child-centered, and seldom take into consideration the possibility of detrimental effects on child development or the wider social context (e.g., the home or the school). In contrast, psychology-driven ethical appraisals such as outlined by Amanda and Noel Sharkey [45,46] do highlight issues of emotional attachment, deception of the child, and loss of human contact (see also [33]). Apropos teachers' attitudes to robots in the classroom, research reported in [47] demonstrates the exigency of taking the consideration of ethics beyond design issues and toward engagement with stakeholders' views on how robots may affect their current practices.…”

Service robots, care ethics, and design

“…Although I have doubts about whether a robot can be a moral agent, the appearance of moral agency is enough to warrant ethical evaluation. Furthermore, these robots are being placed into contexts in which they are responsible for children (educational robots and social robots) (Sharkey 2016), our grandparents (Sharkey and Sharkey 2012), and other vulnerable demographics. These contexts are, like healthcare, inherently ethical.…”