The Effect of Embodiment in Sign Language Tutoring with Assistive Humanoid Robots

Köse, Hatice; Uluer, Pınar; Akalın, Neziha; Yorganci, Rabia; Ozkul, Ahmet Semih; İnce, Gökhan

doi:10.1007/s12369-015-0311-1

Cited by 74 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Six‐ to 16‐year‐old typically developing children and children with hearing impairments, as well as adults, understood and remembered TSL words generated by the robot and accurately matched the robot's sign gesture with the corresponding image. In another study by the same research group, 7‐ to 11‐year‐olds with beginner‐level TSL skills learned more words when they interacted physically with the robot than when they watched the robot on a screen; 9‐ to 16‐year‐olds with advanced TSL skills learned equally well in both situations . The physical embodiment of robots may have different effects, depending on learners’ language proficiency.…”

Section: Learning Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Robots for Early Language Learning: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Kanero

Geçkin

Oranç

et al. 2018

Child Dev Perspectives

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-In this article, we review research on childrobot interaction (CRI) to discuss how social robots can be used to scaffold language learning in young children. First we provide reasons why robots can be useful for teaching first and second languages to children. Then we review studies on CRI that used robots to help children learn vocabulary and produce language. The studies vary in first and second languages and demographics of the learners (typically developing children and children with hearing and communication impairments). We conclude that, although social robots are useful for teaching language to children, evidence suggests that robots are not as effective as human teachers. However, this conclusion is not definitive because robots that tutor students in language have not been evaluated rigorously and technology is advancing rapidly. We suggest that CRI offers an opportunity for research and list possible directions for that work. KEYWORDS-child-robotinteraction; social robots; language learning Using technology in early education has gained considerable attention as digital devices (e.g., smartphones and tablets) have developed and been integrated into children's lives (1). In this article, we spotlight one of the newest additions to the list of devices-social robots-and discuss whether research on child-robot interaction (CRI) can help children learn first and second languages.A social robot is "an autonomous or semiautonomous robot that interacts and communicates with humans by following the behavioral norms expected by the people with whom the robot is intended to interact" (2, p. 592). Social robots have been used to teach scientific knowledge, mathematics, social skills, computer programming, and language (3, 4). However, research on CRI has not been readily accessible to all those interested because the studies appear primarily in conference proceedings and journals dedicated to the field of robotics. Furthermore, these studies often focus on technical features of robots rather than educational concerns, such as whether and how robots can help young language learners.In this article, we summarize findings on CRI and evaluate them critically. First we discuss briefly why a robot may be useful for teaching language to children. Then we evaluate whether children enjoy learning language with a robot. In the main section of the article, we ask whether children can learn language from a robot. We analyze learning outcomes at three levels: whether robots are at all successful teaching language to children, whether they are more successful teaching language than other digital devices, and whether robots can teach language as effectively as human teachers. Although social robots have potential as a language teaching tool, evidence suggests that robots are not as effective as human teachers. However, we argue that researchers must continue exploring this issue because the educational benefits of robots have not been evaluated thoroughly and technology in robotics is advancing quickly. In the last sec...

show abstract

Section: Learning Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…To our knowledge, no study has found robots to be more effective at teaching words than other digital devices or human teachers, except for the sign language study in which beginners benefited from the physical presence of a robot . Sign language may be a promising direction because performing actions is a unique strength of robots.…”

Section: Learning Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Robots for Early Language Learning: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Kanero

Geçkin

Oranç

et al. 2018

Child Dev Perspectives

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[59]. Robovie's longer arms, five fingers (as opposed to NAO's three fingers), and larger size may be the cause [60], though it is interesting that no difference was seen with video learning. This suggests that form may have an influence in 3D interactions that it does not have in 2D.…”

Section: Formmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…There are some insights that can be obtained on this issue by looking at studies done with NAO and Robovie in sign language learning. When testing Turkish sign recognition with videos of NAO or Robovie, Köse et al found that there was no difference in performance between learning with NAO or Robovie [60]. This was true within the three groups for which results were reported: children with beginning sign language experience, children with advanced sign language experience, and adults with no experience [60].…”

Section: Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When testing Turkish sign recognition with videos of NAO or Robovie, Köse et al found that there was no difference in performance between learning with NAO or Robovie [60]. This was true within the three groups for which results were reported: children with beginning sign language experience, children with advanced sign language experience, and adults with no experience [60]. However, when adults were tested using a physical NAO or a physical Robovie, they recognized signs at a much higher rate when Robovie performed them.…”

Section: Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Survey of Robot-Assisted Language Learning (RALL)

Randall

2019

J. Hum.-Robot Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robot-assisted language learning (RALL) is becoming a more commonly studied area of human-robot interaction (HRI). This research draws on theories and methods from many different fields, with researchers utilizing different instructional methods, robots, and populations to evaluate the effectiveness of RALL. This survey details the characteristics of robots used-form, voice, immediacy, non-verbal cues, and personalizationalong with study implementations, discussing research findings. It also analyzes robot effectiveness. While research clearly shows that robots can support native and foreign language acquisition, it has been unclear what benefits robots provide over computer-assisted language learning. This survey examines the results of relevant studies from 2004 (RALL's inception) to 2017. Results suggest that robots may be uniquely suited to aid in language production, with apparent benefits in comparison to other technology. As well, research consistently indicates that robots provide unique advantages in increasing learning motivation and in-task engagement, and decreasing anxiety, though long-term benefits are uncertain. Throughout this survey, future areas of exploration are suggested, with the hope that answers to these questions will allow for more robust design and implementation guidelines in RALL.

show abstract

A review study on the investigation of the effects of using robots in education on metacognitive behaviors

Özkan

Toz

2022

Comp Applic In Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's technology, robots are now involved in all aspects of life. Therefore, it is inconceivable that robots will not affect the field of education either. In this study, the use of robots in education has been explicitly discussed in terms of the development of metacognitive abilities. For this purpose, literature studies have been conducted both on the development of metacognitive skills and on how robots are used in education. According to the results obtained, although robots have been used in many fields of education, they have not been used primarily in the field of developing metacognitive skills. From this point of view, in this study, some research questions and suggestions for the application of metacognitive models through robots and, therefore, the use of robots to improve metacognitive skills are presented to the researchers. It is expected that it will benefit researchers related to this question and the proposed topic to direct their research and help close the lack of research in this area.

show abstract

The Effect of Embodiment in Sign Language Tutoring with Assistive Humanoid Robots

Cited by 74 publications

References 25 publications

Social Robots for Early Language Learning: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Social Robots for Early Language Learning: Current Evidence and Future Directions

A Survey of Robot-Assisted Language Learning (RALL)

A review study on the investigation of the effects of using robots in education on metacognitive behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About