2016 14th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/icarcv.2016.7838707
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The review of educational robotics research and the need for real-world interaction analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LA research focuses on children’s actions while they are interacting with either game‐based learning or learning‐management systems (Agus & Samuri, 2018; Ochoa & Worsley, 2016) in order to assess the child’s performance quantitatively, usually using a desktop computer and giving them personalised feedback. However, according to Hong, Chew and Sze‐Meng (2016), this approach is of limited use in providing reliable information about the student’s motivation or engagement with a task: in other words, these data do not provide evidence of “meaningful learning experiences.” Moreover, Giannakos and colleagues found that “traditional click‐stream models achieve a 39% error rate in predicting learning performance […] while for fused multimodal the error drops up to 6%” (2019, p. 108). For this reason, in the case of MMLA the object of study extends to learners’ behavioural reactions while interacting with a device or carrying out a task, including their emotional, cognitive and physiological responses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…LA research focuses on children’s actions while they are interacting with either game‐based learning or learning‐management systems (Agus & Samuri, 2018; Ochoa & Worsley, 2016) in order to assess the child’s performance quantitatively, usually using a desktop computer and giving them personalised feedback. However, according to Hong, Chew and Sze‐Meng (2016), this approach is of limited use in providing reliable information about the student’s motivation or engagement with a task: in other words, these data do not provide evidence of “meaningful learning experiences.” Moreover, Giannakos and colleagues found that “traditional click‐stream models achieve a 39% error rate in predicting learning performance […] while for fused multimodal the error drops up to 6%” (2019, p. 108). For this reason, in the case of MMLA the object of study extends to learners’ behavioural reactions while interacting with a device or carrying out a task, including their emotional, cognitive and physiological responses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hong et al . (2016) had already delved into the “assessment and feedback” objective by conducting a review of 62 references between 2008 and 2016 on the use of educational robotics research with children to assess student outcomes in educational research. As in the case of Agus and Samuri (2018), they concluded that LA is employed mainly through Learning Management Systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, when creating an activity we have to define a score parameter for each skill that represents the level of knowledge that the skill contributes to (W i ). 5 Table 2 shows some of the activities defined in IDEE in two different experiences (inclined plane and uniform rectilinear movement), the skills involved and their corresponding scores.…”
Section: Students' Knowledge Tracing In Ideementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, it is time to focus on ER’s teaching-learning processes, methods, and approaches used in the pre-university education context, detect which are useful to teach and learn STEM concepts and skills and if the convergence of educational data analysis [ 84 ] as support approaches, such as Learning Analytics [ 85 , 86 ], can help to improve learning ER [ 87 , 88 , 89 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%