Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36388256›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2022

Children's learning-by-teaching with a social robot

Lena Pareto, Sara Ekström, Sofia Serholt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lena ParetoDivision of Media and Design, School of Business, Economics and IT, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
Sara EkströmDivision of Media and Design, School of Business, Economics and IT, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
Sofia SerholtDivision of Learning, Communication and IT, Department of Applied IT, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University West · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human peer tutoring is known to be effective for learning, and social robots are currently being explored for robot-assisted peer tutoring. In peer tutoring, not only the tutee but also the tutor benefit from the activity. Exploiting the learning-by-teaching mechanism, robots as tutees can be a promising approach for tutor learning. This study compares robots and humans by examining children's learning-by-teaching with a social robot and younger children, respectively. The study comprised a small-scale field experiment in a Swedish primary school, following a within-subject design. Ten sixth-grade students (age 12-13) assigned as tutors conducted two 30 min peer tutoring sessions each, one with a robot tutee and one with a third-grade student (age 9-10) as the tutee. The tutoring task consisted of teaching the tutee to play a two-player educational game designed to promote conceptual understanding and mathematical thinking. The tutoring sessions were video recorded, and verbal actions were transcribed and extended with crucial game actions and user gestures, to explore differences in interaction patterns between the two conditions. An extension to the classical initiation-response-feedback framework for classroom interactions, the IRFCE tutoring framework, was modified and used as an analytic lens. Actors, tutoring actions, and teaching interactions were examined and coded as they unfolded in the respective child-robot and child-child interactions during the sessions. Significant differences between the robot tutee and child tutee conditions regarding action frequencies and characteristics were found, concerning tutee initiatives, tutee questions, tutor explanations, tutee involvement, and evaluation feedback. We have identified ample opportunities for the tutor to learn from teaching in both conditions, for different reasons. The child tutee condition provided opportunities to engage in explanations to the tutee, experience smooth collaboration, and gain motivation through social responsibility for the younger child. The robot tutee condition provided opportunities to answer challenging questions from the tutee, receive plenty of feedback, and communicate using mathematical language. Hence, both conditions provide good learning opportunities for a tutor, but in different ways.

Indexed as

child–robot interactioncomparative studylearning-by-teachingmathematics gamepeer tutoringrobot tuteerobot versus humanvideo analysis

Identifiers

PMID36388256
PMCPMC9659962
OpenAlexW4307870206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.