Antropomorficzne roboty społeczne jako narzędzia tworzenia znaczeń a wzorce rówieśnicze
Słowa kluczowe:
antropomorfizacja, tworzenie znaczeń, robotyka edukacyjna, edukacja w zakresie bezpiecznych zachowańAbstrakt
Niniejsza praca omawia zastosowanie antropomorficznych robotów społecznych w edukacji w zakresie bezpiecznych zachowań. Celem było zbadanie, czy zastosowanie antropomorficznych robotów społecznych podnosi efektywność nauczania, i jeśli tak, to dlaczego. Podstawowym założeniem było twierdzenie, że antropomorficzne roboty społeczne mają potencjał wspierania procesu tworzenia znaczeń dzięki podobieństwu do człowieka, zwłaszcza poprzez rozbieżność pomiędzy cechami robotów naśladującymi cechy człowieka a ludzkim układem odniesienia dla takich cech. W szczególności niniejsza praca omawia wyniki badania jakościowego przeprowadzonego w czterech szkołach podstawowych. Badanie wykazało, że kluczową rolą robota w procesie podnoszenia efektywności nauczania jest nie tyle przekazywanie informacji i pomoc w wykonywaniu określonych zadań, ile podnoszenie zainteresowania, a przez to motywacji do nauki. Inne czynniki, które wpływają na skuteczne użycie antropomorficznych robotów społecznych do nauczania bezpiecznych zachowań,dotyczą tak samo uczniów, jak i nauczycieli oraz wykraczają daleko poza robota jako takiego.Bibliografia
Alimisis, D. (2009). Teacher education on robotics-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods. School of Pedagogical and Technological Education.
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6 (1), 63-71.
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K. (2007). Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP project. Paper presented at the EuroLogo.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30 (2), 297-319.
Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction Workshop in affiliation with the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2008).
Bazeley, P., Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., De Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., Zelati, M. C. (2013). Childrobot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR2013).
Biesta, G. J. J. (1998). Mead, intersubjectivity, and education: The early writings. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 17 (2-3), 73-99. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005029131211.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Breazeal, C. (2004). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book.
Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2 (3), 215-234.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Duffy, B. R., Zawieska, K. (2012). Suspension of disbelief in social robotics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2012) France.
Dumont, H., D., I., Benavide, F. (2010). Educational research and innovation the nature of learning using research to inspire practice: Using research to inspire practice. OECD Publishing.
Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., Fava, N. (2008). Representative examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. Paper presented at the SIMPAR Workshop on Teaching with robotics: didactic approaches and experiences, Venice, Italy.
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., McDonald, D. G. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative Studies.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 602-611.
Koerber, A., McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods. A primer for technical communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22 (4), 454-473.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18 (3), 21-31.
La Torre, A., Mudyń, K., (2014). Uwarunkowania i psychologiczne konsekwencje antropomorfizacji. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Psychologica, VII,57-68.
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In: U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540-553). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mead, G. H. (1900). Suggestions toward a theory of the philosophical disciplines. The Philosophical Review, 9 (1), 1-17. DOI: 10.2307/2176354.
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1.
OECD. (2014). Measuring innovation in education. OECD Publishing.
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 (11), 1451-1458.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655-660.
Ryan, G. W., Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15 (1), 85- 109.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Leite, I., Hastie, H., Jones, A., Paiva, A., Castellano, G. (2014). Teachers’ views on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. Paper presented at the The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63-75.
Silverman, D. (2010). Qualitative research. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tonon, G. (2015). Qualitative studies in quality of life: Methodology and practice. Cham: Springer.
Westlund, J. K., Gordon, G., Spaulding, S., Lee, J. J., Plummer, L., Martinez, M., Breazeal, C. (2016). Lessons from teachers on performing HRI studies with young children in schools. Paper presented at the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2016).
Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6 (1), 63-71.
Alimisis, D., Moro, M., Arlegui, J., Pina, A., Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K. (2007). Robotics & constructivism in education: The TERECoP project. Paper presented at the EuroLogo.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30 (2), 297-319.
Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D. (2008). Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction Workshop in affiliation with the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2008).
Bazeley, P., Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P., De Greeff, J., Kennedy, J., Read, R., Looije, R., Zelati, M. C. (2013). Childrobot interaction: Perspectives and challenges. Paper presented at the International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR2013).
Biesta, G. J. J. (1998). Mead, intersubjectivity, and education: The early writings. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 17 (2-3), 73-99. DOI: 10.1023/a:1005029131211.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77-101.
Breazeal, C. (2004). Designing sociable robots. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book.
Caporael, L. R. (1986). Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine. Computers in Human Behavior, 2 (3), 215-234.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Duffy, B. R., Zawieska, K. (2012). Suspension of disbelief in social robotics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN2012) France.
Dumont, H., D., I., Benavide, F. (2010). Educational research and innovation the nature of learning using research to inspire practice: Using research to inspire practice. OECD Publishing.
Frangou, S., Papanikolaou, K., Aravecchia, L., Montel, L., Ionita, S., Arlegui, J., Fava, N. (2008). Representative examples of implementing educational robotics in school based on the constructivist approach. Paper presented at the SIMPAR Workshop on Teaching with robotics: didactic approaches and experiences, Venice, Italy.
Guion, L. A., Diehl, D. C., McDonald, D. G. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the Validity of Qualitative Studies.
Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 602-611.
Koerber, A., McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods. A primer for technical communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22 (4), 454-473.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18 (3), 21-31.
La Torre, A., Mudyń, K., (2014). Uwarunkowania i psychologiczne konsekwencje antropomorfizacji. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Psychologica, VII,57-68.
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In: U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540-553). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mead, G. H. (1900). Suggestions toward a theory of the philosophical disciplines. The Philosophical Review, 9 (1), 1-17. DOI: 10.2307/2176354.
Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1.
OECD. (2014). Measuring innovation in education. OECD Publishing.
Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 (11), 1451-1458.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655-660.
Ryan, G. W., Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field methods, 15 (1), 85- 109.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Serholt, S., Barendregt, W., Leite, I., Hastie, H., Jones, A., Paiva, A., Castellano, G. (2014). Teachers’ views on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. Paper presented at the The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63-75.
Silverman, D. (2010). Qualitative research. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tonon, G. (2015). Qualitative studies in quality of life: Methodology and practice. Cham: Springer.
Westlund, J. K., Gordon, G., Spaulding, S., Lee, J. J., Plummer, L., Martinez, M., Breazeal, C. (2016). Lessons from teachers on performing HRI studies with young children in schools. Paper presented at the 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI2016).
Pobrania
Opublikowane
2016-12-01
Jak cytować
Zawieska, K. ., Rynkiewicz, K. ., & Sprońska, A. (2016). Antropomorficzne roboty społeczne jako narzędzia tworzenia znaczeń a wzorce rówieśnicze. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Psychologica, 9(1), 156–175. Pobrano z https://studia-psychologica.uken.krakow.pl/article/view/5630
Numer
Dział
Artykuły
