Article Sidebar

Submitted
Sep 10, 2021
Accepted
Dec 22, 2021
Published
Dec 31, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1128 Download : 12521

Main Article Content

Abstract

In this digital age embracing robotics across various areas of life, especially intellectual ones, have reaped great benefits owing to this modern technology. Therefore, the learning field has not remained unchanged given current evolutions as the schooling conditions have been improved through these smart devices. However, teachers still face some difficulties when choosing pedagogical methods and means for effective language learning for children. Thus, this paper aims to measure the effectiveness of social robots in facilitating children’s learning of a second language (L2). For this purpose, the term L2 learning and its subordinate concepts have been distinguished, and then the different methods of language learning were discussed. The latest research regarding social robots in the educational context was also discussed when reviewing the literature. An experimental study conducted on a sample of children illustrated that the use of the social robot significantly helped them in the L2 learning regarding the assimilation fast, retention, and correct pronunciation of its vocabulary. Finally, this study concludes that the social robot would be a good solution and recommends their widespread use in education given its role in improving the schooling conditions of children.

Keywords

Social robot Children Learning L2 Tangibility Learning outcomes Technology Enhanced Learning Educational Robotics

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Arar, C., Belazoui, A., & Telli, A. (2021). Adoption of social robots as pedagogical aids for efficient learning of second language vocabulary to children. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 17(3), 119-126. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135551

References

  1. Becker, B. (2007). Exposure is not enough: The interaction of exposure and efficiency in the second language acquisition process. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 23(1), 1–9.
  2. Belazoui, A., Telli, A., & Arar, C. (2021). Web‐Based Learning Under Tacit Mining of Various Data Sources. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(16), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i16.23405
  3. Belpaeme, T., Vogt, P., van den Berghe, R. et al. (2018a), Guidelines for Designing Social Robots as Second Language Tutors. International Journal of Social Robotics 10, 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-018-0467-6
  4. Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018b). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
  5. Bourguet, M.L., Jin, Y., Shi, Y., Chen, Y., Rincon-Ardila, L., & Venture, G. (2020). Social Robots that can Sense and Improve Student Engagement. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 127–134). https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48869.2020.9368438
  6. EMYS (2018). EMYS - ROBOTS: Your Guide to the World of Robotics, URL:https://robots.ieee.org/robots/emys/ (accessed on 18th December 2020)
  7. Eun-ja Hyun, So-yeon Kim, Siekyung Jang, & Park, S. (2008). Comparative study of effects of language instruction program using intelligence robot and multimedia on linguistic ability of young children. In RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 187–192). https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2008.4600664
  8. Ghenghesh P. (2010), The Motivation of L2 Learners: Does It Decrease with Age? English Language Teaching, 3(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.5539/ELT.V3N1P128
  9. Gordon, G., & Breazeal, C. (2015). Bayesian Active Learning-Based Robot Tutor for Children’s Word-Reading Skills. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29(1). Retrieved from https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/9376
  10. Hansen-Thomas, H., & Chennapragada, S. (2018). Culture Clash in the Multicultural Classroom: A Case Study from a Newcomer School. English Language Teaching, 11(4), 82–90. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n4p82
  11. Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901%262_4
  12. Kanero, J., Geçkin, V., Oranç, C., Mamus, E., Küntay, A., & Göksun, T. (2018). Social Robots for Early Language Learning: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12277
  13. Kanero, J., Tunalı, E., Oranç, C., Göksun, T., & Küntay, A. (2021). When Even a Robot Tutor Zooms: A Study of Embodiment, Attitudes, and Impressions. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 169. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.679893
  14. Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Senft, E., & Belpaeme, T. (2016), Social robot tutoring for child second language learning. In 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 231–238). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451757
  15. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching, Oxford University Press, 3rd Edition.
  16. Lee, S., Noh, H., Lee, J., Lee, K., Lee, G., Sagong, S., & Kim, M. (2011). On the effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Language Learning. ReCALL, 23(1), 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000273
  17. Leite, I., McCoy, M., Lohani, M., Ullman, D., Salomons, N., Stokes, C., Rivers, S., & Scassellati, B. (2015). Emotional Storytelling in the Classroom: Individual versus Group Interaction between Children and Robots. In 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 75-82). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696481
  18. Leyzberg, D., Spaulding, S., Toneva, M., & Scassellati, B. (2012). The Physical Presence of a Robot Tutor Increases Cognitive Learning Gains. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7ck0p200
  19. Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st century skills? Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1628
  20. Nejadansari, D., & Nasrollahzadeh, J. (2011), Effects of Age on Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Literature and Language, 3(3): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110303.059
  21. Oxford, R.L. (2017). Conditions for Second Language (L2) Learning. In: Van Deusen-Scholl N., May S. (eds) Second and Foreign Language Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (3rd ed.). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02246-8_4
  22. Rintjema, E., Berghe, R., Kessels, A., Wit, J., & Vogt, P. (2018). A Robot Teaching Young Children a Second Language: The Effect of Multiple Interactions on Engagement and Performance. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 219–220). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3177059
  23. Schodde, T., Bergmann, K., & Kopp, S. (2017). Adaptive Robot Language Tutoring Based on Bayesian Knowledge Tracing and Predictive Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 128–136). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020222
  24. Schodde, T., & Kopp, S. (2018). Adaptive Robot Second Language Tutoring for Children. In Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 317–318). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3176906
  25. Schodde, T., Hoffmann, L., Stange, S., & Kopp, S. (2019). Adapt, Explain, engage — A Study on How Social Robots Can Scaffold Second-Language Learning of Children. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 9(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366422
  26. van den Berghe, R., Verhagen, J., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., van der Ven, S., & Leseman, P. (2019). Social Robots for Language Learning: A Review. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286
  27. van den Berghe, R., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., Verhagen, J., Brouwer, S., de Haas, M., de Wit, J., Willemsen, B., Vogt, P., Krahmer, E., & Leseman, P. (2021). Individual Differences in Children’s (Language) Learning Skills Moderate Effects of Robot-Assisted Second Language Learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.676248
  28. Vogt, P., Haas, M., Jong, C., Baxter, P., & Krahmer, E. (2017). Child-Robot Interactions for Second Language Tutoring to Preschool Children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 73. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00073
  29. Vogt, P. et al. (2019). Second Language Tutoring Using Social Robots: A Large-Scale Study. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (pp. 497–505). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673077
  30. Westlund, J., & Breazeal, C. (2015). The Interplay of Robot Language Level with Children’s Language Learning during Storytelling. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 65–66). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2701989
  31. Wit, J., Schodde, T., Willemsen, B., Bergmann, K., Haas, M., Kopp, S., Krahmer, E., & Vogt, P. (2018). The Effect of a Robot’s Gestures and Adaptive Tutoring on Children’s Acquisition of Second Language Vocabularies. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 50–58). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171277