Cited by 18Social Robot Interaction and HRIEducational Robotics and EngineeringAI in Service Interactions

The Desire for Social Robots to Support English Language Learners: Exploring Robot Perceptions of Teachers, Parents, and Students

Open access
Louie, Belinda, Björling, Elin A., Kuo, Annie Camey·2021·Frontiers in Education

Abstract

Currently there are 4.9 million English Language Learners (ELLs) in the United States, however, only 2% of educators are trained to support these vulnerable students. Educational robots show promise for language acquisition and may provide valuable support for ELLs, yet, little is known about social robots for this population. Inviting participants as cultural informants can ensure that the robot is appropriately designed, situated and adopted into that educational community. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory study using interactive group interviews with 95 ELLs (kindergarten through fifth grade) from 18 different home language backgrounds. We also interviewed 39 ELL parents and eight elementary school educators to understand their views of educational robots. Responses to robot images suggested a preference for a popular educational robot. Parents expressed a strong desire for educational robots to support their children at school. While children embraced the idea of a robot at school, some expressed concerns about the potential for robots to be disruptive. School educators saw the potential for educational robots to support teachers in meeting instructional needs but also raised salient concerns. Exploring social robots with ELLs as cultural informants was a valuable exploration to determine important factors in social robot design and implementation for a diverse educational setting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/feduc.2021.566909

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Parents generally have positive attitudes toward incorporating robots into their children's learning, but remain concerned about the risk of disrupting school-based learning and potential teacher replacement.

    “Although parents generally have positive attitudes toward incorporating robots into their children's learning, they remain concerned about the risk of disrupting school-based learning and potential teacher replacement [45, 49, 73].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Andrist, S., Ziadee, M., Boukaram, H., Mutlu, B., and Sakr, M. (2015). "Effects of Culture on the Credibility of Robot Speech: A Comparison between English and Arabic," in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (ACM), 157-164.
  2. Corporation, I. (2016). Spss for Windows version 24 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  3. Guizzo, E. (2014). Cynthia Breazeal Unveils Jibo, a Social Robot for the Home. IEEE Spectr.
  4. Suguitan, M., and Hoffman, G. (2018). "Blossom: A Tensile Social Robot Design with a Handcrafted Shell," in Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (ACM), 383.
  5. Walqui, A., and Bunch, G. C. (2019). Amplifying the Curriculum: Designing Quality Learning Opportunities for English Learners. Teachers College Press.
  6. Westlund, J. K., Breazeal, C., and Story, A. (2015). "Deception, Secrets, Children, and Robots: What's Acceptable," in Workshop on The Emerging Policy and Ethics of Human-Robot Interaction, held in conjunction with the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Portland, OR.
  7. Westlund, J. K. (2015). Telling Stories with green the Dragonbot: A Showcase of Children's Interactions over Two Months. HRI (Extended Abstracts). Portland, OR: HRI'15 Workshops, 263.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Louie, B., Björling, E. A., & Kuo, A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington Tacoma (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Björling, Elin A.
Venue
Frontiers in Education
Published
2021-08-20
Volume
6
ISSN
2504-284X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195242557
Cited by
18
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Education (T365Z170007)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
social robots, educational robots, English language learners, robot perception, robot design, language acquisition, elementary school students, parents' perspectives, teacher perceptions, multicultural classrooms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review