Robotics@Montserrat: A case ofLearning through roboticscommunity in a school

Olga Sans-CopeTechnical University ofCataloniaBarcelona, Spainolga.sans@cmontserrat.net

Marta DiazCETpD-Technical University ofCataloniaVilanova i la Geltru, Spainmarta.diaz@upc.edu

Alex BarcoGR-SETAD, La Salle - RamonLlull UniversityBarcelona, Spainabarco@salleurl.edu

Cecilio AnguloTechnical University ofCataloniaBarcelona, Spaincecilio.angulo@upc.edu

Jordi Albo-CanalsGR-SETAD, La Salle - RamonLlull UniversityBarcelona, Spainabarco@salleurl.edu

AbstractNowadays is well known that the learning of STEM(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) canbenefit from using Robotics technologies. Furthermore,robot-based educational activities can enhance not onlythe acquirement of concepts in other fields (e.g. literature,history) but even improve children emotional and socialdevelopment. This paper describes how robotics has beenintroduced transversally at all k12 level in the schoolMontserrat in Barcelona, Spain. The infrastructure tosupport the program, the planning of the activities andresearch studies, a classification of these activities basedon the children-robot interaction modality, and the detailsof some examples are described and discussed.

Author KeywordsChildren; Robotics; Education; Learning; Engineering

ACM Classification KeywordsI.2.9. [Robotics]: Commercial robots and applications;D.2.2. [Design Tools and Techniques]: User interfaces.

IntroductionThe use of robotics in education has traditionally beenassociated with teaching STEM or MINT (mathematics,information sciences, natural sciences, and technology).However, in early childhood education, technology can be

also applied to help children’s emotional and socialdevelopment. Several studies point out that to educatepeople through interaction with robots add extrapossibilities to the traditional approach focused on robotconstruction and programming. The main assumption inthis approach is that interaction with robots can reinforceeducative processes and outcomes such as conceptuallearning and cognitive training, motivate students, supportinquiry and raise awareness about robotics. The potentialof robot-based activities in the scholar curriculum is basedon constructionism. This educational approach proposesthat computing technologies as well as tangiblemanipulative ones such as robotics, are powerful foreducational purposes when used for supporting the design,the construction, and the programming of personally andepistemologically meaningful projects [1, 2]. From aconstructionist perspective, there is a continuum oflearning opportunities that extends from blocks to robotsby engaging children in learning by design, learning bybuilding, and learning by programming.

Robotics introduce a wonderful dimension to the learningexperience because computational power is located not(only) on a screen but also on tangible objects. Learningthrough robotics enhances children engagement inactivities based on manipulation, developing motor skills,hand-eye coordination and a way to understand abstractideas. Moreover, robot-based activities provide anappropriate context for cooperative behaviour andteamworking. Literature reports valuable outcomes oftechnology-based educational programs such as (1)competence in intellectual endeavours; acquisition ofcomputer literacy and technological fluency; (2)self-confidence in dealing with technical concepts andproblems; (3) collaboration and cooperation competences;(4) use of technology for social purposes with peers and

adults creating face-to-face or virtual communities andsupport networks; (5) awareness of their own personalvalues and respect of others , responsible use oftechnology; and (6) new ideas to apply technology toimprove our environment (the school, the community, thesociety). As far as we know from literature, there hasbeen two different approaches to introduce robotics incurricula, the first one emerges from the research labs andis transferred to school, the other one are limited (in timeand scope) experiences in the field [3, 4].

This paper introduces the basics, fundamentals and firstresults of a new approach. Based on previous experiencein applied research in the wild [5, 11], the goal of ourproject is to create an engaging dynamic learningenvironment (Living-Lab) in a primary and secondaryschool in Barcelona (Col.legi Montserrat), based on theprinciples of learning through robotics to enhancechildren, teachers and researchers achievements onupdated scientific knowledge (technology, science andarts), research skills (curiosity, critical thinking,self-efficacy, teamworking, creativity, perseverance) andpro-social values and behaviours (like for diversity,respect, cooperation , inclusion).

The EnvironmentThe Col.legi Montserrat [6] was founded in 1926, has adynamic and global educational project, open to changeand innovation that creates the perfect environment torun a project like the one introduced in this work. The keyof the educational system is the attention to the multipleintelligence and to the diversity inspired in the works ofpedagogues, psychologists and theorics of education likeDecroly, Montessori, Malaguzzi, Piaget, Dewey, DavidPerkins, Robert Swartz, Howard Gardner, G Mills E. Bono,Heidi Andrade, E. Stephanakis, and Helen Barrett. The

school covers education from kindergarten to high school.

This Living Lab is managed by the Robotics Lab [7] thatprovides a complementary space (mainly the activities arerun in the regular class-rooms ), the robotic tools, theconnection with the University Labs and the researchers,the connection with the products companies, and thehuman resources divided in manage area and academicsection. At this moment, the early beginning of theproject, the Robotics lab personal is composed by onepersona with full-time dedication that manage both:space and materials, and academic contents.

The Robotic ActivitiesThe Robotic activities are structured and plannedcorrelated with the regular subjects that already exists inthe school. For each novel activity is designed a pre andpost test to answer the research questions: 1) AUnderstand and model the Game/activity dynamics andtheir potential to facilitate children learning process, 2)Observation of the engagement with the activity andemergence of intended behaviours, 3) Study how theintroduction of such activity affects the rest of staff of theschool, and 4) Create an exportable model applicable toother centers.

Figure 1: REEM Robot fromPAL Robotics as teacherassistant.

After setting-up the activities the results will be analysedin terms of success in acquiring the academic items tolearn (cognitive and affective characteristics of suchlearning process), the characteristics of roboticenvironments, and the engagement of the children duringthe activities. Finally, these activities are collected andreported in order to be applied in other centers, as long asa guideline to introduce all this teaching methods in anon-invasive way.

We can classify the robotic activities in three groups

according to the following robot to child interactionmodels: 1) Designing Robots, 2) Use the robot as afacilitator, or 3) Use the robots as social partners(classmate,teacher,etc.). These three uses represents atransition of the robot from an object to a subject.

Designing RobotsThis mode consist in using a robotic platform as LEGORobotics System, Arduino, or similar, to solve a challengeintroduced by the teacher. In this case the kids learn theconcepts through the so called learning by building. Thestudents need to have a previous knowledge about what isa robot in terms of sensing, processing, and actuating.From this point they need to know how a robotic systemcan be used to create an interactive tool that allows toprove, acquire or reproduce the previous mentionedchallenge.

Land-mine Robot ProjectUnder the background of learn social core values throughDesign Thinking techniques, the teachers decided thetopic about land mines. Following the Design Thinkingrules, up to 10 groups of 6 children were made. Thegroups chose a country where that problem was relevant,design over paper a potential solution to a avoid landmines, design a digital prototype on computers usingLEGO Designer tool, built the prototype using LEGORobotics and NXT-G Software and finally they test it.The results were presented in public and the evaluationwas a peer review.

Robot as facilitatorIt this case the use of the robot is based in the influenceof a social presence to facilitate to perform complex ornew tasks [8]. Previous studies we did in the field ofPlay-based Social training with Autistic Children providedgood results [9, 10].

Good Habits ProjectWe planned an activity to teach healthy habits with thisrobotic platform. There were 4 robots for each group of 4kids.

The robot is an iPod Touch 4G with a software structurecomposed of three main blocks: 1) The Pet Behaviormodule that decides the mood and physical state of therobot, 2) The Monitor module that collects all interactiondata and the activities scores, and 3) The Trainer module,composed of the activity dispatcher, the connectivitymodule, and the activities controller. The secondary CPUis a LEGO Brick CPU that manages the movements ofthe robot.

The activities in the monitor module follow a specificsequence defined by the technician previously. Finally,when the activities are finished the process goes to theFeed the robot view where different dishes are shown(pasta, vegetables, fast food, etc.) to let the kid feed therobot. Depending on how the kids feed it, the robot startsmoving slowly (trashy food) or faster (healthy food).Also, an image of a man on the iPod screen is shown tolet the kid see if it is getting fat or slim. It is all about torehearse healthy habits.

Robots as social partnersThis third way of interaction is the most complex one,where the robot has the highest level of autonomy, and itperforms the role of partner (coach, assistant,companion). In one of the examples is a personalcompanion to help doing homework at home, while in thesecond one is a teacher assistant giving some directions tothe students.

Long-term engagementWe are doing a study based in [11] with a group of 46children, all of them using the same platform explainedbefore, but half of them have a customized robot withtheir topics of interest collected from a questionnaire filledin by the parents, which asked about hobbies, languagepreference (Spanish or Catalan), music, etc. The studentsreceive a training session about using the robot, as well asa short manual about how to proceed to start and stopthe robot, and to solve the common unexpected issuesthat could occur. This process takes one week where theydo the exercises together with a technician. The weeks 2,3 and 4 they do the activities at home. The aim of thestudy is to find an evidence that the customization of arobot increases the engagement interacting with it.

Robotic Teacher AssistantDuring the background of the 2013 European RoboticsWeek, we organize a Robotics Workshop where studentslearn about the fundamentals of Robotics and ArtificialIntelligence in three blocks: 1) using hexobugs the childrencould understand the concepts of sensing and acting, 2)using LEGO Robotics the concept of process informationacquired and act, and 3) through PLEO Robot howartificial emotions can be implemented in a Robot.

During the 1 hour long workshop the REEM Robot fromPAL Robotics were assisting the teacher introducing theactivities and solving the most common questions aboutthe three blocs explained (Fig. 1). In this case we wantedto measure the social present of the robot compared tothe human teacher.

Conclusions and Future DirectionsIn the introduction of robotics to the school we haveconsidered the two approaches of educational robotics: a

robot considered as a complex and fascinating object thatallows to understand the world we live in a very interactiveand attractive way (maths, physics, materials, technology,language, etc.) and as a social actor, which achieves itseducational objectives through its social dimension.

During the implementation of the project we have facedthe three phases of being introduced to something new byteachers and students: Scepticism, Curiosity, andAcceptance. The fact that teachers were not required tohave any special training or extra work by using roboticsin their classrooms has empowered the positive perceptionof Robotics. In addition, a change of attitude have beenobserved from an initial passive role where the activitieswere mostly proposed by the specialist to a more proactiveattitude by the end of the course.

We expect to have the full integration of robotics in thethird year of implementing the project, when everyone isfamiliar with the applicability, about how to use it, andcan innovate in an autonomy way as happens today withthe computers and internet.

AcknowledgmentsThis project is funded by Collegi Montserrat . Thisresearch was supported in part by the PATRICIA ResearchProject (TIN2012-38416-C03-01,03), funded by theSpanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, andalso tehere are testing activities related to the project withcode 502858 that is founded by La Fundacio de la Maratode TV3.

References[1] S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, computers, and

powerful ideas . New York: Harper Collins (1993).[2] Resnick, M., et al. Pianos not stereos: Creating

computational construction kits. Interactions, 3(5),40-50. (1996).

[3] Benitti, Fabiane Barreto Vavassori. ”Exploring theeducational potential of robotics in schools: Asystematic review.” Computers & Education 58, no. 3(2012): 978-988.

[4] Mubin, et al.. ”A review of the applicability of robotsin education.” Journal of Technology in Education andLearning 1, 2013.

[5] Heerink, Marcel, et al. ”A field study with primaryschool children on perception of social presence andinteractive behavior with a pet robot.” RO-MAN, 2012IEEE. IEEE, 2012.

[6] http://www.cmontserrat.org[7] http://cmontserrat-

es.blogspot.com.es/2013/10/alumnos-de-primaria-en-el-aula-de.html

[8] Triplett, N. 1898. The Dynamogenic Factors inPacemaking and Competition. American Journal ofPsychology. 9, 507533.

[9] Albo-Canals, Jordi, et al. ”Comparing two LEGORobotics-based interventions for social skills trainingwith children with ASD.” RO-MAN, 2013 IEEE. IEEE,2013.

[10] Diaz, Marta, et al. ”Robot Assisted Play with aMobile Robot in a Training Group of Children withAutism.” Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/RSJInternational Conference on Intelligent Robots andSystems IROS, Vilamoura, Portugal. 2012.

[11] Barco, Alex, Jordi Albo-Canals, and Carles Garriga.”Engagement based on a customization of aniPod-LEGO robot for a long-term interaction for aneducational purpose.” Proceedings of the 2014ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robotinteraction. ACM, 2014.