Examining the Effects of Communication Features of Educational Robots on Students’ Cognitive Load,Attitudes,and Learning Performance

Abstract

Educational robots represent a unique form of teacher presence. Exploring how the communication features of robot instructors affect student learning experience could contribute to the advancement of educational robots. This study examined the impact of speech rate, voice type, and emotional tone of robots on students’ cognitive load, attitudes toward robot-assisted teaching, and learning performance. We recruited 477 Chinese primary school students assigned to either the speech rate, voice type, or emotional tone experiment. The results indicate that speech rate significantly influenced students’ cognitive load, with the medium speed condition resulting in higher germane load compared to both fast and slow speed conditions. Moreover, students had a lower preference for adult male voices over adult female, boy, or girl voices. However, voice type did not significantly impact attitudes toward robot-assisted teaching or learning outcomes. Emotional tone did not affect students’ cognitive load, attitudes, or learning performance. These findings provide valuable insights for instructors and designers when configuring the communication features of educational robots in classroom environments. Additionally, students generally prioritized the intelligence of the robot over its communication features, and they did not perceive the teaching content as difficult in all experiments. This study has methodological and practical significance.

Keywords

educational robot communication feature cognitive load attitude learning performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alimisis

(2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.

Anwar

Bascou

N. A.

Menekse

Kardgar

(2019). A systematic review of studies on educational robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223

Beege

Schneider

(2023). Emotional design of pedagogical agents: The influence of enthusiasm and model-observer similarity (pp. 1–22).Educational technology research and development.

Benitti

F. B. V.

(2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006

Bocklisch

Faulkner

Pawlowski

Nichol

(2017). Rasa: Open source language understanding and dialogue management. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05181.

Cai & Wu . (2004). Teaching and speech rate. Health Vocational Education, 3, 88–89. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-1246.2004.03.071

Causo

G. T.

Chen

I. M.

Yeo

S. H.

(2016). Design of robots used as education companion and tutor. In Robotics and Mechatronics: Proceedings of the 4th IFToMM International Symposium on robotics and Mechatronics (pp. 75–84). Springer International Publishing.

Cheng

Y. W.

Sun

P. C.

Chen

N. S.

(2018). The essential applications of educational robot: Requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 126(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020

Cohen

(2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.

10.

DiSalvo

C. F.

Gemperle

Forlizzi

Kiesler

(2002). All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 321–326). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

11.

D’Mello

S. K.

Hunkins

N. C.

Kelly

(2022). “Beautiful work, you’re rock stars!”: Teacher analytics to uncover discourse that supports or undermines student motivation, identity, and belonging in classrooms. In LAK22: 12th International learning analytics and knowledge conference (pp. 230–238). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

12.

Dou

C. F.

Lin

K.-C.

Gan

Tseng

T. M.

(2021). Effects of different types of social robot voices on affective evaluations in different application fields. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(4), 615–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00654-9

13.

Dou

C. F.

Niu

Pan

K. R.

(2022). Effect of voice type and head-light color in social robots for different applications. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00782-w

14.

Lin

Wang

(2014, December). Effect of speech rate for sentences on speech intelligibility. In 2014 IEEE International conference on communication Problem-solving (pp. 233–236). IEEE.

15.

Y. H.

Sun

Wang

H. K.

Pan

Lee

C. H.

(2016). The USTC-iFlytek system for CHiME-4 challenge. Proc. CHiME, 4(1), 36–38.

16.

Han

Park

Kim

(2005, August). The educational use of home robots for children. In ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on robot and human interactive communication, 2005. (pp. 378–383). IEEE.

17.

Horovitz

Mayer

R. E.

(2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 119(1), 106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724

18.

Huo

Zhao

Van Den Noortgate

(2021). Who is teaching in Chinese primary schools? A profile of the primary education workforce in Chinese county areas. PLoS One, 16(1), Article e0245549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245549

19.

Isenbarger

Zembylas

(2006). The emotional labour of caring in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.002

20.

Johnson

(2003). Children, robotics and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(2), 16–21). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02480880

21.

Kanda

Hirano

Eaton

Ishiguro

(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&2_4

22.

Kelley

(1939). The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057123

23.

Kim

Merrill Jr

Kelly

(2022). Perceived credibility of an AI instructor in online education: The role of social presence and voice features. Computers in Human Behavior, 136(1), 107383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107383

24.

Kory Westlund

J. M.

Jeong

Park

H. W.

Ronfard

Adhikari

Harris

P. L.

DeSteno

Breazeal

C. L.

Breazeal

C. L.

(2017). Flat vs. expressive storytelling: Young children’s learning and retention of a social robot’s narrative. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 11(2), 295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00295

25.

Kuhail

M. A.

Alturki

Alhejori

S. A.

(2023). Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review (pp. 973–1018). Education and Information Technologies.

26.

Kühne

Fischer

M. H.

Zhou

(2020). The human takes it all: Human-like synthesized voices are perceived as less eerie and more likable. Evidence from a subjective ratings study. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 14, 105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2020.593732

27.

Kyriakoullis

Zaphiris

(2016). Culture and HCI: A review of recent cultural studies in HCI and social networks. Universal Access in the Information Society, 15(4), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0445-9

28.

Laland

K. N.

(2017). The origins of language in teaching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 225–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1077-7

29.

Lawson

A. P.

Mayer

R. E.

(2022). The power of voice to convey emotion in multimedia instructional messages. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00282-y

30.

Lawson

A. P.

Mayer

R. E.

Adamo-Villani

Benes

Lei

Cheng

(2021). Recognizing the emotional state of human and virtual instructors. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106554

31.

Lenhard

(2022). Computation of effect sizes. Psychometrica. Retrieved from: https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html

32.

Guo

Wang

Chen

Ham

(2023). Effects of robot gaze and voice human-likeness on users’ subjective perception, visual attention, and cerebral activity in voice conversations. Computers in Human Behavior, 141, 107645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107645

33.

McGinn

Torre

(2019). Can you tell the robot by the voice? An exploratory study on the role of voice in the perception of robots. In 2019, The 14th ACM/IEEE International conference on human-robot interaction (HRI) (pp. 211-221). IEEE.

34.

Reich-Stiebert

Eyssel

(2015). Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potentials for education robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0308-9

35.

Salgado

Pereira

Gasparini

(2015). Cultural issues in HCI: Challenges and opportunities. In Human-computer interaction: Design and evaluation: 17th International Conference, HCI International 2015, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings, Part I 17 (pp. 60–70). Springer International Publishing.

36.

Sandygulova

O’Hare

G. M.

(2015). Children’s perception of synthesized voice: Robot’s gender, age and accent. In: Tapus

André

Martin

J. C.

Ferland

Ammi

(eds) Social Robotics. ICSR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9388. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5_59

37.

Serholt

(2018). Breakdowns in children’s interactions with a robotic tutor: A longitudinal study. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 250–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.030

38.

Shimada

Kanda

(2012). What is the appropriate speech rate for a communication robot? Interaction Studies, 13(3), 408–435. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.13.3.05shi

39.

Simonds

B. K.

Meyer

K. R.

Quinlan

M. M.

Hunt

S. K.

(2006). Effects of instructor speech rate on student affective learning, recall, and perceptions of nonverbal immediacy, credibility, and clarity. Communication Research Reports, 23(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090600796401

40.

Skinner

C. H.

Robinson

D. H.

Robinson

S. L.

Sterling

H. E.

Goodman

M. A.

(1999). Effects of advertisement speech rates on feature recognition, and product and speaker ratings. International Journal of Listening, 13(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.1999.10499029

41.

Song & Feng . (1999). Teaching Linguistics. Guangdong Education Press.

42.

Sturm

J. A.

Seery

C. H.

(2007). Speech and articulatory rates of school-age children in conversation and narrative contexts. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/005)

43.

Tran

D. T.

Truong

D. H.

H. S.

Huh

J. H.

(2023). Mobile robot: Automatic speech recognition application for automation and STEM education. Soft Computing, 27(15), 10789–10805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07824-7

44.

Tzagkaraki

Papadakis

Kalogiannakis

(2021, February). Exploring the use of educational robotics in primary school and its possible place in the curricula. In Educational robotics International Conference (pp. 216–229). Springer International Publishing.

45.

Williams

Prejean

Ford

M. J.

Lai

(2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782505