Although robots’ social behaviors are known for their capacity to facilitate learner–robot interaction for language learning, their application and effect have not been adequately explored. This study reviewed 59 empirical articles to examine the contexts and application of various social behaviors of robots for language learning, and conducted a meta-analysis of 18 study samples to evaluate the effect of robots’ social supportive behaviors on language learning achievement. Results indicate that robots’ social behaviors have mostly been applied in the studies with K–12 students, for learning vocabulary in English, including small sample sizes of below 80 participants, and lasting for one session. Second, various verbal and non-verbal behaviors of robots have been identified and applied, showing mixed results on language learning achievement. Third, robots’ social supportive behaviors have produced a positive effect on language learning achievement compared to neutral behaviors (g = 0.269). Finally, detailed suggestions for future research are discussed.
* AkalinN.UluerP.KoseH. (2014). Non-verbal communication with a social robot peer: Towards robot assisted interactive sign language tutoring. Proceedings of 2014 14th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots. 1122–1127. https://doi.org/10.1109/humanoids.2014.7041509
2.
**AlHakimV. G.YangS. H.LiyanawattaM.WangJ. H.ChenG. D. (2022). Robots in situated learning classrooms with immediate feedback mechanisms to improve students’ learning performance. Computers & Education, 182, Article 104483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104483
3.
* AlemiM.BahramipourS. (2019). An innovative approach of incorporating a humanoid robot into teaching EFL learners with intellectual disabilities. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-019-0075-5
4.
* AlemiM.HaeriN. S. (2017). How to develop learners’ politeness: A study of RALL’s impact on learning greeting by young Iranian EFL learners. Proceedings of 2017 5th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (pp. 88–94). https://doi.org/10.1109/icrom.2017.8466206
5.
* AlemiM.HaeriN. S. (2020). Robot-assisted instruction of L2 pragmatics: Effects on young EFL learners’ speech act performance. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 86–103. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44727
6.
* AlemiM.MeghdariA.GhazisaedyM. (2014). Employing humanoid robots for teaching English language in Iranian junior high-schools. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 11(3), Article 1450022. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219843614500224
7.
AmbadyN.RosenthalR. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256
8.
* ArarC.BelazouiA.TelliA. (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
9.
ArdashevaY.WangZ.AdesopeO. O.ValentineJ. C. (2017). Exploring effectiveness and moderators of language learning strategy instruction on second language and self-regulated learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 544–582. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689135
10.
* BalkibekovK.MeiirbekovS.TazhigaliyevaN.SandygulovaA. (2016). Should robots win or lose? Robot’s losing playing strategy positively affects child learning. Proceedings of 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 706–711). https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2016.7745196
11.
* BanaeianH.GilanliogluI. (2021). Influence of the Nao robot as a teaching assistant on university students’ vocabulary learning and attitudes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6130
12.
BartneckC. (2008). Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans?Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 553–557. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2008.4600724
13.
BelpaemeT.KennedyJ.RamachandranA.ScassellatiB.TanakaF. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
14.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
15.
BudimanA. (2017). Behaviorism and foreign language teaching methodology. English Franca: Academic Journal of English Language and Education, 1(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.29240/ef.v1i2.171
16.
Buitrago FlórezF.CasallasR.HernándezM.ReyesA.RestrepoS.DaniesG. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
17.
ButtonK. S.IoannidisJ. P.MokryszC.NosekB. A.FlintJ.RobinsonE. S.MunafòM. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
18.
* ChangC. W.LeeJ. H.WangC. Y.ChenG. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1572–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023
19.
*ChenG. D.NurkhamidWangC. Y.YangS. H.LuW. Y.ChangC. K. (2013). Digital learning playground: Supporting authentic learning experiences in the classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(2), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.705856
20.
Chen HsiehJ.LeeJ. S. (2021). Digital storytelling outcomes, emotions, grit, and perceptions among EFL middle school learners: Robot-assisted versus PowerPoint-assisted presentations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(5–6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1969410
21.
ChengY. W.SunP. C.ChenN. S. (2018). The essential applications of educational robot: Requirement analysis from the perspectives of experts, researchers and instructors. Computers & Education, 126, 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.020
22.
CheungA. C.SlavinR. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16656615
23.
*de WitJ.BrandseA.KrahmerE.VogtP. (2020). Varied human-like gestures for social robots. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 359–367). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374815
24.
**de WitJ.SchoddeT.WillemsenB.BergmannK.de HaasM.KoppS.KrahmerE.VogtP. (2018). The effect of a robot’s gestures and adaptive tutoring on children’s acquisition of second language vocabularies. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 50–58). https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171277
25.
DeeksJ. J.HigginsJ. P. (2019). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In HigginsJ. P.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed., pp. 241–284). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch10
26.
* Demir-LiraÖ. E.KaneroJ.OrançC.KoşkuluS.FrankoI.GöksunT.KüntayA. C. (2020). L2 vocabulary teaching by social robots: The role of gestures and on-screen cues as scaffolds. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.599636
27.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
28.
DwanK.AltmanD. G.ArnaizJ. A.BloomJ.ChanA. W.CroninE.DecullierE.EasterbrookP. J.ElmE. V.GambleC.GhersiD.loannidisJ. P. A.SimesJ.WilliamsonP. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One, 3(8), Article e3081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003081
29.
* EimlerS.von der PüttenA.SchächtleU.CarstensL.KrämerN. (2010). Following the white rabbit—A robot rabbit as vocabulary trainer for beginners of English. Proceedings of the Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group, 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16607-5_22
30.
GelmanA.CarlinJ. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing Type S (sign) and Type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642
GerardL. F.VarmaK.CorlissS. B.LinnM. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311415121
33.
GilesH.SchererK. R.TaylorD. M. (1979). Speech markers in social interaction. In SchererK. R.GilesH. (Eds.), Social Markers in Speech (pp. 343–381). Cambridge University Press.
34.
* GordonG.BreazealC. (2015). Bayesian active learning-based robot tutor for children’s word-reading skills. Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29(1), 1343–1349. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9376
35.
* GordonG.BreazealC.EngelS. (2015). Can children catch curiosity from a social robot?Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 91–98). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696469
36.
* GordonG.SpauldingS.Kory WestlundJ.LeeJ. J.PlummerL.MartinezM.DasM.BreazealC. (2016). Affective personalization of a social robot tutor for children’s second language skills. Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30(1), 3951–3957. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9914
37.
GorhamJ. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702
38.
HallE. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Anchor Books.
39.
* HanJ. H.JoM. H.JonesV.JoJ. H. (2008). Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4(4), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.3745/jips.2008.4.4.159
40.
* HerbergJ. S.FellerS.YenginI.SaerbeckM. (2015). Robot watchfulness hinders learning performance. Proceedings of 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 153–160). https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2015.7333620
41.
* HongZ. W.HuangY. M.HsuM.ShenW. W. (2016). Authoring robot-assisted instructional materials for improving learning performance and motivation in EFL classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 337–349. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.1.337
42.
* HsiaoH. S.ChangC. S.LinC. Y.HsuH. L. (2015). “iRobiQ”: The influence of bidirectional interaction on kindergarteners’ reading motivation, literacy, and behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745435
43.
* HyunE.KimS.JangS.ParkS. (2008). Comparative study of effects of language instruction program using intelligence robot and multimedia on linguistic ability of young children. Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2008.4600664
44.
* IshidaM.KhalifaA. B.KatoT.YamamotoS. (2016). Features of learner corpus collected with joining-in type robot assisted language learning system. Proceedings of 2016 Conference of The Oriental Chapter of International Committee for Coordination and Standardization of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (pp. 128–131). https://doi.org/10.1109/icsda.2016.7918997
45.
* JacqA.LemaignanS.GarciaF.DillenbourgP.PaivaA. (2016). Building successful long child-robot interactions in a learning context. Proceedings of 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 239–246). https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451758
46.
* JimenezF.KanohM. (2013). Robot that can promote learning by observing in collaborative learning. Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 2304–2309). https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2013.394
47.
JohalW.JacqA.PaivaA.DillenbourgP. (2016). Child-robot spatial arrangement in a learning by teaching activity. Proceedings of 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 533–538). https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2016.7745169
48.
* KandaT.HiranoT.EatonD.IshiguroH. (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
49.
KaneroJ.GeçkinV.OrançC.MamusE.KüntayA. C.GöksunT. (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
50.
KendonA. (2010). Spacing and orientation in co-present interaction. In EspositoA.CampbellN.VogelC.HussainA.NijholtA. (Eds.), Development of multimodal interfaces: Active listening and synchrony (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12397-9_1
51.
** KennedyJ.BaxterP.SenftE.BelpaemeT. (2016). Social robot tutoring for child second language learning. Proceedings of 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 231–238). https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451757
52.
* KhalifaA.KatoT.YamamotoS. (2017). Measuring effect of repetitive queries and implicit learning with joining-in-type robot assisted language learning system. Proceedings of 7th ISCA Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (pp. 13–17). https://doi.org/10.21437/slate.2017-3
53.
* KimA.OmarovaM.ZhaksylykA.AsselbornT.JohalW.DillenbourgP.SandygulovaA. (2019). CoWriting Kazakh: Transitioning to a new Latin script using social robots. Proceedings of 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/ro-man46459.2019.8956471
54.
** KoryJ. (2014). Storytelling with robots: Effects of robot language level on children’s language learning [Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. DSpace. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/95608
55.
** Kory-WestlundJ. M. (2019). Relational AI: Creating long-term interpersonal interaction, rapport, and relationships with social robots [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. DSpace. http://oastats.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/123627
56.
* Kory-WestlundJ. M.DickensL.JeongS.HarrisP. L.DeStenoD.BreazealC. L. (2017a). Children use non-verbal cues to learn new words from robots as well as people. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.04.001
57.
** Kory-WestlundJ. M.JeongS.ParkH. W.RonfardS.AdhikariA.HarrisP. L.DeStenoD.BreazealC. L. (2017b). Flat vs. expressive storytelling: Young children’s learning and retention of a social robot’s narrative. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, Article 295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00295
58.
* KoseH.UluerP.AkalınN.YorgancıR.ÖzkulA.InceG. (2015). The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(4), 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0311-1
59.
KoseH.YorganciR.AlganE. H.SyrdalD. S. (2012). Evaluation of the robot assisted sign language tutoring using video-based studies. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4(3), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0142-2
60.
LeeJ. H. (2012). Reassessment of English-only approach in EFL context in view of young learners’ attitudes, language proficiency, and vocabulary knowledge. Multilingual Education, 2(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-2-5
61.
LeeH.LeeJ. H. (2022). The effects of robot-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, Article 100425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100425
62.
* LeeS.NohH.LeeJ.LeeK.LeeG. G.SagongS.KimM. (2011). On the effectiveness of robot-assisted language learning. ReCALL, 23(1), 25–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344010000273
63.
* LeeuwesteinH.BarkingM.SodacıH.Oudgenoeg-PazO.VerhagenJ.VogtP.AartsR.SpitS.HaasM.WitJ.LesemanP. (2021). Teaching Turkish-Dutch kindergartners Dutch vocabulary with a social robot: Does the robot’s use of Turkish translations benefit children’s Dutch vocabulary learning?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12510
64.
LefebvreC.GlanvilleJ.BriscoeS.LittlewoodA.MarshallC.MetzendorfM. I.Noel-StorrA.RaderT.ShokranehF.ThomasJ.WielandL. S., & The Cochrane Information Retrieval Methods Group. (2019). Searching for and selecting studies. In HigginsJ. P.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed., pp. 67–107). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch4
65.
* LevchakS. (2016). Robotic literacy learning companions: Exploring student engagement with a humanoid robot in an afterschool literacy program [Doctoral dissertation, New Jersey City University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1972753233
66.
LinV.YehH. C.ChenN. S. (2022). A systematic review on oral interactions in robot-assisted language learning. Electronics, 11(2), Article 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11020290
MavridisN. (2015). A review of verbal and non-verbal human-robot interactive communication. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 63, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2014.09.031
69.
* MazzoniE.BenvenutiM. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning English using socio-cognitive conflict. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474–485. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.4.474
70.
* MeiirbekovS.BalkibekovK.JalankuzovZ.SandygulovaA. (2016). “You win, I lose”: Towards adapting robot’s teaching strategy. Proceedings of 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 475–476). https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2016.7451813
71.
* MovellanJ.EckhardtM.VirnesM.RodriguezA. (2009). Sociable robot improves toddler vocabulary skills. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (pp. 307–308). https://doi.org/10.1145/1514095.1514189
72.
Oga-BaldwinW. L. Q.NakataY.ParkerP.RyanR. M. (2017). Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.010
73.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.MoherD. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
74.
* ParkS. J.HanJ. H.KangB. H.ShinK. C. (2011). Teaching assistant robot, ROBOSEM, in English class and practical issues for its diffusion. Proceedings of Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1109/arso.2011.6301971
75.
PerlmanD. J. (2015). Help motivate the amotivated by being a supportive teacher. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2013.868876
76.
* PerlmutterL.FiannacaA.KernfeldE.AnandS.ArnoldL.CakmakM. (2016). Automatic adaptation of online language lessons for robot tutoring. Proceedings of International Conference on Social Robotics, 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47437-3_65
77.
RandallN. (2019). A survey of robot-assisted language learning (RALL). ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 9(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3345506
78.
** SaerbeckM.SchutT.BartneckC.JanseM. D. (2010). Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1613–1622). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753567
79.
* SandygulovaA.JohalW.ZhexenovaZ.TleubayevB.ZhanatkyzyA.TurarovaA.TelishevaZ.CohenMillerA.AsselbornT.DillenbourgP. (2020). CoWriting Kazakh: Learning a new script with a robot. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 113–120). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374813
80.
** SchoddeT.BergmannK.KoppS. (2017). Adaptive robot language tutoring based on Bayesian knowledge tracing and predictive decision-making. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 128–136). https://doi.org/10.1145/2909824.3020222
81.
** SchoddeT.HoffmannL.StangeS.KoppS. (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
82.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-17373-000
83.
ShinJ. E.ShinD. H. (2015). Robot as a facilitator in language conversation class. Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts (pp. 11–12). https://doi.org/10.1145/2701973.2702062
84.
SlavinR. E.CheungA. (2005). A synthesis of research on language of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002247
85.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.ChambersB.CheungA.DavisS. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341374
86.
SmakmanM.KonijnE. A. (2020). Robot tutors: Welcome or ethically questionable? In MerdanM.LepuschitzW.KoppensteinerG.BaloghR.ObdržálekD. (Eds.), Robotics in education (pp. 376–386). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26945-6_34
* TanakaF.MatsuzoeS. (2012). Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: Field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.1.1.tanaka
89.
TiberiusR. G.BillsonJ. M. (1991). The social context of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1991(45), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219914509
90.
* TsaiC. C. (2019). Adapting an anthropomorphized robot for enhancing EFL learning motivation and performance at an elementary school in Taiwan. The New Educational Review, 58(4), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.19.58.4.02
91.
* UluerP.AkalınN.KoseH. (2015). A new robotic platform for sign language tutoring. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0307-x
92.
* van den BergheR.HaasM.Oudgenoeg-PazO.KrahmerE.VerhagenJ.VogtP.WillemsenB.WitJ.LesemanP. (2021). A toy or a friend? Children’s anthropomorphic beliefs about robots and how these relate to second-language word learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12497
93.
* van den BergheR.van der VenS.VerhagenJ.Oudgenoeg-PazO.PapadopoulosF.LesemanP. (2018). Investigating the effects of a robot peer on L2 word learning. Proceedings of Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 267–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173386.3176986
94.
van den BergheR.VerhagenJ.Oudgenoeg-PazO.Van der VenS.LesemanP. (2019). Social robots for language learning: A review. Review of Educational Research, 89(2), 259–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318821286
95.
* van MinkelenP.GrusonC.van HeesP.WillemsM.de WitJ.AartsR.DenissenJ.VogtP. (2020). Using self-determination theory in social robots to increase motivation in L2 word learning. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 369–377). https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374828
96.
VinciarelliA.PanticM.BourlardH. (2009). Social signal processing: Survey of an emerging domain. Image and Vision Computing, 27(12), 1743–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imavis.2008.11.007
97.
** VogtP.van den BergheR.de HaasM.HoffmanL.KaneroJ.MamusE.MontanierJ. M.OrancC.Oudgenoeg-PazO.GarciaD. H.PapadopoulosF.SchoddeT.VerhagenJ.WallbridgeC. D.WillemsenB.de WitJ.BelpaemeT.GoksunT.KoppS.. . . PandeyA. K. (2019). Second language tutoring using social robots: A large-scale study. Proceedings of 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1109/hri.2019.8673077
98.
* WangY. H.YoungS. S. C.JangJ. S. R. (2013). Using tangible companions for enhancing learning English conversation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 296–309. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.16.2.296
99.
WayneA. J.YoungsP. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089
* WuW. C. V.WangR. J.ChenN. S. (2015). Instructional design using an in-house built teaching assistant robot to enhance elementary school English-as-a-foreign-language learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 696–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.792844
103.
* YuehH. P.LinW.WangS. C.FuL. C. (2020). Reading with robot and human companions in library literacy activities: A comparison study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1884–1900. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13016
104.
ZłotowskiJ.ProudfootD.YogeeswaranK.BartneckC. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
