For the last 10 years I have been involved in the learning dynamics for man-machine interfacing in military systems. The question you are asking is not something that can be answered in a few posts. My expertise (doctorate) involves neuro-psychology in high risk/stress environments using the theories and work of Dr. Judee Burgoon out of University of Arizona. Suggest you review her research, my dissertation, the work of Dr. David Schwartz (The Mind and the Brain), and possibly my counter-terrorism psychology textbook (Offensive and Defensive Security).

Thanks Harry Nimon. I'll look in to those sources.

Tommy:

Here's a link to a study that evaluated robotic technology in orthopedic surgery, which can be useful in finding a framework for your research:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258148714_Protocol_for_Evaluation_of_Robotic_Technology_in_Orthopedic_Surgery

Here's a link to related studies in RG, which you can peruse and choose what is useful for you:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.PublicLiterature.search.html?type=keyword&search-keyword=Evaluating+Robotic+Technology&search-abstract=&search=Search

Hope this is helpful. I extend best wishes for every success in your research!

Best regards,

Debra

Article Protocol for Evaluation of Robotic Technology in Orthopedic Surgery

Tommy

In the last decade, me and my team, we have been researching about the learning of mathematics and informatics with robots. You can find some papers in our project (DROIDE II - Robots in mathematics and informatics education) site - http://www.cee.uma.pt/droide2/p_intconf.html

If you need anything more please contact me.

Best regards

Elsa Fernandes

Tommy

Investigating classroom discourse and interaction while using robotics would offer a very interesting insight of the process. From a socio-constructivist view, thinking and talking are inextricably linked. If you are interested in this topic, Wegerif has a lot of published articles relating technology with the development of thinking skills, examples below. Yet, I'm not aware of any publication related particularly to robotics.

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143–157. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6840-8

Wegerif, R., McLaren, B. M., Chamrada, M., Scheuer, O., Mansour, N., Mikšátko, J., & Williams, M. (2010). Exploring creative thinking in graphically mediated synchronous dialogues. Computers and Education, 54(3), 613–621. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.10.015

Una posibilidad puede ser mediante estudios de caso, uso de proyectos de investigación o portafolios. 

Atte

Víctor Manuel Mendoza Martínez 

Hi Tommy,

We share similar research objectives.  I hope you find this summary of my work useful.  First I will make some basic statements.

Do not become seduced by the technology.  If we cannot use it to improve the quality of a student’s educational experience, it has little value.  Robots do not need to be high-tech or clever; they need to be educationally effective.

The teacher is the key to effectiveness.  I have met teachers who get remarkable results using a robot.  Another teacher doing the same activity fails.  The diversity of student ages, abilities, cultural and social backgrounds all affect outcomes.  Can we compare the value a robot brings to activities with a pre-K student, to the radically different work done in Grade 12?

This poses two questions.   How can we measure the effectiveness and how can we make the teachers performance consistent?

You downloaded my paper on the Principles of Educational Robotic Activities (ERA).  Mike Blamires and I drew up these tenets based on our years of experience with robots in schools.  I have worked with Turtle-type educational robots in pre k-12 education for 32 years

I have a project running called e-Robot whose aim is to gather evidence to support, disprove or adjust ERA.  You will find another paper Mike and I wrote in which we outline this project.  This paper addresses the issue of what is valid scientific based educational research.  The No Child Left Behind Act in the USA proclaimed experiments with control groups was the gold standard.  Other research methods were inferior.  We dismiss the idea there is a gold standard.  For example No Child rejects anecdotal evidence (effectively teacher's experience) because you cannot judge whether it is an isolated instance.  e-Robot believes that it is possible to collect such evidence on a large-scale using the web.  Because ERA abstracts the value of a robotic activity we can collect data from diverse projects.  A four-year-old’s work on number recognition contributes to the proof of an ERA Principle.  The effort of Middle school student using a robot to explore the trends of the periodic table can add evidence of the same Principle.  I have set up software to gather data from teachers working with students anywhere in the world.  It can run for as long as we keep the website active. 

So how can we make the quality of teaching consistent?  The answer lies in making sure the activities and the robot technology supports good teaching practice.  That prompts the obvious question - what is good teaching practice?  I believe Assessment for Learning (AfL) provides an answer.  AfL methods allow teachers to ensure the effectiveness of lessons.  If the students do not understand something AfL helps the teacher recognise and resolve the issue immediately.   I have two papers about this: robots and AfL and robots and peer assessment.

The key work on AfL is “Inside the Black Box” by Dylan Wiliam and Paul Black.  This publication is online and both authors post in Research Gate.  Explore YouTube.  You will find videos from both men and from their colleague Christine Harrison.  Among these videos is two one hour BBC Documentaries showing Professor Wiliam using AfL in a school.  You can also try to get access to Teacher’s TV.  This series of videos published by the English Department of Education, but is now available through various companies.

This brings us to the final question – what do we measure?  Normally we give children a task with specific objectives.  We measure what they learnt with some form of test.  For example we might test what they learnt about multiplying fractions.  I contend you cannot measure the effectiveness of an activity against the stated objective explains why.  Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).  This recognises that knowledge emerges gradually. Students need different experiences relating to an objective.  There is no “killer” activity on fractions.  Robots give pupils valuable experiences.  These wither unless properly integrated with other efforts. 

In Mindstorms, Seymour Papert (the founder of educational robots) told of a practical experience he had as a two-year-old.  He recalled how as a teenager this experience helped him understand differential calculus.  How do you test that experience?  What we need measure, we cannot necessarily do with crude test questions.  My proposal is that we measure what AFL calls Success Criteria. 

AFL focuses on Learning Intentions and Success Criteria.  An intention is what the student thinks they are learning - in “student talk” not “teacher speak”.  The student repeating parrot-fashion an objective given to them by the teacher is not good enough.  Once the teacher has properly engaged the students in a task, they can explain clearly what they are learning.  Success criteria is a corollary to learning intention.   How does the student recognise success?  I believe this is testable.  I am conducting some test to verify this.

You might find it useful to go to www.roamer-educational-robot.com and www.research.roamer-educational-robot.com  the latter will give access to a research library I am building.  It contains papers going back to Mike Paterson’s Specification for the first educational robot in 1969.