Engaging Learners in Educational Robotics: Uncovering Students’ Expectations for an Ideal Robotic Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Specific remarks:

p.1.7                In the abstract the STE(A)M is referred to, however it does not appear in the body of the text. Should it not be mentioned? Is or not a relevant concept in the paper?

p.1.23              “It is an exciting and rapidly growing field that involves the use of robots to teach students about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts.…”. In abstract you refer STE(A)M, now you refer STEM. Please keep this consistent throughout your work.

p.2.50              “… learn about coding, robotics, and other STEM topics”, for example?...

p.3.92              “Cultural effects and prior exposure to robots through several means, like media and ICT, also influence how people perceive robot” is not informative at all. Improve your argument.

p.3.101            “To achieve this goal, we will begin by formulating research questions to guide the selection of relevant studies”. I propose to express the questions here and not at the end of the section.

p.3.16              “To achieve this goal, we will begin by formulating research questions to guide the selection of

p.6.216/2018  “The study highlighted the need to rigorously address several challenges for robotic teachers to be effective in education.” Improve your argument…Is not clear.

p.6.219            Please review…” Levinson et al[34] “.

p.8.287/290    Very general statement. What do you really want to say?

p.8.286/326    About “Summary of Contribution,,,”, in order to improve the clarity of the text, the information can be presented by classes, according to the previous tables and not just referring to some of the works cited.

p.14.427/428  “Chi-Square’s tests showed that there is a significant association between the variables age group and educational courses, in students requiring assistance; in other words, they are strongly related”, is not clear…Please clarify.

p.14.430/439  These results relate to which research question? It seems to me that you are focusing on other study variables that are not the focus of the paper.

p.14.449          “…without prior exposing them to any robotic platform”, could it be? Table 6 presents questions to students that predict that they have already used some robotic platform (for instance, questions 18 and 19).

p.15.449          Figure 7?

p.References   there are some consistency issues in your reference list. For exemple reference 25, 26, 43, 51…you must review.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks to the Reviewer for clearly indicating the points that need revision or correction. We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to improve our work. We have accepted all suggestions and improved the text accordingly in terms of suggestions and writing. We accepted them and tried to incorporate them into the paper.

 

1.    Done	2.    Done	3.    Done
4.    Done	5.    Done	6.    Done
7.    Done	8.    Done	9.    Done
10.  Done	11.  Done	12.  Done
13.  Done	14.  Done - added conclusive findings on the section	15.  Done

Reviewer 2 Report

In the abstract, you mention that you want "to understand students' expectations of an ideal robotic companion". But later in the introduction you refer to core educational practices and learning outcomes. The results show that the majority of students want an assistant in subjects that are difficult for them according to their age, and not how to design a robot with the aim of achieving specific learning outcomes. With the STEM method, we try to teach through educational robotics using robots, concepts of Mathematics, physical engineering, IT, and technology through processes where they learn by making. But here you are not answering us about that, but mainly about how a robot assistant will be more acceptable to students. I think you should make it more clear in the introduction that your purpose is to research how a robotic platform that is a learning assistant for students, will be more acceptable to them.

In the introduction and from the line 319  to  326 "To ensure the most authentic ……….while also providing entertainment and enjoyment through the use of robots." You mention that you don't want students to have prior knowledge of robots. But how can anyone have an opinion about them if they don't know them at all?

In table 4 I would like you to clarify whether the questions were open or closed type. That is, the students gave their own independent answers or chose from some options you gave them.

Figure 3 does not show which circle is the boys and which is the girls. It is also not clear which circles correspond to which colors.

In line 380, you are talking about walking robots, but it is not clear if you are talking about bipeds, quadrupeds, or general multi-legged robots. Was there a difference or are you referring only to bipeds?

In table 6 you refer to questions but they are not questions but answers, with which the students agree or disagree. In my opinion, most of the answers were obvious, as they finally appeared from the students' answers.

 

In line 460 you talk about educational results but you don't say what they were. That is, what should we teach with the help of robots. Focus more on features of social robots and how to be a robot assistant to a student rather than how to be a robot with specific features to achieve specific learning goals

Author Response

 

In the abstract, you mention that you want "to understand students' expectations of an ideal robotic companion". But later in the introduction you refer to core educational practices and learning outcomes. The results show that the majority of students want an assistant in subjects that are difficult for them according to their age, and not how to design a robot with the aim of achieving specific learning outcomes. With the STEM method, we try to teach through educational robotics using robots, concepts of Mathematics, physical engineering, IT, and technology through processes where they learn by making. But here you are not answering us about that, but mainly about how a robot assistant will be more acceptable to students. I think you should make it more clear in the introduction that your purpose is to research how a robotic platform that is a learning assistant for students, will be more acceptable to them.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the notable suggestion, since that will make more clear the scope and purpose of our work. Following the Reviewer’s suggestion we have added a statement in the introduction about their suggestion clarifying the purpose of the work: "The investigation of how a robotic platform that acts as a learning assistant for students will be more acceptable to them, will provide insights into their attitudes and preferences...".

 

In the introduction and from the line 319  to  326 "To ensure the most authentic ……….while also providing entertainment and enjoyment through the use of robots." You mention that you don't want students to have prior knowledge of robots. But how can anyone have an opinion about them if they don't know them at all?.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for comments and the notable suggestion. We made some additions to the text according to the statement of the reviewer, clarifying that we personally did not demonstrate any robotic platform before the students completed the questionnaires, but taking into account that they might have been influenced by different sources (media, internet, etc.). This is because we would like students to answer in the most truthful way.

1.     In table 4 I would like you to clarify whether the questions were open or closed type. That is, the students gave their own independent answers or chose from some options you gave them. 2.     Figure 3 does not show which circle is the boys and which is the girls. It is also not clear which circles correspond to which colors. 3.     In line 380, you are talking about walking robots, but it is not clear if you are talking about bipeds, quadrupeds, or general multi-legged robots. Was there a difference or are you referring only to bipeds? 4.     In table 6 you refer to questions but they are not questions but answers, with which the students agree or disagree. In my opinion, most of the answers were obvious, as they finally appeared from the students' answers. 5.     In line 460 you talk about educational results but you don't say what they were. That is, what should we teach with the help of robots. Focus more on features of social robots and how to be a robot assistant to a student rather than how to be a robot with specific features to achieve specific learning goals

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for their remarks and suggestions. We have tried to make additional changes and or amendments on the paper following their comments. More precisely: 1.    In tables 4 we stated that the questions we of closed type Questions, besides the one about the Robot name. 2.    Figure 3 was updated accordingly. 3.    We clarified this issue accordingly. More precisely, for the scope of the current work and in relevance of the students’ level, we exclusively considered bipedalism as the standard norm. 4.    We have updated Table 6 accordingly clarifying that these are “Rating Scale Multiple Choice Questions”. 5.    Please refer to the Section: Summary of Contribution, last paragraph.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Engaging Learners in Educational Robotics: Uncovering Students’ Expectations for an Ideal Robotic Platform” presents a bibliographic review of educational robotic platforms and their acceptance between students and teachers. After, authors present the results of a study made in Greece with a questionary elaborated to get information about the characteristics of a robotic platform that would met the public target desires.

Presented research is interesting and text produced is well written and easy to read. In the following are listed some points that should be complemented or corrected in a final version.

 

Abstract should present information about protocol used in the research, about metrics used to compare results, and results and conclusion obtained in the investigation.

 

All acronyms should be presented in the first time they are used. In the abstract acronyms should be avoided, but they should not be used as common sense. Acronyms should not be used as keywords. STEM is defined at line 24 in the introduction. STEAM or STE(A)M are not defined. It is necessary to define AI, DIY, RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, ICT, SPSS, etc.

 

Authors bring to the discussion many different robots and robotic platforms. It is imperative to insert a reference or even a footnote with a site where readers can find information about the characteristics of the system. Authors should analyze present each platform to give readers an initial understanding about what is being compared.

 

When referring to the robotic platforms, authors change the notation (like LEGO or Lego, Mindstorms or Mindstorms, Vex or VEX, KIBO or Kibo, NAO or Nao, etc.). Using many different notations to the same platforms turns text confuse.

 

Table 1 and Table 2 have also notation problems. Some words are with first letter capitalized, some words are not, without any reason.

 

Sentence at lines 181-182 and repeated below is missing a part to complete understanding. It is possible that the complement is in the next sentence. In that case, they should be put together.

“Comparing these two types of educational robots regarding students’ performance, attitudes, and gender differences.”

 

Reference at line 219 is not in the correct format. It should be “Levinson et al. [34]”.

 

At line 226 there is a typing mistake: it should be “conducted” not “contucted”.

 

At Section 3 Literature review, Table 1 should be cited before each item from 1 to 4. It gives a view of all types being explained and discussed.

 

Figure 3 should identify the color corresponding to each sphere. It is not possible to know what sphere correspond to white, or blue, or purple, in order to understand comments made in the text.

 

It would be great having in the discussion of results comparison with findings of other researches. There are studies asking child about robot desired characteristics in another context, like in robot assistance or therapy for child with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Down syndrome. Even when authors are not asking about the desired characteristics, they comment their impressions about robot acceptance by children.

 

References 43 and 51 in the list are not in the same format as others.  They have authors’ names in all capital letters.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Text with marks is being sent to help correcting typing mistakes. 

Author Response

 

The article “Engaging Learners in Educational Robotics: Uncovering Students’ Expectations for an Ideal Robotic Platform” presents a bibliographic review of educational robotic platforms and their acceptance between students and teachers. After, authors present the results of a study made in Greece with a questionary elaborated to get information about the characteristics of a robotic platform that would met the public target desires. Presented research is interesting and text produced is well written and easy to read. In the following are listed some points that should be complemented or corrected in a final version.

Authors’ response: Thank you for these interesting pointers, the kind words and the interest in our research. We have accepted all suggestions and enhanced the text accordingly both against the suggestions and also to the writing. We really appreciated the time spent for the additional “text with marks that was sent for typing mistakes”. Thank You.

Abstract should present information about protocol used in the research, about metrics used to compare results, and results and conclusion obtained in the investigation.

Authors’ response:

1.     All acronyms should be presented in the first time they are used. In the abstract acronyms should be avoided, but they should not be used as common sense. Acronyms should not be used as keywords. STEM is defined at line 24 in the introduction. STEAM or STE(A)M are not defined. It is necessary to define AI, DIY, RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, ICT, SPSS, etc. 2.     Authors bring to the discussion many different robots and robotic platforms. It is imperative to insert a reference or even a footnote with a site where readers can find information about the characteristics of the system. Authors should analyze present each platform to give readers an initial understanding about what is being compared. 3.     When referring to the robotic platforms, authors change the notation (like LEGO or Lego, Mindstorms or Mindstorms, Vex or VEX, KIBO or Kibo, NAO or Nao, etc.). Using many different notations to the same platforms turns text confuse. 4.     Table 1 and Table 2 have also notation problems. Some words are with first letter capitalized, some words are not, without any reason. 5.     Sentence at lines 181-182 and repeated below is missing a part to complete understanding. It is possible that the complement is in the next sentence. In that case, they should be put together. 6.     “Comparing these two types of educational robots regarding students’ performance, attitudes, and gender differences.” 7.     Reference at line 219 is not in the correct format. It should be “Levinson et al. [34]”. 8.     At line 226 there is a typing mistake: it should be “conducted” not “contucted”. 9.     At Section 3 Literature review, Table 1 should be cited before each item from 1 to 4. It gives a view of all types being explained and discussed. 10.  Figure 3 should identify the color corresponding to each sphere. It is not possible to know what sphere correspond to white, or blue, or purple, in order to understand comments made in the text. 11.  It would be great having in the discussion of results comparison with findings of other researches. There are studies asking child about robot desired characteristics in another context, like in robot assistance or therapy for child with Autism Spectrum Disorder or Down syndrome. Even when authors are not asking about the desired characteristics, they comment their impressions about robot acceptance by children. 12.  References 43 and 51 in the list are not in the same format as others.  They have authors’ names in all capital letters.

Authors’ response: Many thanks to the Reviewer for clearly indicating the points that need revision or correction. We greatly appreciate your comments and suggestions to improve our work. We have accepted all suggestions and improved the text accordingly both in terms of suggestions and writing. We accepted them and tried to incorporate them into the paper.   Tables, figures and acronyms were updated accordingly and added Footnotes (or references were applicable) for the robotic platforms, according to the Reviewer’s suggestions. References were updated as well.   As about the suggestion of comparing our own work with other discussing the acceptance of robots in special education, this was accepted and we have added a paragraph on the conclusion discussing relevant studies' outcomes that are in line with our findings. We thank the reviewer for this beneficial comment. 1.    Done 2.    Done 3.    Done 4.    Done 5.    Done 6.    Done 7.    Done 8.    Done 9.    Done 10.  Done 11.  Done 12.  Done