Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education (TECH-EDU 2018), June 20-22, 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece. Read more at: http://bit.ly/techedu4

1. Promoting critical thinking dispositions in children and
adolescents through Human-Robot Interaction with
Socially Assistive Robots
Dimitrios Pnevmatikos, Panagiota Christodoulou & Nikolaos Fachantidis
SPECIAL TRACK: BUILDING CRITICAL THINKING IN HIGHER EDUCATION-MEETING THE
CHALLENGE
International Conference on Technology and
Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education
June 20-22, 2018 - Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Greece
Thessaloniki, 21/6/18

2. Skills and competencies for the 21st century
20th century
• Industrialized society
• Education emphasizes on
content & knowledge
acquisition
21st century
• Knowledge-based society
• Education emphasizes on skills
and competencies
2
(Dede, 2010; Griffin, McGaw & Care, 2012)

3. Skills and competencies for the 21st
century
3
(Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Dede,
2010; NRC, 2013)
Critical Thinking Creative Thinking
Communication Collaboration
Digital Literacy
Problem solving Decision making
4CCs

4. Teaching for Critical Thinking (CT):
A difficult task
Epistemological presuppositions
Disagreements
on definition
Disagreements
on nature
(subject
specificity vs.
domain general)
Teacher’s personal epistemology
unaware of the
necessity to teach
cognitive skills
do not recognize explicit
CT instruction as part of
the educational process
Implications for instruction
Many approaches and strategies
Higher order skill=> improve
lower order thinking skills
4
(Anastasiadou & Dimitriadou, 2011; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart,
2014; Gelder, 2005; Maiorana, 1992; Lai, 2011)
CHALLENGE: to develop innovative
interventions that will promote critical
thinking skills in individuals

5. Aim of the current study
- To present a preliminary concept on the development
of an approach that will integrate Socially Assistive
Robots (SAR) as part of the explicit instruction for
promoting CT in children and adolescents (i.e.,
between 10 and 18 years old)
5

6. Defining Critical Thinking
6
Critical Thinking
Critical Thinking Skills
- Interpretation
- Analysis
- Inference
- Evaluation
- Explanation
- Self-regulation
Critical Thinking
Dispositions
- Truth-seeking
- Open-mindedness
- Analyticity
- Systematicity
- Self-confidence
- Inquisitiveness
- Maturity of judgement
(Facione, 1990, 2000; Facione & Facione, 1996; Facione, Sanchez, Facione & Gainen, 1995)

7. Instruction for Critical Thinking:
a few examples from the literature (I)
-Ennis (1985): General, Infusion, Immersion & Mixed approach
-Halpern (1998): Motivate towards Critical Thinking Dispositions, Explicit
Instruction of CTS, Exploitation in problem solving situation for transferability,
enhance metacognition
-Abrami et al (2015): mixed approach-more effective for learners
-Abrami et al (2015): dialogue related type of strategies (e.g., questioning, peer
discussion, debate) and authentic or anchored instruction (e.g., problem-solving
techniques, simulations, case studies and role-plays)=>most effective teaching
strategies for CT
7

8. Instruction for Critical Thinking:
a few examples from the literature (II)
-Fung, 2017: collaborative group activities, instructor guided questions & group
debates=> more effective for secondary school students in promoting CTD than
whole class instruction
-Fung, 2014: primary education students’ critical ability was significantly
enhanced when engaged in collaborative-problem solving activities
-Ku, Ho, Hau & Lai, 2014: direct instruction & inquiry-based teaching: A= direct
instruction dominates, B=balanced approach, C= inquiry-based teaching
dominates, D= no training=>improvement in A, B, C at CTS & CTD for upper
secondary students
8

9. Socially Assistive Robots
Socially Assistive Robot: a physically embodied robot that provides
motivational, personalized and long-term support to humans by
engaging in social interaction following social behaviors and rules
according to its role (Edwards, Edwards, Spence, Harris, & Gambino, 2016; Feil-Seifer, & Mataric, 2005)
9
Education &
Special Education
Elderly care
Rehabilitation

10. Socially Assistive Robots & social
capabilities
-social capabilities of the robot enhance motivation towards behavior
changes and engagement in learning and instruction e.g.
▪ Baroni et al (2014): robot that engages in verbal and non- verbal communication motivated
primary school children to change their lifestyles and eating habits
▪ Hood, Lemaignan & Dillenbourg (2015): elementary schoolchildren who interacted with a
robotic partner, which they taught handwriting were more motivated to engage in the
activity. Also, metacognitive aspects were stimulated by the interaction with the robot as
children had to reflect and consider why the robot failed to learn writing
▪ Spaulding, Gordon & Breazeal (2016): children that played an interactive story-telling game
with a physically embodied, affect-aware robot tutor in comparison to a tablet, generated
stronger engagement and enjoyment during the interaction
10

11. Socially Assistive Robots & social capabilities:
Personalization
- Personalization is an important social capability for the current study
- Personalization of the robot’s behavior:
- increase of the friendliness or social presence,
- the customization of the robot’s appearance,
- the customization of the robot’s personality,
- the task preferences,
- the feedback provided to the user
-According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000) satisfaction of users’
psychological needs leads to enhancement of motivation
11

12. Socially Assistive Robots:
Importance of personalized robotic tutor
-Gordon & Breazeal (2015)=>assessed students skills and the behavior of the robotic
tutor was personalized according to each student’s level vs. random tutoring=>in
the first condition students optimized their information gain and revealed
substantial engagement in the task
-Janssen, van der Wal, Neerincx, & Looije (2011): personalization of the task’s level of
difficulty according to child’ performance vs. no personalization=>primary school
children were more motivated and engaged longer with the robot in the
personalized mode
-Jones, Bull & Castellano, 2017; Jones & Castellano, 2018: personalization of the
feedback according to users’ performance=>enhanced primary school students’ self
regulation
12

13. The concept of the current study:
Research design
-Experimental design
-Pre-intermediate-post measurement
-Participants between 10-18 y.o.
-Individual session ≅ 20 − 30 𝑚𝑖𝑛
-8 sessions (two-months duration)
13

14. The concept of the current study:
Materials
-STIMEY robot
-Detachable android smartphone
-Personalized appearance & personality (e.g. change colors, add-on
components, coating surfaces)
-Personalized behavior (e.g., feedback and responses according to
user’s performance)
14

15. The concept of the current study:
Evaluation
-Scales and inventories will not be employed due to the complex
nature of CT and reliability and validity issues (Carter, Creedy &
Sidebotham, 2015)
-Qualitative measurement with a self-evaluation task (i.e., describing
the CTD they are involved)
-A task similar with the experimental to evaluate transferability of
CTD
15

16. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (I)
Familiarization phase (≅3 min)
-The robot greets the user and vice versa
-The robot informs about an internet article it read and
asks the user to provide an opinion on it
16

17. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (II)
18
Main test phase (≅ 20-25 min)

18. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (III)
19

19. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (IV)
Concluding phase
-Depending on the final answer of the child, some gestures and noises will be
employed by the robot (e.g. positive or sympathetic)
-In case of irrelevant search the robot suggests alternative entries to the user
-The robot reflects on the CTD that the child involved during the process of
inquiry
e.g., “I think it really helped you that you sought for the truth of the original
argument. This is a first step towards critical thinking, seeking the truth! Also, you
found a lot of evidence that made your opinion more solid than before and made
you understand the problem more; you should do it more often!”
-Cheer offs and goodbye
20

20. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (V)
Different questions for different CTD
21
CT
Dispositions
Robot response
Truth-seeking
-Is this argument true?
-Did you question any of your beliefs?
-Is this the best knowledge on which you can
build your argument?
-Did you find information on both sides of the
argument?
-Are there any consequences related to your
argument?
Open-
mindedness
-Did you respect different opinions on your
argument?
-Did you appreciate or laugh at others’
arguments?
Analyticity
-Did you think the outcomes of your decisions?
-Did you use evidence when tried to resolve the
problem?
-Did you think in advance any difficulties related
to your argument?
Systematicity
-Did you organize your approach to solve an issue or
problem?
-Which steps did you follow to search for evidence
-Did you try to solve a problem without thinking in
advance how to solve it?
Self-confidence
-Did you have confidence when you tried to solve a
challenging problem?
-Did you work on the problem or did you asked for help?
Inquisitiveness
-Did you learn something new?
-Was this new information/evidence important for you?
-Did you engage in an activity because it is useful for you?
Maturity of
judgment
-Did you reconsider your argument according to other
opinions?
-Did you change your original belief according to the
scientific evidence?
-Were you willing to reconsider your argument at all?
CT
Dispositions
Robot response

21. The concept of the current study
Experimental set-up (VI)
Scaffolding in additional sessions
-After a few sessions the robot would minimize the scaffold towards the child
-In case a child systematically uses evidence to support an argument, the robot
asks the child to describe the procedures he/she involves to evaluate a stimulus
e.g., “What is your first step in evaluating the argument I gave you?”
- When the child masters the activity congratulation responses will be initiated
-In case a child has difficulties engaging with the appropriate CTD, the robot will
provide hints
22

22. Summary
Aspects taken under consideration
-SAR promote user’s motivation and engagement in a task
-SAR support skills development and long term behavior change
-SAR improve learning outcomes for users
-We suggest the integration of SAR for promoting CTD
-Start with CTD because: is the internal motivation of thinking in a
critical manner towards a problem
-Development of CT is not a task that can happen overnight=>a
longitudinal approach is required as a starting point
23

23. Aspects to take under consideration:
-Limitation: There is no direct instruction on CTD=>mitigation plan: explicit
introduction of the CTD beforehand by the robot followed by student’s
engagement
-Limitation: participants might not be able to address directly the CTD
involved with =>mitigation plan: Rubric development to facilitate self-
evaluation and reflection
-Limitation: lack of positive feedback=> mitigation plan: increase positive
reinforcement after engagement with CTD
-Limitation: There is no direct instruction on CTS=> mitigation plan: include
direct introduction of the CTS as a next step of intervention
24

24. Promoting critical thinking dispositions in children and
adolescents through Human-Robot Interaction with
Socially Assistive Robots
Dimitrios Pnevmatikos, Panagiota Christodoulou & Nikolaos Fachantidis
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
International Conference on Technology and
Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education
June 20-22, 2018 - Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Greece
Thessaloniki, 21/6/18