How do children describe and explain the behaviour of robotic systems? In this paper, some distinctions between different types of explanations, drawing from the philosophy of science literature, are proposed and exemplified by reference to an activity in which primary school children are asked to describe and explain the behaviour of a pre-programmed Braitenberg-like vehicle. The proposed distinctions are also discussed against other studies drawn from the related scientific literature. A qualitative study has provided insights to further refine the analysis described here, through the introduction of other sub-categories of explanation of robotic behaviours.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Ackermann E. (1991). The agency model of transactions: Towards an understanding of children’s theory of control. In J. Montangero & A. Tryphon (Eds.) Psychologie genetique et sciences cognitives. Geneve: Fondation Archives Jean Piaget.
Arkin R. C. (1998). Behavior-based robotics. The MIT Press.
Atmatzidou S. & Demetriadis S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 75 661–670. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Benitti F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education 58(3) 978–988. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
Braitenberg V. (1986). Vehicles. Experiments in Synthetic Psychology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Church W. Ford T. Perova N. & Rogers C. (2010). Physics With Robotics-Using LEGO MINDSTORMS In High School Education. Educational Robotics and Beyond 47–49. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SSS/SSS10/paper/viewPDFInterstitial/1062/1398
Datteri E. & Zecca L. (2016). The Game of Science: An Experiment in Synthetic Roboethology with Primary School Children. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 23(2) 24–29. http://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2016.2533038
Levy S. T. & Mioduser D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to...”? Kindergarten children’s explanations of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 18(4) 337–359. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9032-6
Levy S. T. & Mioduser D. (2010). Approaching complexity through planful play: Kindergarten children’s strategies in constructing an autonomous robot’s behavior. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 15(1) 21–43. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9159-5
Mioduser D. & Levy S. T. (2010). Making sense by building sense: Kindergarten children’s construction and understanding of adaptive robot behaviors. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 15(2) 99–127. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-010-9163-9
Mubin O. Stevens C. J. Shahid S. Mahmud A. Al & Dong J.-J. (2013). A Review of the Applicability of Robots in Education. Technology for Education and Learning 1–7. http://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015
Papert S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Piccinini G. & Scarantino A. (2010). Computation vs. information processing: Why their difference matters to cognitive science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41(3) 237–246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.07.012
Psillos S. (2003). Causation and Explanation. Montreal Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Rosenblueth A. Wiener N. & Bigelow J. (1943). Behavior Purpose and Teleology. Philosophy of Science. http://doi.org/10.1086/286788
Sullivan F. R. (2008). Robotics and Science Literacy: Thinking Skills Science Process Skills and Systems Understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(3) 373–394. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea
Whittier L. E. & Robinson M. (2016). Teaching Evolution to Non-English Proficient Students by Using Lego Robotics. American Secondary Education 35(3) 19–28.