Potential of Social Robots and ICTs in Higher Education: Enhancing Complex Thinking and Meta-Competencies

Jose Jaime Baena-Rojas; Juana  Isabel Méndez; Nancy  Constantina Mazon-Parra; Edgar  Omar López-Caudana

doi:10.48161/qaj.v5n1a1089

Authors

Jose Jaime Baena-Rojas Institución Universitaria CEIPA, Business School, Sabaneta 055450, Colombia; Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Faculty of Economics and Business, Logroño 26006, España;
Juana Isabel Méndez Tecnológico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Manufacturing, Mexico City 64849, México;
Nancy Constantina Mazon-Parra Universidad Autónoma de México, Faculty of Psychology, Mexico City 04510, México;
Edgar Omar López-Caudana Tecnológico de Monterrey, Institute for the Future of Education (IFE), Mexico City 14380, México.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48161/qaj.v5n1a1089

Abstract

Considering the emerging trends in higher education to implement innovative pedagogical strategies and tools, this study examines the role of Social Robotics (SR) and Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in enhancing classroom performance and fostering meta-competencies such as scientific, critical, innovative, and systemic thinking. Therefore, a field study was conducted with 106 students from Ibero-American universities, exploring their perceptions of SR through a mixed-methods approach. The objective was to determine the level of acceptance and effectiveness of SR in expanding the learning process. Data were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation, revealing significant positive associations between SR implementation and classroom engagement, with students reporting increased general interest in class (ρ = 0.741, p < 0.001) and a faster perception of time (ρ = 0.679, p < 0.001). Despite these benefits, challenges such as high costs and technical barriers limit widespread SR adoption. However, SR holds significant potential to enhance the quality of higher education, contributing to ongoing efforts to integrate technological tools that prepare students for future challenges and uncertainties. The study recommends further research to evaluate SR’s long-term effects and scalability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Whitesides, G. M. (2018). Soft Robotics. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 57(16), 4258–4273.

Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Robots, Industry 4.0 and Humans, or Why Assembly Work Is More than Routine Work. Societies, 6(2), Article 2.

Hsieh, M.-C., Pan, H.-C., Hsieh, S.-W., Hsu, M.-J., & Chou, S.-W. (2022). Teaching the Concept of Computational Thinking: A STEM-Based Program With Tangible Robots on Project-Based Learning Courses. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.

Kahn, P. H. Jr., Ishiguro, H., Friedman, B., Kanda, T., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., & Miller, J. (2007). What is a Human?: Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 363–390.

Akalin, N., & Loutfi, A. (2021). Reinforcement Learning Approaches in Social Robotics. Sensors, 21(4), Article 4.

Youssef, K., Said, S., Alkork, S., & Beyrouthy, T. (2022). A Survey on Recent Advances in Social Robotics. Robotics, 11(4), Article 4.

Alnajjar, F., Bartneck, C., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T., Cappuccio, M., Dio, C. D., Eyssel, F., Handke, J., Mubin, O., Obaid, M., & Reich-Stiebert, N. (2021). Robots in Education: An Introduction to High-Tech Social Agents, Intelligent Tutors, and Curricular Tools. Routledge.

Breazeal, C., Dautenhahn, K., & Kanda, T. (2016). Social Robotics. In B. Siciliano & O. Khatib (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Robotics (pp. 1935–1972). Springer International Publishing.

Vincent, J., Taipale, S., Sapio, B., Lugano, G., & Fortunati, L. (Eds.). (2015). Social Robots from a Human Perspective. Springer International Publishing.

Pachidis, T., Vrochidou, E., Kaburlasos, V. G., Kostova, S., Bonković, M., & Papić, V. (2019). Social Robotics in Education: State-of-the-Art and Directions. In N. A. Aspragathos, P. N. Koustoumpardis, & V. C. Moulianitis (Eds.), Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics (pp. 689–700). Springer International Publishing.

Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954.

Istenic, A., Bratko, I., & Rosanda, V. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ concerns about social robots in the classroom: A model for development. Education & Self Development, 16(2), 60–87.

Woo, H., LeTendre, G. K., Pham-Shouse, T., & Xiong, Y. (2021). The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies. Educational Research Review, 33, 100388.

Ahtinen, A., Kaipainen, K., Jarske, S., & Väänänen, K. (2023). Supporting Remote Social Robot Design Collaboration with Online Canvases: Lessons Learned from Facilitators’ and Participants’ Experiences. International Journal of Social Robotics, 15(2), 317–343.

Ghavifekr, S., Razak, A. Z. A., Ghani, M. F. A., Ran, N. Y., Meixi, Y., & Tengyue, Z. (2014). ICT Integration in Education: Incorporation for Teaching & Learning Improvement. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2), 24–45.

Sutherland, R., Robertson, S., & John, P. (2008). Improving Classroom Learning with ICT. Routledge.

Ercikan, K., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2017). Validation of Score Meaning for the Next Generation of Assessments: The Use of Response Processes. Taylor & Francis.

Moallem, M. (1998). Reflection as a Means of Developing Expertise in Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Complex Thinking of Designers.

Ramirez, M. A., Cruz, P. P., & Gutierrez, A. M. (2019). Fuzzy logic smart electric manager for building energy efficiency. IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, 2019-June, 1562–1567.

Belpaeme, T., Vogt, P., Van Den Berghe, R., Bergmann, K., Göksun, T., De Haas, M., Kanero, J., Kennedy, J., Küntay, A. C., Oudgenoeg-Paz, O., et al. (2018). Guidelines for Designing Social Robots as Second Language Tutors. International Journal of Social Robotics, 10(3), 325–341.

Lopez-Caudana, E., Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., Martínez-Pérez, S., & Rodríguez-Abitia, G. (2020). Using Robotics to Enhance Active Learning in Mathematics: A Multi-Scenario Study. Mathematics, 8(12), Article 12.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2008). Mixed methods research in the social sciences. In Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Goldberg, J. S., & Cole, B. R. (2002). Quality management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance. Quality Management Journal, 9(4), 8–22.

Cano, J. A., & Baena, J. J. (2015). Impact of information and communication technologies in international negotiation performance. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 17, 751–768.

Burbules, N. C., Fan, G., & Repp, P. (2020). Five trends of education and technology in a sustainable future. Geography and Sustainability, 1(2), 93–97.

Facer, K., & Sandford, R. (2010). The next 25 years?: Future scenarios and future directions for education and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 74–93.

Murungi, C. G., & Gitonga, R. K. (2015). Web 2.0 Technology Use by Students in Higher Education: A Case of Kenyan Universities.

Tetiwat, O., & Igbaria, M. (2000). Opportunities in Web-based teaching: The future of education.

Silva Pacheco, C., & Iturra Herrera, C. (2021). A conceptual proposal and operational definitions of the cognitive processes of complex thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100794.

Duque Oliva, E. J., & Gómez, Y. D. (2014). Evolución conceptual de los modelos de medición de la percepción de calidad del servicio: Una mirada desde la educación superior. Suma de Negocios, 5(12), 180–191.

Frenzel, A. C., Daniels, L., & Burić, I. (2021). Teacher emotions in the classroom and their implications for students. Educational Psychologist, 56(4), 250–264.

Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Nett, U. E., Keller, M. M., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2013). Characteristics of teaching and students’ emotions in the classroom: Investigating differences across domains. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 383–394.

Donnermann, M., Schaper, P., & Lugrin, B. (2022). Social robots in applied settings: A long-term study on adaptive robotic tutors in higher education. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 9, 831633.

Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Koren, Y., & Gordon, G. (2020). Robot-supported collaborative learning (RSCL): Social robots as teaching assistants for higher education small group facilitation. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 148.