No Cover Image

Journal article 676 views

Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?

Omar Mubin, Massimiliano Cappuccio, Fady Alnajjar, Muneeb Ahmad Orcid Logo, Suleman Shahid

AI & SOCIETY, Volume: 35, Issue: 4, Pages: 981 - 989

Swansea University Author: Muneeb Ahmad Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1007/s00146-020-00954-8

Abstract

One of the open questions in Educational robots is the role a robot should take in the classroom. The current focus in this area is on employing robots as a tool or in an assistive capacity such as the invigilator of an exam. With robots becoming commonplace in the classroom, inquiries will be raise...

Full description

Published in: AI & SOCIETY
ISSN: 0951-5666 1435-5655
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2020
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa57756
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2021-10-04T16:28:55Z
last_indexed 2023-01-11T14:37:52Z
id cronfa57756
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2022-07-13T14:18:21.5721445</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>57756</id><entry>2021-09-02</entry><title>Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>9c42fd947397b1ad2bfa9107457974d5</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-8111-9967</ORCID><firstname>Muneeb</firstname><surname>Ahmad</surname><name>Muneeb Ahmad</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2021-09-02</date><deptcode>SCS</deptcode><abstract>One of the open questions in Educational robots is the role a robot should take in the classroom. The current focus in this area is on employing robots as a tool or in an assistive capacity such as the invigilator of an exam. With robots becoming commonplace in the classroom, inquiries will be raised regarding not only their suitability but also their ability to influence and control the morality and behaviour of the students via their presence. Therefore, as a means to test this cross-section of Educational robots with the underlying issue of morality and ethics we conducted an empirical study where the Nao robot invigilated an exam for a group of students. A between-subjects design (N&#x2009;=&#x2009;56, 14 groups of 4 students) compared whether Nao was able to deter students from cheating and maintaining their discipline in comparison to a human invigilator or when there was no invigilator present. Our results showed that while explicit cheating rarely took place across all conditions, the students were significantly more talkative when they were invigilated by Nao. In conclusion, we discuss and speculate upon some of the ensuing implications towards not only the application of robots in education but also consequently the wider issue of the preservation of morality and ethics in a classroom in the presence of an agent.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>AI &amp; SOCIETY</journal><volume>35</volume><journalNumber>4</journalNumber><paginationStart>981</paginationStart><paginationEnd>989</paginationEnd><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint>0951-5666</issnPrint><issnElectronic>1435-5655</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>1</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2020</publishedYear><publishedDate>2020-12-01</publishedDate><doi>10.1007/s00146-020-00954-8</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Computer Science</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>SCS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Another institution paid the OA fee</apcterm><funders>UPAR Grant (31H125) from UAE University</funders><projectreference>31H125</projectreference><lastEdited>2022-07-13T14:18:21.5721445</lastEdited><Created>2021-09-02T23:50:39.3724345</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Science and Engineering</level><level id="2">School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Omar</firstname><surname>Mubin</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Massimiliano</firstname><surname>Cappuccio</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Fady</firstname><surname>Alnajjar</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Muneeb</firstname><surname>Ahmad</surname><orcid>0000-0001-8111-9967</orcid><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Suleman</firstname><surname>Shahid</surname><order>5</order></author></authors><documents/><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2022-07-13T14:18:21.5721445 v2 57756 2021-09-02 Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating? 9c42fd947397b1ad2bfa9107457974d5 0000-0001-8111-9967 Muneeb Ahmad Muneeb Ahmad true false 2021-09-02 SCS One of the open questions in Educational robots is the role a robot should take in the classroom. The current focus in this area is on employing robots as a tool or in an assistive capacity such as the invigilator of an exam. With robots becoming commonplace in the classroom, inquiries will be raised regarding not only their suitability but also their ability to influence and control the morality and behaviour of the students via their presence. Therefore, as a means to test this cross-section of Educational robots with the underlying issue of morality and ethics we conducted an empirical study where the Nao robot invigilated an exam for a group of students. A between-subjects design (N = 56, 14 groups of 4 students) compared whether Nao was able to deter students from cheating and maintaining their discipline in comparison to a human invigilator or when there was no invigilator present. Our results showed that while explicit cheating rarely took place across all conditions, the students were significantly more talkative when they were invigilated by Nao. In conclusion, we discuss and speculate upon some of the ensuing implications towards not only the application of robots in education but also consequently the wider issue of the preservation of morality and ethics in a classroom in the presence of an agent. Journal Article AI & SOCIETY 35 4 981 989 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 0951-5666 1435-5655 1 12 2020 2020-12-01 10.1007/s00146-020-00954-8 COLLEGE NANME Computer Science COLLEGE CODE SCS Swansea University Another institution paid the OA fee UPAR Grant (31H125) from UAE University 31H125 2022-07-13T14:18:21.5721445 2021-09-02T23:50:39.3724345 Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science Omar Mubin 1 Massimiliano Cappuccio 2 Fady Alnajjar 3 Muneeb Ahmad 0000-0001-8111-9967 4 Suleman Shahid 5
title Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
spellingShingle Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
Muneeb Ahmad
title_short Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
title_full Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
title_fullStr Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
title_full_unstemmed Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
title_sort Can a robot invigilator prevent cheating?
author_id_str_mv 9c42fd947397b1ad2bfa9107457974d5
author_id_fullname_str_mv 9c42fd947397b1ad2bfa9107457974d5_***_Muneeb Ahmad
author Muneeb Ahmad
author2 Omar Mubin
Massimiliano Cappuccio
Fady Alnajjar
Muneeb Ahmad
Suleman Shahid
format Journal article
container_title AI & SOCIETY
container_volume 35
container_issue 4
container_start_page 981
publishDate 2020
institution Swansea University
issn 0951-5666
1435-5655
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00146-020-00954-8
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofscienceandengineering
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Science and Engineering
department_str School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Science and Engineering{{{_:::_}}}School of Mathematics and Computer Science - Computer Science
document_store_str 0
active_str 0
description One of the open questions in Educational robots is the role a robot should take in the classroom. The current focus in this area is on employing robots as a tool or in an assistive capacity such as the invigilator of an exam. With robots becoming commonplace in the classroom, inquiries will be raised regarding not only their suitability but also their ability to influence and control the morality and behaviour of the students via their presence. Therefore, as a means to test this cross-section of Educational robots with the underlying issue of morality and ethics we conducted an empirical study where the Nao robot invigilated an exam for a group of students. A between-subjects design (N = 56, 14 groups of 4 students) compared whether Nao was able to deter students from cheating and maintaining their discipline in comparison to a human invigilator or when there was no invigilator present. Our results showed that while explicit cheating rarely took place across all conditions, the students were significantly more talkative when they were invigilated by Nao. In conclusion, we discuss and speculate upon some of the ensuing implications towards not only the application of robots in education but also consequently the wider issue of the preservation of morality and ethics in a classroom in the presence of an agent.
published_date 2020-12-01T04:13:44Z
_version_ 1763753930561421312
score 11.021648

Similar Items