A Study on Human-Robot Interaction Design and Ethical Issues in Educational Robots
关键词:
educational robots；human agency；ethical boundaries；human-robot interaction；autonomy摘要
Educational robots are increasingly used in homes and classrooms for teaching assistance and emotional companionship, but the convenience they bring conceals underlying ethical risks. This paper investigates how to define the ethical boundaries of human-robot interaction in educational robots across three dimensions: privacy security, human agency, and creativity impact. A systematic analysis is conducted, integrating existing empirical research and theoretical frameworks to structurally examine ethical issues from these three dimensions. The findings reveal that educational robots risk privacy breaches by collecting sensitive student data for commercial purposes; their “perfect interaction” may lead students to avoid real relationships, weakening empathy and social skills; and overreliance on standardized answers can stifle independent thinking, homogenizing creativity. Therefore, ethical boundaries should be based on data minimization, local processing, and transparency; robots should be positioned as “transitional objects” guiding students toward authentic relationships rather than replacing them; and independent thinking must be preserved to prevent cognitive outsourcing. Future education should pursue human-machine collaboration, where ethical boundaries guide technological development with respect for human agency at the core.
参考
[1] Gong, X., Liu, B. X., Zhang, R. F., & Xie, Z. Q. (2023). The historical development and design logic of bipedal educational robots. Academy, 16(5), 45-52.
[2] Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., & Tanaka, F. (2018). Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics, 3(21), eaat5954. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
[3] Tanaka, F., & Matsuzoe, S. (2012). Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 3(4), 468-479.
[4] Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1-2), 61-84.
[5] Saerbeck, M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., & Janse, M. D. (2010). Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1613-1622). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753567
[6] Salem, M., Lakatos, G., Amirabdollahian, F., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Towards safe and trustworthy social robots: Ethical challenges and practical guidelines. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 331-345.
[7] Yuan, G. F. (2025). Freedom and security: The certainty and inner conflict of human-robot intimate relationships. Media Observer, 41(2), 88-95.
[8] Drobniak, A., Terzic, I., Kirin, B., & Boticki, I. (2023). Privacy in the age of robotics: Protecting personal data in classrooms. ICCE Proceedings.
[9] Georgia Southern University. (2024). Cyberethics, data surveillance, and the classroom: Addressing corporate control of generative AI to protect student learning environments [Poster presentation]. SoTL Commons Conference, Savannah, GA, United States.
[10] Lee, J., Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2020). Privacy concerns of parents and children in smart classroom environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 45-57.
[11] Sharkey, N., & Sharkey, A. (2012). The crying shame of robot nannies: An ethical appraisal. Interaction Studies, 13(1), 9-29.
[12] Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
[13] Nomura, T., Suzuki, T., Sato, M., Kanda, T., Yamada, S., & Ishiguro, H. (2019). Long-term effects of interaction with a social robot on children's empathy development. International Journal of Social Robotics, 11(4), 613-625.
[14] Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock Publications.
[15] Pizarro, C., García, J., López, M., Fernández, A., & Ruiz, R. (2025). Effectiveness of robot-mediated learning in fostering children's social and cognitive development. Applied Sciences, 15(7), 3567.
[16] Usher, M., Reznik, N., Bronshtein, G., Ben-Abu, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2025). Bridging virtual and physical: Exploring students' computational thinking and creativity in robot-guided vs. simulation-based learning. Journal of Learning Analytics, 12(1), 45-63.
[17] Li, P., Mou, L., & Li, Y. H. (2024). Research on the path of ChatGPT empowering the construction of digital resources in vocational education. Innovation Education, 12(4), 78-84.
[18] Qadir, J., & Mumtaz, S. (2020). Automation paradox: The unintended consequences of AI in education. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 1(4), 198-206.
[19] Mao, W. H., & Wu, Y. Q. (2024). Application and risk challenges of ChatGPT in higher continuing education. Computer Products & Circulation, 22(7), 112-117.
##submission.downloads##
已出版
##submission.howToCite##
期
栏目
##submission.license##
##submission.license.cc.by4.footer##For all articles published in Axon Academic Publishing Institute journals, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open-access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download, read, reuse, and quote the paper for free, provided that the original published version is cited. This ensures that the work receives maximum use and exposure, while giving proper credit to the authors.
In exceptional circumstances, articles may be licensed differently. If you have specific conditions (such as those related to funding) that prevent using this license, please notify the journal’s editorial office during submission. Exceptions will be considered at the publisher's discretion.
