Student Perspectives on Smart Speakers

Framework

My study is qualitative (Johnson & Christensen, 2016). Post-structuralism addresses how language reinforces power in the classroom (Sharma, 2020), via the teacher, and now technology such as smart speakers. Sociomateralism is used to analyse how students make enquiries of smart speakers in their classroom. Smart speaker usefulness and usability will be studied, along with other factors of smart speaker design and the classroom environment, which students and teachers will identify as influencing student use. Sociomaterial theory is suitable for studying the complex and interdependent nature of classroom and technology factors (Fenwick, 2010).

Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism builds on structuralism (Youdell, 2006). Structuralism is a theory of thought which explains phenomena as a set of structured, rigid but interconnected relationships (Deleuze, 2002, p.170). This approach was useful for studying how actors like students interacted with other actors and materials in education, for example teachers and textbooks. Structuralism defines subjects (actors) as being recognisable by subjectivations such as class, gender, race, academic ability. In structuralist theory these subjectivations are fixed, for example being female has a fixed way in which it influences a student’s engagement with new technologies in the classroom (Youdell, 2006). Post-structuralism builds on structuralist theory. Applying a post-structuralist approach, subjectivations are not assumed, can be unique to a specific circumstance or actor, and change over space and time. Post-structuralist theory seeks to observe and explain such ‘biographical factors’ (Youdell, 2006, p.6) in a specific individual.

The structuralist theory would define each classroom as having the same characteristics, in this post-structural study all classrooms are different. This representation of the school as “...an institution and a set of social practices” (Lee, 1993, p.1) seeks to explain the complexity of the environment. Students should have subjectivations so that they are recognisable (Butler, 2021) and can be compared for theme identification. Subjectivations should be done sparingly, and not given unsupported meaning. For example, noting that a male student enjoys joking with an smart speaker (Butler, 2021) does not suggest anything about an individual male student's work ethic or relationship with human teachers. Similarly, A music teacher who is confident using an Alexa speaker at home will not always want to use one in their classroom (Dousay and Hall, 2018). Students are unique and complex (Butler, 2021).

Sociomaterial theory
Sociomaterial theory is a way of observing post-structuralism using a grounded approach (Law, 2004). Sociomaterial theory explores the relationship between people (actors) and things (materials) in their environment (Fenwick, 2010). Materials can be technologies, organisations, objects and environments (Fenwick & Dahlgreen, 2015). Actors use and interpret materials such as texts, symbols, meanings, and intentions (Fenwick & Dahlgreen, 2015). Actors and materials are given equal importance in explaining an event or change (Fenwick, 2010). A socio-material approach can be used to explore the many interactions between social systems and digital technologies (Fenwick, 2012).

A sociomaterial definition of classroom education
This research focuses on student use of smart speakers when they are in their classroom. In New Zealand classroom and local school curricula are written and are unique to each school. These are informed by the New Zealand Curriculum but the classroom curriculum, what is being taught, is what student’s interact with in the classroom. The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) provides the Vision that local curricula, and the activities in classroom’s following them will result in “young people who will be confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.” (Ministry of Education, 2007, page 7). That definition of classroom education is used in this proposal, and will be replaced by the definition expressed in the participating school(s) local curricula.

Methods

Case Study
A case study is an entity, or “functioning specific” (Stake, 2008, pp.119-120) with identified boundaries which can be individually examined (Stake, 2008). In my study a case is a classroom. The unit analysis of the study is a student, and a classroom is a group of students who experience the same material classroom environment, although how they experience the classroom is individual. As the classroom environment influences students' access to and use of materials it is the natural place to study the student.

Case definition
Four classrooms were selected to participate. Participants are students (n= 163) and teachers (n=4). The-two primary schools participating are mainstream, English-medium schools. The cases are unique, having unique actors, for example the classroom teacher, and unique materials such as the classroom curriculum. A range of primary school year levels (from years 2-8) are included in the study.

Case selection
A self-nomination form collected basic information and asked teachers if they could commit to the duration and activities of my study. I used purposive sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2016) choosing cases which werelikely to provide sufficient data. The convenience of location was a factor in case selection to enable regular visits to the classroom. While I acknowledge this sampling method likely recruited classes with teachers who are enthusiastic about the smart speakers it was made clear in the recruitment that neither students nor teachers need prior knowledge or interest.

Data collection
Data is being collected from multiple sources including observations, smart speaker logs, student focus groups and teacher interviews (Table 5). Data from observations and IDA logs was helpful as I prepared for the student focus groups and teacher interviews which were all be semi-structured.

The data collection is deliberately open. An inductive approach allows me to study all materials which influence students' use, rather than only focussing on those in the existing literature. The focus groups allowed students to talk about their experiences of use in their own language. The data collected and analysed by inductive coding, treats all smart speakers, actors and other materials as having equal potential to influence students' use, consistent with the sociomaterial theory applied to this study.

Data Analysis

Coding
Case study data will be coded to emerging themes as they are identified (Johnson & Christensen, 2016). These themes will explore how different materials and actors influence students’ use of smart speakers. Thematic analysis will explore common themes. An inductive approach will be used, with the data guiding the formation of axial codes, where themes and hierarchies are being identified to help explain the observed phenomena (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Data is being stored and analysed in NVivo, which is specifically built for coding and organising large amounts of text-based qualitative data such as smart speaker and interview transcripts. As a starting point, the themes of studies included in the literature review have been identified and three potential top-level themes (classroom environment, algorithm, and design) have been identified in the research questions.

Once all case study data is collected and initially coded, cross-case analysis will be performed, looking for similarities and differences (Stake, 1995). Reviewing the whole data set I will identify any co-occurring codes and selective coding will take place. I will be familiar with the data set, in parts and as a whole, before I remove or merge any coding which may, on deeper understanding, be different and important.

Cross case analysis
In reflective thematic analysis a theme is a recurring idea in the data (Clarke et al, 2019). This method is used as it constructs themes based on the data provided by the students, rather than discovering themes perceived to have existed and be found. As the primary case (Stake, 1995) each classroom will first be considered individually (within-case analysis). Case study analysis will be presented as findings and discussion using reflexive thematic analysis to group like ideas and explore commonalities. An inductive approach will be used, with the data guiding the formation of axial codes, where themes and hierarchies will be identified to help explain the observed theme. Abductive reasoning will be used to make best predictions and conclusions based on the data collected. Where possible the transcript and observation data will be matched with student or teacher interview data to better explain the complexities of students’ smart speaker use.

Results

Four cases had different outcomes suggesting the importance of classroom context in students' use of voice assistant. Some key findings were:
- Students found the voice assistants most reliable for spelling, mathematics, social studies and science.
- Voice assistants were less reliable for local science and social studies enquiries than general ones.
- Teacher practice influences students' use of voice assistants.
- Peer influence impacts students' use of voice assistants, especially when repairing misunderstanding.

Importance

My study will add to the discussion on student use of smart speakers in the complexity of the classroom. It is the only such study in the New Zealand primary school classroom. My study also uniquely compares three smart speakers in multi case-studies over an extended period, adding to an understanding of how use and engagement with smart speakers may change over time. My study will be useful both for educators making choices about if and how to use smart speakers in the classroom, and also inform the designers of edTech. Educators will gain a better understanding of the design and classroom environment in which smart speakers are most useful.

References

Al-Gahtani, S. (2014). Empirical Investigation of E-Learning Acceptance and Assimilation: A Structural Equation Model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001
Al-Masri, A., & Curran, K. (2019). Analyzing the Role of Human Computer Interaction Principles for E-Learning A. Al-Masri and K. Curran (eds.),. In Smart Technologies and Innovation for a Sustainable Future, Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation. Springer.
Aottiwerch, N., & Kokaew, U. (2017). Design computer-assisted learning in an online Augmented Reality environment based on Shneiderman’s eight Golden Rules. 2017 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JCSSE.2017.8025926
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Asimov, I. (1950). I, Robot. Fawcett Publications.
Baikie, G. (2009). Indigenous-centered social work: Theorizing a social work way of being. In G.Bruyere & R. Sinclair (eds.). Wicihitowin: Aboriginal Social Work in Canada. Halifax: Fernwood
Bandyopadhyay, S., Bardhan, A., Dey, P., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2021). Education Ecosystem. In S. Bandyopadhyay, A. Bardhan, P. Dey, & S. Bhattacharyya (Eds.), Bridging the Education Divide Using Social Technologies: Explorations in Rural India (pp. 43–75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6738-8_3
Biesta, G. (2009). Good Education in an Age of Measurement: On the Need to Reconnect with the Question of Purpose in Education. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Biesta, G. (2016). ICT and Education Beyond Learning. In E. Elstad (Ed.), Digital Expectations and Experiences in Education (pp. 29–43). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300- 648-4_2
Biesta, G. (2020). Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialization, and Subjectification Revisited. Educational Theory, 70(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411 Boden, M. A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Breazeal, C., Harris, P. L., DeSteno, D., Kory Westlund, J. M., Dickens, L., & Jeong, S. (2016). Young Children Treat Robots as Informants. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(2), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12192
Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Luckin, R. (2019). Learning analytics and AI: Politics, pedagogy and practices. British Journal of Educational Technology. 50(6), 2785-2793.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12880
Butler, L. (2020). “HEY GOOGLE, HELP ME LEARN” Voice Assistant Devices in the New Zealand Primary School. [Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington]
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/9164
Butler, J. (2021). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003146759
Catlin, D., Smith, J. L., & Morrison, K. (n.d.). Using Educational Robots as Tools of Cultural Expression: A Report on Projects with Indigenous Communities. https://doi.org/10.18411/a 2017-023
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Terry, G & Hayfield N. (2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong, P. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences (pp. 843-860). Springer. Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). Talking to Robots: On the Linguistic Construction of Personal Human-Robot Relations. In M. H. Lamers & F. J. Verbeek (Eds.), Human-Robot Personal Relationships (Vol. 59, pp. 126–129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19385-9_16 Cremin, L., A. (1977). Public Education. Basic Books.
34
DeFalco, J. A., Sinatra, A. M., Rodriguez, E., & Stan Hum, R. (2019). Conscientiousness, Honesty Humility, and Analogical/Creative Reasoning: Implications for Instructional Designs in Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In S. Isotani, E. Millán, A. Ogan, P. Hastings, B. McLaren, & R.
Luckin (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 52–57). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_10
Dennett, D. C. (n.d.). Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds. Retrieved December 21, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.1109/temscon.2018.8488444
Deleuze, Gilles. 2002. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" In Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974. Trans. David Lapoujade. Ed. Michael Taormina. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents ser. Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. 170–192
Dick, P. K. (2011). Do androids dream of electric sheep? Gollancz.
Dixon, S. (2004). A Brief History of Robots and Automata. TDR: The Drama Review 48(4), 16-25. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/175438.
Dousay, T. A., & Hall, C. (2018). “Alexa, tell me about using a virtual assistant in the classroom.” Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 1413– 1419. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872518.2888606
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Fenty, N. S., & Anderson, E. M. (2014). Examining Educators’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices About Using Technology With Young Children. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35(2), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.905808
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2012). Researching Education Through Actor-Network Theory. John Wiley & Sons.
Fenwick, Tara. “Re-Thinking the ‘Thing’: Sociomaterial Approaches to Understanding and Researching Learning in Work.” Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 22, Feb. 2010, pp. 104– 16, https://doi:10.1108/13665621011012898
Fenwick, T., & Dahlgren, M. A. (2015). Towards socio-material approaches in simulation-based education: lessons from complexity theory. Medical Education, 49(4), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12638
Furrer, C., Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. (2014). The Influence of Teacher and Peer Relationships on Students’ Classroom Engagement and Everyday Resilience. In NSSE Yearbook (Engaging Youth in Schools: Evidence-Based Models to Guide Future Innovations). Teachers College Record.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
Grant, B. M., & Giddings, L. S. (2002). Making sense of methodologies: A paradigm framework for the novice researcher. Contemporary Nurse, 13(1), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.13.1.10 Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500. https://doi:10.1075/is.8.3.10gro
Hashakimana, T., & de Dieu Habyarimana, J. (2020). The Prospects, Challenges and Ethical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Journal of Education, 3(7), 14-27. Retrieved from https://stratfordjournals.org/journals/index.php/journal-of-education/article/view/655
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., & Schaefer, K. E. (2011). Can You Trust Your Robot?: Ergonomics in Design. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804611415045
Holmes, W., Bektik, D., Woolf, B., and Luckin, R., (2019). Ethics in AIED: Who cares? In: 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED’19), 25-29 Jun 2019, Chicago. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12880
35
Howard, S. K., Chan, A., Mozejko, A., & Caputi, P. (2015). Technology practices: Confirmatory factor analysis and exploration of teachers’ technology integration in subject areas. Computers & Education, 90, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.008
Howard, B. C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N., & Purcell, S. (2000). The Experience of Constructivism. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(4), 455–465.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2000.1078229
Idel, M. (1990). Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid. State University of New York Press.
Irwin, R., & White, T. H. (2019). Decolonising Technological Futures: A dialogical tryptich between Te Haumoana White, Ruth Irwin, and Tegmark’s Artificial Intelligence. Futures, 112, 102431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.06.003
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2017). Educational Research (Sixth). Sage. Johri, A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology. 19(3), 2011, 207–217.
https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v19i3.17110
Juvonen, J., Espinoza, G., & Knifsend, C. (2012). The Role of Peer Relationships in Student Academic and Extracurricular Engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 387–401). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_18
Kahn, P. H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., Ruckert, J. H., & Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027033
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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2_4
Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203481141
Lee, A. (1993). Poststructuralism and educational research - categories and issues. Issues in Educational Research, 2(1), 1–12. https://www.iier.org.au/iier2/lee.html
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
Leifler, E. (2020). Teachers’ capacity to create inclusive learning environments. International Journal for Lesson & Learning Studies, 9(3), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-01-2020-0003 Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed. An argument for AI in education. Pearson.
https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/edu.google.com/en//pdfs/Intelligence-Unleashed Publication.pdf
Luckin, R. (2019). Is education ready for artificial intelligence? Machine learning and EdTec. Cambridge Summit of Education Proceedings. Cambridge, UK.
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/insights/is-education-ready-ai-rose-luckin/ Mauri, M. (2018). Foucault and education. Some key aspects of Foucauldian thought applied to education. Kultura - Przemiany - Edukacja. 6. 85-91. https://10.15584/kpe.2018.6.6. McCaffrey, T., & Edwards, J. (2015). Meeting Art with Art: Arts-Based Methods Enhance Researcher Reflexivity in Research with Mental Health Service Users. Journal of Music Therapy, 52, 515– 532. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thv016
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum / Kia ora - NZ Curriculum Online. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
Ministry of Education. (2015). The National Administration Guidelines (NAGs). https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/legislation/nags/
36
Ministry of Education. (2017a). The National Education Goals (NEGs).
https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/legislation/negs/
Ministry of Education. (2017b). The New Zealand Curriculum / Kia ora - NZ Curriculum Online. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, J., Janet Yin-Chan, L., Sadik, O., & Ertmer, P. (2018). Evolution of Teachers’ Technology Integration Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices: How Can We Support Beginning Teachers Use of Technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 282–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1487350
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39(2), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886
Prestidge, S. (2011). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028
Qin, F., Li, K., & Yan, J. (2020). Understanding user trust in artificial intelligence-based educational systems: Evidence from China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(5), 1693–1710. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12994
Robinette, P., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2017). Effect of Robot Performance on Human–Robot Trust in Time-Critical Situations. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47(4), 425– 436. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2017.2648849
Robins, B. (2005). A humanoid robot as assistive technology for encouraging social interaction skills in children with autism [PhD Thesis, University of Hertfordshire]. Hertfordshire,
UK. https://doi.org/10.18745/th.14273
Rosenberg-Kima, R., Koren, Y., Yachini, M., & Gordon, G. (2019). Human-Robot-Collaboration (HRC): Social Robots as Teaching Assistants for Training Activities in Small Groups. 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 522–523. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2019.8673103
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Third). Pearson. Schaefer, K., Chen, J., Szalma, J., & Hancock, P. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation: Implications for Understanding Autonomy in Future Systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634228
Seldon, A., Metcalf, T., & Abidoye, O. (2020). The Fourth Education Revolution Reconsidered: Will Artificial Intelligence Enrich or Diminish Humanity? (2nd ed.). University of Buckingham Press.
Selwyn, N. (2019). Should Robots Replace Teachers? Polity Press.
Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A., Perrotta, C. (2021) Digital Technologies and the Automation of Education — Key Questions and Concerns. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00263-3
Sharkey, A. J. C. (2016). Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Technology, 18(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z
Sharma, S. (2020). A poststructural analysis of study abroad as teacher preparation pedagogy: Thinking through theory for generative practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(3), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1740018
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., & Elmqvist, N. (2016). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (Sixth). Pearson.
Shin, D.-H., & Choo, H. (2011). Modeling the acceptance of socially interactive robotics: Social presence in human–robot interaction. Interaction Studies, 12(3), 430–460.
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.12.3.04shi
Song, Y. W. (2019). User acceptance of an artificial intelligence (AI) virtual assistant : an extension of the technology acceptance model [Thesis]. https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/2132
Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 3rd ed (pp. 119–149). Sage Publications, Inc.
37
Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework for policy and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1281829
Starkey, L., & Yates, A. (2021). Do digital competence frameworks align with preparing beginning teachers for digitally infused contexts? An evaluation from a New Zealand perspective. European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1975109
Taiuru, K. (2020). Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti and Māori Ethics Guidelines for: AI, Algorithms, Data and IOT. http://www.taiuru.Maori.nz/TiritiEthicalGuide
Ullman, D., & Malle, B. F. (2017). Human-Robot Trust: Just a Button Press Away. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 309–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038423
Underwood, J. (2017). Exploring AI language assistants with primary. EUROCALL 2017 Conference, Southampton, United Kingdom.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2017.eurocall2017.733
Youdell, D. (2006). Diversity, Inequality, and a Post-structural Politics for Education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 33–42.
https://doi:10.1080/01596300500510252
Zhai, X. (2021). Advancing automatic guidance in virtual science inquiry: from ease of use to personalization. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(1), 255–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09917-8
Złotowski, J., Proudfoot, D., Yogeeswaran, K., & Bartneck, C. (2015). Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and challenges in human–robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0267-6