Should we welcome robot teachers?

Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):283-297 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Current uses of robots in classrooms are reviewed and used to characterise four scenarios: Robot as Classroom Teacher; Robot as Companion and Peer; Robot as Care-eliciting Companion; and Telepresence Robot Teacher. The main ethical concerns associated with robot teachers are identified as: privacy; attachment, deception, and loss of human contact; and control and accountability. These are discussed in terms of the four identified scenarios. It is argued that classroom robots are likely to impact children’s’ privacy, especially when they masquerade as their friends and companions, when sensors are used to measure children’s responses, and when records are kept. Social robots designed to appear as if they understand and care for humans necessarily involve some deception, and could increase the risk of reduced human contact. Children could form attachments to robot companions, or robot teachers and this could have a deleterious effect on their social development. There are also concerns about the ability, and use of robots to control or make decisions about children’s behaviour in the classroom. It is concluded that there are good reasons not to welcome fully fledged robot teachers, and that robot companions should be given a cautious welcome at best. The limited circumstances in which robots could be used in the classroom to improve the human condition by offering otherwise unavailable educational experiences are discussed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Robot teachers: The very idea!Amanda Sharkey - 2015 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38.
Robot nannies get a wheel in the door: A response to the commentaries.Noel Sharkey & Amanda Sharkey - 2010 - Interaction Studiesinteraction Studies Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 11 (2):302-313.
When is a robot a moral agent.John P. Sullins - 2006 - International Review of Information Ethics 6 (12):23-30.
There is no 'I' in 'Robot': Robots and Utilitarianism (expanded & revised).Christopher Grau - 2011 - In Susan Anderson & Michael Anderson (eds.), Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 451.
A study of self-awareness in robots.Toshiyuki Takiguchi, Atsushi Mizunaga & Junichi Takeno - 2013 - International Journal of Machine Consciousness 5 (2):145-164.
Robot Pain.Simon van Rysewyk - 2014 - International Journal of Synthetic Emotions 4 (2):22-33.
The inner world of a simple robot.Germund Hesslow & Dan-Anders Jirenhed - 2007 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 14 (7):85-96.
Interview with a robot.Keith Gunderson - 1963 - Analysis 23 (June):136-142.
Toward the ethical robot.James Gips - 1994 - In Kenneth M. Ford, C. Glymour & Patrick Hayes (eds.), Android Epistemology. MIT Press. pp. 243--252.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-06-25

Downloads
101 (#164,688)

6 months
25 (#104,703)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Amanda Jane Caroline Sharkey
University of Sheffield

Citations of this work

Artificial Moral Responsibility: How We Can and Cannot Hold Machines Responsible.Daniel W. Tigard - 2021 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 30 (3):435-447.
Service robots, care ethics, and design.A. van Wynsberghe - 2016 - Ethics and Information Technology 18 (4):311-321.
Can we program or train robots to be good?Amanda Sharkey - 2020 - Ethics and Information Technology 22 (4):283-295.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations