In recent years, advancements in robotics have led to the development of educational support robots designed for classroom use. In this study, we explored the use of a partner-type robot that learns alongside human learners in programming education. In Japan, revisions to the national curriculum by the Ministry of Education have made programming education increasingly mandatory. Although board games that foster computational thinking are widely used in educational settings, they typically involve multiple players, which may not be available in-home environments. Single player modes may reduce the enjoyment of learning and hinder motivation. In this study, we propose a partner-type robot that enables learners to engage with programming board games independently. The robot displays the game on an internal monitor, and the user learns by competing against the robot. We also conducted an experiment with humanities students who had no prior programming experience, in which we compared their learning outcomes across three scenarios, including learning with a robot, learning with another human, and a control group that was not exposed to information on programming. The results suggest that competition with the proposed robot effectively supported the development of computational thinking in humanities students.

1. [1] R. Yoshizawa, F. Jimenez, and K. Murakami, “Proposal of a Behavioral Model for Robots Supporting Learning According to Learners’ Learning Performance,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.32, No.4, pp. 769-779, 2020. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2020.p0769
2. [2] J. Han, M. Jo, V. Jones, and J. H. Jo, “Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children,” J. of Information Processing Systems, Vol.4, No.4, pp. 159-168, 2008. https://doi.org/10.3745/JIPS.2008.4.4.159
3. [3] K. Shinozawa, F. Naya, J. Yamato, and K. Kogure, “Differences in effect of robot and screen agent recommendations on human decision-making,” Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies, Vol.62, No.2, pp. 267-279, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.003
4. [4] W. A. Bainbridge, J. Hart, E. S. Kim, and B. Scassellati, “The effect of presence on human-robot interaction,” IEEE Int. Symp. on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, pp. 701-706, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2008.4600749
5. [5] M. Fridin and M. Belokopytov, “Embodied robot versus virtual agent: Involvement of preschool children in motor task performance,” Int. J. of Human Computer Interaction, Vol.30, No.6, pp. 459-469, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.888500
6. [6] F. Jimenez, T. Yoshikawa, T. Furuhashi, and M. Kanoh, “Effects of a Novel Sympathy-Expression Method on Collaborative Learning among Junior High School Students and Robots,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.30, No.2, pp. 282-291, 2018. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2018.p0282
7. [7] J. L. Plass, P. A. O’Keefe, B. D. Homer, J. Case, E. O. Hayward, M. Stein, and K. Perlin, “The Impact of Individual, Competitive, and Collaborative Mathematics Game Play on Learning, Performance, and Motivation,” J. of Educational Psychology, Vol.105, No.2, pp. 1050-1066, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032688
8. [8] T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A. Ramachandran, B. Scassellati, and F. Tanaka, “Social robots for education: A review,” Science Robotics, Vol.3, No.21, Article No.eaat5954, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954
9. [9] K. Suzuki and M. Kanoh, “Investigating Effectiveness of an Expression Education Support Robot That Nods and Gives Hints,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.21, No.3, pp. 483-495, 2017. https://doi.org/10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0483
10. [10] K. Tanaka, M. Shigematsu, M. Kanoh, F. Jimenez, M. Hayase, N. Mukai, T. Yoshikawa, and T. Tanaka, “The Effect of Adding Japanese Honorifics When Naming a Driving-Review Robot,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.36, No.6, pp. 1577-1591, 2024. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2024.p1577
11. [11] J. Prsala, “The effect of block-based programming activities on the computational thinking skills of pre-service primary school teachers,” J. of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, Vol.6, No.3, pp. 1-9, 2024. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.202426267
12. [12] Y. Kim, J. Kim, and W. Lee, “Effect of Block-Based Python Programming Environment on Programming Learning,” Applied Sciences, Vol.13, No.19, Article No.10898, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/app131910898
13. [13] R. J. Shavelson, “Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences,” Allyn & Bacon, 1996.
14. [14] S. E. Maxwell, “Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective Third Edition,” Routledge, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642956
15. [15] J. Cohen, “The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review,” J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.65, No.3, pp. 145-153, 1962. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045186
16. [16] D. Lakens, “Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol.4, Article No.863, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
17. [17] Y. Yang, Y. Chen, X. Sun, and J. Zhu, “Effects of Ability Grouping on Students’ Collaborative Problem Solving in Robotics Education,” Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol.51, Article No.101453, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101453
18. [18] Z. J. Cheng, “Cooperative Learning: Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Grouping Impact on EFL Learners,” Cogent Education, Vol.3, No.1, Article No.1149959, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1149959
19. [19] S. S. Noesgaard and R. Orngreen, “The Effectiveness of E‑Learning: An Explorative and Integrative Review of the Definitions, Methodologies and Factors that Promote e‑Learning Effectiveness,” The Electronic J. of e-Learning, Vol.13, No.4, pp. 278-290, 2015.