pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.12873 · v4 · submitted 2026-02-13 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Knowledge-Based Design Requirements for Generative Social Robots in Higher Education

Stephan Vonschallen , Dominique Oberle , Theresa Schmiedel , Friederike Eyssel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 22:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords generative social robotsdesign requirementshigher educationknowledge-based designtutoringresponsible AIsemistructured interviewsgenerative AI
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tutoring generative social robots require twelve knowledge requirements in self, user, and context categories to function responsibly in higher education.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that generative social robots for tutoring need specific knowledge prerequisites to deliver adaptive conversations while minimizing risks like misinformation and privacy issues. Interviews with students and lecturers surface twelve requirements grouped into self-knowledge for personality traits, user-knowledge for individualized student details, and context-knowledge for course materials and settings. Existing behavior-focused frameworks leave these information needs unaddressed, so the work supplies concrete inputs that let the robots align generative capabilities with pedagogical goals. A reader cares because it turns abstract responsible-AI principles into actionable data specifications for real university deployments.

Core claim

Based on twelve semistructured interviews with university students and lecturers, twelve design requirements were identified across three knowledge types: self-knowledge (assertive, conscientious, and friendly personality with customizable role), user-knowledge (personalized information about student learning goals, learning progress, motivation type, emotional state, and background), and context-knowledge (learning materials, educational strategies, course-related information, and physical learning environment). These requirements provide a structured foundation for designing tutoring generative social robots that align with both pedagogical and ethical expectations.

What carries the argument

Three knowledge types—self-knowledge, user-knowledge, and context-knowledge—that supply the information generative social robots must possess to express responsible tutoring behaviors reliably.

If this is right

  • Robots supplied with context-knowledge can ground responses in verified learning materials and thereby reduce misinformation.
  • Access to user-knowledge on motivation and emotional state enables real-time adaptation that lowers the chance of student overreliance.
  • Self-knowledge specifying assertive yet friendly personality traits supports consistent guidance aligned with educational strategies.
  • Course-related and physical-environment details in context-knowledge allow robots to integrate with existing classroom practices.
  • The three-category structure gives designers an explicit checklist for the data inputs required by any new tutoring GSR.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same knowledge categories could be tested as a template for non-robotic generative tutors on digital learning platforms.
  • Limiting data collection strictly to the listed user-knowledge items might reduce privacy risks compared with open-ended generative systems.
  • Deploying prototype robots that meet all twelve requirements in actual courses would reveal whether interview-derived needs match observed performance.
  • The knowledge-based lens suggests a repeatable method for extracting design requirements from stakeholder interviews in other generative-AI application domains.

Load-bearing premise

Perspectives collected from twelve semistructured interviews with a limited sample of university students and lecturers are sufficient to define generalizable design requirements for all tutoring-oriented generative social robots in higher education.

What would settle it

A larger, more diverse study that finds effective tutoring generative social robots can operate responsibly without one or more of the twelve listed knowledge requirements would falsify their necessity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12873 by Dominique Oberle, Friederike Eyssel, Stephan Vonschallen, Theresa Schmiedel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Knowledge Types Enabling Effective and Responsible GSRs 3 Methodology To explore knowledge-based design requirements for tutoring-oriented GSRs in higher education, we conducted a qualitative interview study to identify desired robot behaviors and the self-, user-, and context-knowledge required to interactively motivate and support students in learning lecture content [59]. The study was preregistered on … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: provides a summary of the knowledge-based design requirements identified for self -, user -, and context-knowledge. Arrows depict interconnections between different design requirements, which will be discussed in the next section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative social robots (GSRs) powered by large language models enable adaptive, conversational tutoring but also introduce risks such as misinformation, overreliance, and privacy violations. Existing frameworks for educational technologies and responsible AI primarily define desired behaviors, yet they rarely specify the knowledge prerequisites that enable generative agents to express these behaviors reliably. To address this gap, we adopt a knowledge-based design perspective and investigate what information tutoring-oriented GSRs require to function responsibly and effectively in higher education. Based on twelve semistructured interviews with university students and lecturers, we identified twelve design requirements across three knowledge types: self-knowledge (assertive, conscientious, and friendly personality with customizable role), user-knowledge (personalized information about student learning goals, learning progress, motivation type, emotional state, and background), and context-knowledge (learning materials, educational strategies, courserelated information, and physical learning environment). Drawing from these results, this work provides a structured foundation for the design of tutoring GSRs, aligning generative AI capabilities with pedagogical and ethical expectations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports on twelve semistructured interviews with university students and lecturers that yielded twelve design requirements for tutoring-oriented generative social robots (GSRs) in higher education. These requirements are organized into three knowledge categories: self-knowledge (assertive, conscientious, and friendly personality traits together with a customizable role), user-knowledge (personalized data on learning goals, progress, motivation, emotional state, and background), and context-knowledge (learning materials, educational strategies, course-related information, and the physical environment). The work positions this knowledge-based perspective as a foundation for aligning generative AI capabilities with pedagogical and ethical expectations while mitigating risks such as misinformation and overreliance.

Significance. If the qualitative derivation is made transparent and reproducible, the paper supplies a concrete, stakeholder-derived inventory of knowledge prerequisites that existing responsible-AI and educational-technology frameworks largely omit. This could guide the engineering of more reliable tutoring GSRs and stimulate follow-on work that tests the requirements in deployed systems. The empirical, interview-driven approach is a strength, as is the explicit tripartite knowledge taxonomy that maps directly onto generative-agent design choices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section: The mapping from raw interview quotes to the twelve requirements is not shown, so it is impossible to assess how directly the categories (e.g., 'assertive, conscientious, and friendly personality') emerged from the data versus researcher interpretation. This mapping is load-bearing for the central claim that the requirements constitute outputs of the study.
  2. [Methods] Methods section: No inter-rater reliability statistics, saturation checks, or description of the coding procedure (thematic analysis steps, codebook, or example excerpts) are reported. Without these standard qualitative safeguards, the reliability of the three knowledge types and the specific requirements cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: 'courserelated' is missing a hyphen and should read 'course-related'.
  2. [Methods] The participant sample size and recruitment criteria are stated only at a high level; adding a brief table or paragraph with demographics would improve transparency without altering the exploratory framing.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments underscore the need for greater methodological transparency in our qualitative study, which we will address in the revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: The mapping from raw interview quotes to the twelve requirements is not shown, so it is impossible to assess how directly the categories (e.g., 'assertive, conscientious, and friendly personality') emerged from the data versus researcher interpretation. This mapping is load-bearing for the central claim that the requirements constitute outputs of the study.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from greater transparency in how the interview data led to the specific requirements. In the revised manuscript, we will include an appendix or expanded results section with example interview excerpts mapped to each requirement, demonstrating the data-driven nature of the categories. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: No inter-rater reliability statistics, saturation checks, or description of the coding procedure (thematic analysis steps, codebook, or example excerpts) are reported. Without these standard qualitative safeguards, the reliability of the three knowledge types and the specific requirements cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge the omission of detailed methodological safeguards in the current version. We will revise the Methods section to provide a full description of the thematic analysis process, including steps taken, codebook details, example excerpts, and any saturation assessment performed during the study. Regarding inter-rater reliability, as the analysis was conducted primarily by the lead author with reflexive discussions among the team, we will report this process and note the absence of formal IRR statistics, while adding any available details to enhance credibility. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper is an empirical, interview-based study that derives twelve design requirements directly from twelve semistructured interviews with students and lecturers. These requirements are presented as study outputs grouped into self-, user-, and context-knowledge categories, with no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations that reduce any claim to its own inputs by construction. The derivation chain is self-contained as a descriptive exploration of stakeholder perspectives rather than a deductive or statistical model.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that interview data from a small convenience sample can be generalized into design requirements. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The main axiom is a domain assumption that qualitative elicitation captures the necessary knowledge prerequisites.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Semistructured interviews with twelve university students and lecturers capture the complete set of knowledge prerequisites needed for responsible generative social robot tutoring.
    The paper treats the interview-derived requirements as foundational without further validation or larger-scale confirmation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5487 in / 1331 out tokens · 19492 ms · 2026-05-15T22:38:10.748641+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scientific Reports 15(1), 6581 (Feb 2025)

    Ackermann, H., Lange, A.L., Hafner, V.V., Lazarides, R.: How adaptive social robots influence cognitive, emotional, and self-regulated learning. Scientific Reports 15(1), 6581 (Feb 2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91236-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-91236-0 2025

  2. [2]

    doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100171

    Ahmed, S.K.: Sample size for saturation in qualitative research: Debates, definitions, and strategies. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health5, 100171 (Apr 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171 16 S. Vonschallen et al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100171 2025

  3. [3]

    In: International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

    Ahtinen, A., Chowdhury, A., Ramírez Millan, V., Wu, C.H., Menon, G.: Co-learning around social robots with school pupils and university students – Focus on data privacy considerations. In: International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. pp. 115–123. ACM, Gothenburg Sweden (Dec 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3623809.3623816

    work page doi:10.1145/3623809.3623816 2023

  4. [4]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI7, 591448 (Jan 2021)

    Babel, F., Kraus, J.M., Baumann, M.: Development and testing of psycho- logical conflict resolution strategies for assertive robots to resolve human– robot goal conflict. Frontiers in Robotics and AI7, 591448 (Jan 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.591448

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2020.591448 2021

  5. [5]

    Education and Information Technologies30(1), 297–312 (Jan 2025)

    Baillifard, A., Gabella, M., Lavenex, P.B., Martarelli, C.S.: Effective learning with a personal AI tutor: A case study. Education and Information Technologies30(1), 297–312 (Jan 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12888-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12888-5 2025

  6. [6]

    Applied Sciences14(13), 5644 (Jun 2024)

    Baksh, F., Zorec, M.B., Kruusamäe, K.: Open-source robotic study compan- ion with multimodal human–robot interaction to improve the learning ex- perience of university students. Applied Sciences14(13), 5644 (Jun 2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135644

    work page doi:10.3390/app14135644 2024

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Banna, T.T., Rahman, S., Tareq, M.: Beyond words: Integrating personality traits and context-driven gestures in human-robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Detroit, Michigan, USA (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Science Robotics3(21), eaat5954 (Aug 2018)

    Belpaeme, T., Kennedy, J., Ramachandran, A., Scassellati, B., Tanaka, F.: Social robots for education: A review. Science Robotics3(21), eaat5954 (Aug 2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aat5954 2018

  9. [9]

    Bender, E.M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., Shmitchell, S.: On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 610–623. ACM, Virtual Event Canada (Mar 2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 2021

  10. [10]

    Frontiers in Education9, 1362211 (Nov 2024)

    Bergtold, J.S., Shanoyan, A.: Assessment of group formation methods on perfor- mance in group-based learning activities. Frontiers in Education9, 1362211 (Nov 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1362211

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1362211 2024

  11. [11]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Billing, E., Rosén, J., Lamb, M.: Language models for human-robot inter- action. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 905–906. ACM, Stockholm Sweden (Mar 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580040

    work page doi:10.1145/3568294.3580040 2023

  12. [12]

    Sage Publications, Inc (2013)

    Braun, V., Clarke, V.: Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. Sage Publications, Inc (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction p

    Cantucci, F., Marini, M., Falcone, R.: The role of robot competence, autonomy, and personality on trust formation in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction p. 3786770 (Dec 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3786770

    work page doi:10.1145/3786770 2025

  14. [14]

    Information16(6), 469 (May 2025)

    Córdova-Esparza, D.M.: AI-powered educational agents: Opportunities, in- novations, and ethical challenges. Information16(6), 469 (May 2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/info16060469

    work page doi:10.3390/info16060469 2025

  15. [15]

    Computers & Education 125, 182–190 (Oct 2018)

    Deublein, A., Pfeifer, A., Merbach, K., Bruckner, K., Mengelkamp, C., Lugrin, B.: Scaffolding of motivation in learning using a social robot. Computers & Education 125, 182–190 (Oct 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.015 2018

  16. [16]

    Computers in Human Behavior121, 106792 (Aug 2021)

    Donnermann, M., Lein, M., Messingschlager, T., Riedmann, A., Schaper, P., Stein- haeusser, S., Lugrin, B.: Social robots and gamification for technology supported learning: An empirical study on engagement and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior121, 106792 (Aug 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106792 KBD Requirements for GSRs in Higher Education 17

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106792 2021

  17. [17]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI9, 831633 (Mar 2022)

    Donnermann, M., Schaper, P., Lugrin, B.: Social robots in applied settings: A long- term study on adaptive robotic tutors in higher education. Frontiers in Robotics and AI9, 831633 (Mar 2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.831633

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.831633 2022

  18. [18]

    International Journal of Social Robotics17(10), 2311–2326 (Oct 2025)

    Donnermann, M., Schaper, P., Lugrin, B.: Application of social robots in higher education: A long-term study. International Journal of Social Robotics17(10), 2311–2326 (Oct 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01286-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-025-01286-7 2025

  19. [19]

    Science and Engineering Ethics26(3), 1771–1796 (Jun 2020)

    Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T.C., Taddeo, M.: How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics26(3), 1771–1796 (Jun 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00213-5 2020

  20. [20]

    In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., Van De Poel, I., Gorman, M.E

    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A., Huldtgren, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., Van De Poel, I., Gorman, M.E. (eds.) Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory, vol. 16, pp. 55–95. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht (2013). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001 2013

  21. [21]

    AI & SOCIETY (Aug 2025)

    Fulsher, A., Pagkratidou, M., Kendeou, P.: GenAI and misinformation in education: A systematic scoping review of opportunities and challenges. AI & SOCIETY (Aug 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02536-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02536-y 2025

  22. [22]

    Frontiers in Education10, 1565938 (Jun 2025)

    García-López, I.M., Trujillo-Liñán, L.: Ethical and regulatory challenges of genera- tive AI in education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education10, 1565938 (Jun 2025). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1565938

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1565938 2025

  23. [23]

    Glaser and Anselm L

    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, 1 edn. (Jul 2017). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203793206 2017

  24. [24]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence30(1) (Mar 2016)

    Gordon, G., Spaulding, S., Kory Westlund, J., Lee, J.J., Plummer, L., Martinez, M., Das, M., Breazeal, C.: Affective personalization of a social robot tutor for children’s second language skills. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence30(1) (Mar 2016). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9914

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9914 2016

  25. [25]

    British Journal of Educational Technology51(5), 1864–1883 (Sep 2020)

    Guggemos, J., Seufert, S., Sonderegger, S.: Humanoid robots in higher education: Evaluating the acceptance of Pepper in the context of an academic writing course using the UTAUT. British Journal of Educational Technology51(5), 1864–1883 (Sep 2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13006

    work page doi:10.1111/bjet.13006 2020

  26. [26]

    Henderson, M

    Henderson, M., Bearman, M., Chung, J., Fawns, T., Buckingham Shum, S., Matthews, K.E., De Mello Heredia, J.: Comparing generative AI and teacher feedback: Student perceptions of usefulness and trustworthi- ness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education pp. 1–16 (May 2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582

    work page doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582 2025

  27. [27]

    Science Insights Education Frontiers16(2), 2577–2587 (Jun 2023)

    Huang, L.: Ethics of artificial intelligence in education: Student privacy and data protection. Science Insights Education Frontiers16(2), 2577–2587 (Jun 2023). https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.re202

    work page doi:10.15354/sief.23.re202 2023

  28. [28]

    Interactive Learning Environments 21(2), 156–171 (Apr 2013)

    Hung, I.C., Chao, K.J., Lee, L., Chen, N.S.: Designing a robot teaching assistant for enhancing and sustaining learning motivation. Interactive Learning Environments 21(2), 156–171 (Apr 2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.705855

    work page doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.705855 2013

  29. [29]

    ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Chal- lenges of Large Language Models for Education

    Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., Stadler, M., Weller, J., Kuhn, J., Kasneci, G.: ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of larg...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 2023

  30. [30]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boulder, CO, USA) (HRI ’24)

    Kim, C.Y., Lee, C.P., Mutlu, B.: Understanding large-language model (LLM)- powered human-robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE Interna- 18 S. Vonschallen et al. tional Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 371–380. ACM, Boulder CO USA (Mar 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634966

    work page doi:10.1145/3610977.3634966 2024

  31. [31]

    Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence8, 100349 (Jun 2025)

    Kinder, A., Briese, F.J., Jacobs, M., Dern, N., Glodny, N., Jacobs, S., Leßmann, S.: Effects of adaptive feedback generated by a large language model: A case study in teacher education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence8, 100349 (Jun 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100349

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100349 2025

  32. [32]

    Information16(1), 29 (Jan 2025)

    Lampropoulos, G.: Social robots in education: Current trends and future perspec- tives. Information16(1), 29 (Jan 2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/info16010029

    work page doi:10.3390/info16010029 2025

  33. [33]

    Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence8, 100417 (Jun 2025)

    Li, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, W., Hung, K., Xie, H., Wang, F.L.: Retrieval- augmented generation for educational application: A systematic survey. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence8, 100417 (Jun 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100417

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100417 2025

  34. [34]

    Teaching and Learning Inquiry10(Jan 2022)

    Loes, C.N.: The effect of collaborative learning on academic motivation. Teaching and Learning Inquiry10(Jan 2022). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.4

    work page doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.4 2022

  35. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference

    Lyu, B., Li, C., Li, H., Oh, H., Song, Y., Zhu, W., Xing, W.: Exploring the role of teachable AI agents’ personality traits in shaping student interaction and aearning in mathematics education. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference. pp. 887–894. ACM, Dublin Ireland (Mar 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3706468.3706532

    work page doi:10.1145/3706468.3706532 2025

  36. [36]

    No, I won’t do that

    Maj, K., Grzybowicz, P., Kopeć, J.: “No, I won’t do that.” Assertive behavior of robots and its perception by children. International Journal of Social Robotics 16(7), 1489–1507 (Jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01139-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-024-01139-9 2024

  37. [37]

    SAGE Publica- tions, Thousand Oaks (2021)

    Mayring, P.: Qualitative Content Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide. SAGE Publica- tions, Thousand Oaks (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    In: Papadakis, S., Lampropoulos, G

    Papadakis, S., Lampropoulos, G.: The emergence of artificial intelligence and social robots in education. In: Papadakis, S., Lampropoulos, G. (eds.) Social Robots and Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 1–15. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03977-4_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03977-4_1 2025

  39. [39]

    In: Salichs, M.A., Ge, S.S., Barakova, E.I., Cabibihan, J.J., Wagner, A.R., Castro- González, Á., He, H

    Paradeda, R., Ferreira, M.J., Oliveira, R., Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: What makes a good robotic advisor? The role of assertiveness in human-robot interaction. In: Salichs, M.A., Ge, S.S., Barakova, E.I., Cabibihan, J.J., Wagner, A.R., Castro- González, Á., He, H. (eds.) Social Robotics, vol. 11876, pp. 144–154. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35888- 2019

  40. [40]

    CBE—Life Sciences Education21(3), ar51 (Sep 2022)

    Premo, J., Wyatt, B.N., Horn, M., Wilson-Ashworth, H.: Which group dynam- ics matter: Social predictors of student achievement in team-based undergradu- ate science classrooms. CBE—Life Sciences Education21(3), ar51 (Sep 2022). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-06-0164

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.21-06-0164 2022

  41. [41]

    Frontiers in Public Health12, 1441465 (Jul 2024)

    Qiang, J., He, X., Xia, Z., Huang, J., Xu, C.: The association between intolerance of uncertainty and academic burnout among university students: The role of self- regulatory fatigue and self-compassion. Frontiers in Public Health12, 1441465 (Jul 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1441465

    work page doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1441465 2024

  42. [42]

    Learning Environments Research28(2), 307–322 (Aug 2025)

    Ramdas, S., Slootman, M., Van Der Zee, K.: Creating equitable learning environ- ments by building on differences in higher education: Design and implementation of the MIXED model. Learning Environments Research28(2), 307–322 (Aug 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-025-09524-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10984-025-09524-5 2025

  43. [43]

    In: Ali, A.A., Cabibihan, J.J., Meskin, N., Rossi, S., Jiang, W., He, H., Ge, S.S

    Reimann, M., Van De Graaf, J., Van Gulik, N., Van De Sanden, S., Verhagen, T., Hindriks, K.: Social robots in the wild and the novelty effect. In: Ali, A.A., Cabibihan, J.J., Meskin, N., Rossi, S., Jiang, W., He, H., Ge, S.S. (eds.) Social Robotics, vol. 14454, pp. 38–48. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8718...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-99-8718-4_4 2024

  44. [44]

    International Journal of Social Robotics16(8), 1735–1750 (Aug 2024)

    Sasser, J.A., McConnell, D.S., Smither, J.A.: Investigation of relationships be- tween embodiment perceptions and perceived social presence in human–robot interactions. International Journal of Social Robotics16(8), 1735–1750 (Aug 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-024-01138-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s12369-024-01138-w 2024

  45. [45]

    In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Schmiedel, T., Zhong, V.J., Eyssel, F.: Towards a wave approach for value sensitive design in social robotics. In: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 592–596. ACM, Stockholm Sweden (Mar 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3568294.3580154

    work page doi:10.1145/3568294.3580154 2023

  46. [46]

    IEEE Transactions on Education67(5), 777–785 (Oct 2024)

    Shailendra, S., Kadel, R., Sharma, A.: Framework for adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in education. IEEE Transactions on Education67(5), 777–785 (Oct 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2024.3432101

    work page doi:10.1109/te.2024.3432101 2024

  47. [47]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z

    Sharkey, A.J.C.: Should we welcome robot teachers? Ethics and Information Tech- nology18(4), 283–297 (Dec 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-016-9387-z 2016

  48. [48]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Software and E-Business

    Smit, K., Leewis, S., Almoustafa, H., Yildirim, K., Uymaz, T.: Enhancing educa- tional dynamics integrating large language models with a social robot. In: Pro- ceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Software and E-Business. pp. 87–94. ACM, Osaka Japan (Dec 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3715885.3715889

    work page doi:10.1145/3715885.3715889 2024

  49. [49]

    ECNU Review of Education6(3), 355–366 (Aug 2023)

    Su, J., Yang, W.: Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education6(3), 355–366 (Aug 2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423

    work page doi:10.1177/20965311231168423 2023

  50. [50]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI12, 1635419 (Sep 2025)

    Sun, F., Li, L., Meng, S., Teng, X., Payne, T.R., Craig, P.: Integrating emotional intelligence, memory architecture, and gestures to achieve empathetic humanoid robot interaction in an educational setting. Frontiers in Robotics and AI12, 1635419 (Sep 2025). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2025.1635419

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2025.1635419 2025

  51. [51]

    Interna- tional Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(5), 3049–3070 (Dec 2025)

    Tasdelen, O., Bodemer, D.: Generative AI in the classroom: Effects of context- personalized learning material and tasks on motivation and performance. Interna- tional Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education35(5), 3049–3070 (Dec 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00491-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00491-9 2025

  52. [52]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5

    Tullis, J.G., Goldstone, R.L.: Why does peer instruction benefit student learn- ing? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications5(1), 15 (Dec 2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5

    work page doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5 2020

  53. [53]

    AI and Ethics1(3), 283–296 (Aug 2021)

    Umbrello, S., Van De Poel, I.: Mapping value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics1(3), 283–296 (Aug 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681- 021-00038-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681- 2021

  54. [54]

    In: Lampropoulos, G., Papadakis, S

    Verhelst, E., Janssens, R., Belpaeme, T.: Enabling autonomous and adaptive social robots in education: A vision for the application of generative AI. In: Lampropoulos, G., Papadakis, S. (eds.) Social Robots in Education, vol. 1194, pp. 17–42. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-82915-4_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82915-4_2 2025

  55. [55]

    In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction

    Verhelst, E., Janssens, R., Demeester, T., Belpaeme, T.: Adaptive second lan- guage tutoring using generative AI and a social robot. In: Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. pp. 1080–1084. ACM, Boulder CO USA (Mar 2024). https://doi.org/10.1145/3610978.3640559

    work page doi:10.1145/3610978.3640559 2024

  56. [56]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.11483

    Vonschallen, S., Eyssel, F., Schmiedel, T.: Understanding persuasive interactions between generative social robots and humans: The Knowedge-based Persuasion Model (KPM) (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.11483

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.11483 2026

  57. [57]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction

    Vonschallen, S., Finsler, L.J.C., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Exploring persuasive interactions with generative social robots - An experimental framework. In: Pro- ceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. pp. 542–544. ACM, Yokohama Japan (2026). https://doi.org/10.1145/3765766.3765866 20 S. Vonschallen et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3765766.3765866 2026

  58. [58]

    Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence9, 1810725 (Apr 2026)

    Vonschallen, S., Häusler, R., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Never say never: Exploring the effects of knowledge availability on agent persuasiveness in controlled physio- therapy motivation dialogues. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence9, 1810725 (Apr 2026). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1810725

    work page doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1810725 2026

  59. [59]

    In: Proc

    Vonschallen, S., Zumthor, E., Simon, M., Schmiedel, T., Eyssel, F.: Knowledge-based design requirements for persuasive generative social robots in eldercare. In: Staffa, M.,Cabibihan,J.J.,Siciliano,B.,Ge,S.S.,Bodenhagen,L.,Tapus,A.,Rossi,S.,Cav- allo, F., Fiorini, L., Matarese, M., He, H. (eds.) Social Robotics + AI, vol. 16131, pp. 224–240. Springer Natu...

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2026

  60. [60]

    Journal of Academic Ethics23(4), 2401–2422 (Dec 2025)

    Wang, N., Li, Y., Cong, F.: University students’ privacy concerns towards generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Academic Ethics23(4), 2401–2422 (Dec 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09658-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09658-4 2025

  61. [61]

    https: //doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889592

    Wilcock, G., Jokinen, K.: Conversational AI and knowledge graphs for social robot interaction. In: 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction (HRI). pp. 1090–1094. IEEE, Sapporo, Japan (Mar 2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889583

    work page doi:10.1109/hri53351.2022.9889583 2022

  62. [62]

    Educational Research Review33, 100388 (Jun 2021)

    Woo, H., LeTendre, G.K., Pham-Shouse, T., Xiong, Y.: The use of social robots in classrooms: A review of field-based studies. Educational Research Review33, 100388 (Jun 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100388

    work page doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100388 2021

  63. [63]

    In: Islam, S., Sturm, A

    Wu, W., Heierli, J., Meisterhans, M., Moser, A., Färber, A., Dolata, M., Gav- agnin, E., De Spindler, A., Schwabe, G.: PROMISE: A framework for model-driven stateful prompt orchestration. In: Islam, S., Sturm, A. (eds.) Intelligent Informa- tion Systems, vol. 520, pp. 157–165. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61000-4_18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61000-4_18 2024

  64. [64]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02266-1

    Xing, P., Cao, Y.: AI in education: A shortcut or a roadblock to foundational knowledge? AI & SOCIETY40(7), 5591–5592 (Oct 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02266-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02266-1 2025

  65. [65]

    Journal of Computational Social Science8(4), 96 (Nov 2025)

    Yildiz Durak, H., Onan, A.: A systematic review of AI-based feedback in edu- cational settings. Journal of Computational Social Science8(4), 96 (Nov 2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-025-00428-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00428-1 2025

  66. [66]

    Innovative Higher Education46(2), 133–151 (Apr 2021)

    Young, K.R., Schaffer, H.E., James, J.B., Gallardo-Williams, M.T.: Tired of failing students? Improving student learning using detailed and automated individualized feedback in a large introductory science course. Innovative Higher Education46(2), 133–151 (Apr 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09527-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10755-020-09527-5 2021

  67. [67]

    2024, Smart Learning Environments, 11, doi: 10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

    Zhai, C., Wibowo, S., Li, L.D.: The effects of over-reliance on AI dialogue systems on students’ cognitive abilities: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments 11(1), 28 (Jun 2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s40561-024-00316-7 2024

  68. [68]

    In: 2024 China Au- tomation Congress (CAC)

    Zhang, Z., Wu, Y., Zheng, X.: Social intelligence enhancement methods for LLM agents based on retrieval-augmented generation. In: 2024 China Au- tomation Congress (CAC). pp. 5769–5774. IEEE, Qingdao, China (Nov 2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/CAC63892.2024.10865026

    work page doi:10.1109/cac63892.2024.10865026 2024