Reluctance to Authenticity-Imbued Social Robots as Child-Interaction Partners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article shows a very interesting and relevant topic for the field of educational technology. However, there are certain problems with respect to what is shown in this work:

- Item 2.3 talks about the perception of teacher functions and the role of technology. But when this point is read, the role of technology is not found. Furthermore, I do not think it is necessary to go into the perception that teachers have about their educational role, which is often determined by the context and the corresponding regulations. 

- It is indicated that the participants, for the most part, did not know social robots. In order to solve this problem, the authors indicate that a series of videos were shown for them to get to know them. These videos are not specified, but they are of great relevance to understand the data. Depending on what they were able to observe or even understand from what the videos show, the answers were influenced. Also, they are just videos, not the real potential that can be observed from this technology when it is actually used. 

- Another problem observed is the sample size to perform a Factor Analysis. There are recommendations from authors who speak of the need to have at least 10-15 cases for each variable analyzed (MacCallum, Widaman, Preacher & Hong, 2001). Bearing in mind that the instrument presents 27 different variables, we would be talking about the need for at least double the sample size. This sample size also affects the reliability analysis. The smaller the sample size and the smaller the variables, the more likely it is that Cronbach's Alpha index will be very high, and this has been determined by different studies. For this reason, it is recommended that other reliability analyses be performed. 

- Also of concern is the fact that a discussion is made only with descriptive data of mean and variance, without carrying out more necessary analyses to determine the subsequent conclusions.

- Contextual aspects have also not been taken into consideration when analyzing this variable. The Russian context cannot be the same as the English, French or Swedish context. There are preconceived ideas and stereotypes that may be influencing the perspective shown by the students surveyed. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments which were all addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

* Title...be placed...not be "a" placed.

* Rephrase title to affirmative tone...not a question..e.g., "Leveraging social robot as authentic interaction partner.

* Use professional proofreading as there are many grammatical and syntax errors.

* How were the social robots being introduced to the teacher and students really matters.  For the teacher, is the robot serving as teaching aid or taking up more instructional tasks?  Relinquishing control on the part of teachers may be challenging depending on teachers' affinity or hostility toward having technology and a robot teaching/interacting on his/her behalf.  For the students, novelty effect will kick in and the level and quality of interaction with the social robot will be contingent upon how familiar/much training the teacher has with manipulating the robot and what lessons are designed purposefully with the usage of the robot.  In sum, how is human-AI collaboration being carried out in real life classroom teaching can be highly contextualized, as you noted in 2.2 section of acceptance.

* line 138-139. saturated with robots....this statement seems somewhat unfounded...any literature to back this up?

* section 2.3 and 2.4 are really nicely done discussions as they relate to the impact of robot interaction with teachers and children.

* Line 199...do we really want authenticity-imbued social robots?  Or authenticity is best to stay with human teachers?  Are we to envision a future with robot teachers as the only teacher in a given face-to-face classroom with students?

* A great deal of educational technology and robotic research resides on perceptions and training/readiness.  Even if users of technology perceive benefits, they may not be ready to leverage social robots in ways that are beneficial as intended in the first place.  Literature review is well done.

* Poor transition from line 267 to 268 the research question of the study.  Needs to add a paragraph to state importance of studying the RQ.

* Concerns scale starts out with this negativity toward social robots and I wonder this intrinsic feature will impact how teachers perceive robots.  Maybe use a more neutral survey name?  Do teachers get asked about the positive sides of incorporating social robots in the survey too?  We need to present a balanced perspective when we can, otherwise this seems leading.

* 452-453.    yes widening the digital divide too.

* 486-487.    Teachers accept them initially too...I would safely assume.

* Many intriguing points and discussions of contention here regarding usage and perception of social robots on many fronts.

Needs professional proofreading

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments which were all addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study examines the concerns of future Russian teachers regarding the educational integration of social robots in classrooms, with an emphasis on the authenticity of human relationships. It applies instruments validated by previous research with teachers in Slovenia and reveals that both groups share concerns about the suitability of robots for social roles in the classroom. The study looks quite promising and appears to be an interesting contribution to the realm of technological advancements in education, addressing the complex topic of integrating robotic educational agents into classroom settings.

My comments and suggestions are as follows:

1. The Russian sample consists of 124 pre-service teachers. From what areas or subjects? Perhaps science or technology teachers perceive the incorporation of robots differently compared to geography or arts teachers.

2. Section 3.1 combines basic participant characterization with information on their knowledge of social robots, including a review of videos. It would be beneficial to provide a playlist of these videos to facilitate the review or replication of this section. Additionally, the specific questions included in the online questionnaire completed by the participants are not clearly outlined.

3. In line 356, quote 48 comes after the period.

4. In Section 3, the sample is characterized according to the years of study, which could be used in the analysis of results. Students who are entering university may show a greater willingness to incorporate robots compared to those who are close to finishing their studies.

5. The research question is addressed in a mixed way, although it is formulated qualitatively.

I hope that my comments are well received and contribute to the development of your research.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments which were all addressed in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf