DETERMINACIÓN DE LA TURBIDEZ

These observations can be seen in Table A16. In both conditions many children had problems with spelling and asked how to write certain words [trial NE2,

NE3, NE4, NE5, NE6, E2, E5]. Often,

either the other child or the researcher dictated how to write the word. On the one hand, children helped each other with spelling [trial NE3, NE4,

NE5, E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7].

They, for example, dictated each other

[trial NE5, E3, E4] or pointed at the

correct letter on the tablet [trial E2,

E3]. On the other hand, the children

sometimes clearly mentioned the other child being wrong [trial NE1, NE3,

NE4, NE5, NE8, E1, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7]. Some of the children criticising

the other child's language skills asked if they should take over the typing

[trial NE3, NE4], to which the other

child responded by either giving away the tablet [trial NE4] or by telling she could manage herself [trial NE3]. In addition, many children had diffi- culties with immediately coming up

with answers on the "why-questions". They often said they did not know the answer [trial NE3, NE4, E3, E6]. Also, other observations indicate they had difficulties with answering the questions [trial NE4, NE5, NE6, E1,

E3, E6]. There are no indications that

children had more difficulties with answering the questions in one of the two conditions. In trial E5 the chil- dren specifically indicated they really did not understand why the robot was angry. Some children were a bit uncer- tain if the reasons they came up with were okay. They sometimes sought for approval of the researcher [trial NE1,

NE2]. On the contrary, some children

already came up with what the robot needed to do to go to the moon before clicking the start button. They suggest- ed using a rocket [trial NE1], driving

[trial NE2], making a ship [trial NE4]

and doing exercises [trial NE4]. Some children got more and more ir- ritated by constantly having to answer the questions [trial NE4, NE5, NE7]. Also, the children that were typing were sometimes distracted and had to be reminded by the researcher they had to finish up the typing [trial NE1, E4]. In some cases the researcher typed the reason into the tablet, since the chil- dren had difficulties with typing [trial

NE6, NE8, E4].

Some final observations consist of a child mentioning aloud he was im- pressed by the reason the other child came up with [trial NE4] and another child laughing about what she had came up with herself [trial NE5]. In

trial E6 a child specifically mentioned

the need to come up with something logical in order to go to the moon. In

trial E4 a child said: "I know now!".

This exclamation might indicate he saw the storytelling task as a exercise to be solved.

96

In some of the trials children nicely collaborated in coming up with the reasons. The person that came up with a reason typed it in on the tablet [trial

NE1] or reasons were created in turns [trial E6]. Others typed sentences col-

laboratively [trial E1, E4, E7]. How- ever, in some trials mainly one of the two children came up with the reasons and typed them [trial NE2, NE4,

NE5, NE7]. In addition, it seemed that

children shifted the responsibility for coming up with a reason to the other child when they did not have a clue themselves [trial NE3, NE5, NE6, NE7,

NE8, E3, E4, E6]. The shifting might

also have to do with them not liking to type. On the contrary, the children also argued about who’s turn it was next, indicating children wanting to perform the reasoning or typing themselves [tri-

al NE3, NE6, NE8, E3, E4, E6].

Other Remarks

These observations can be seen in Ta- ble A16. When one child was typing on the tablet, the other child did not always have something to do. Some children calmly waited until the other child finished typing [trial NE6, NE7,

NE8], whereas others were impatient

and started playing with the objects on the table [trial NE7, E5], started look- ing [trial NE1, NE2] or even walked around [trial NE6]. Besides, children often argued about who could perform the next action. In general they often mentioned statements, such as: "May I?" and "It is my turn" [trial NE6]. Also, they specifically used the statements for reading [trial NE2, NE6], the place- ment of object blocks and figures in front of Cozmo [trial NE2, NE6] and the selection on tablet [trial NE3, E3]. The following results largely agree with the results of the second study (7.6 Results). Children often referred to the characteristics of the robot by asking if the robot could or why the

robot could not talk [trial NE1, NE5], drive [trial NE2, NE3, NE4, NE5,

NE6, NE7, E4], laugh [trial NE6] and

move its arms [trial NE1, NE6]. Or in more general: "Why doesn't he do anything?" [trial NE8]. Again, some children got really irritated the robot did not meet their expectations. In trial

NE2 a boy asked at least five times why

the robot did not move. Also, some children referred to the robot's eyes

[trial NE1, NE3, NE7, NE8]. Other

remarks by the children concerning the robot were: "He is cute" [trial NE2,

E4] and "Is he a boy?" [trial NE6].

Others stroked the robot [trial NE6,

e3] or talked to the robot [trial NE6, trial E4]. What can be noted is that the

questions and remarks concerning the robot's characteristics mainly occurred in the NE condition. Although the robot was also not able to talk and drive distances in the E condition, the absence of these characteristics was apparently not worth mentioning in this condition.

In the NE condition children often reacted to the content of the thought screen on the tablet similar to the chil- dren in the second study. They men- tioned things, such as "He saw him"

[trial NE6, NE4] and "He got him" [trial NE5]. Also, some talked to Coz-

mo by asking: "Yes, what?" [trial NE5]. Others explained what they saw on the screen: "the little rocket" [trial NE4] or, when providing the robot with the present, explained that it already knew what was in it [trial NE3]. On the contrary, in the E condition children did not respond to the thought screen of the tablet, they were focused on the behaviour of the robot. They either smiled [trial E1, E7] or laughed [trial

E2, E3, E5] when the robot performed

an animation. Also, they explained it liked/did not like something [trial E3] or explicitly mentioned its emotion

[trial E1, E4, E5, E7]. In trial E2 they

mentioned what they thought the ro- bot was thinking: "oh". In other trials children indicated they did not un- derstand its behaviour. They used the word "huh" in trial E4, E6 and asked why the robot did not want anything after it reacted angry three times in a row in trial E5.

Also, like in the second study, children often immediately selected the "goes to" action, since they expected to be able to bring the robot to the moon when selecting this action [trial NE4,

NE8, E2, E3, E6]. In addition, in two

trials children explicitly mentioned they liked the activity [trial NE1, E6]. In one trial children thought they had to move the virtual object block over the line on the tablet [trial NE2]. Another observation is that children explicitly mentioned they already used certain object blocks and figures as if they introduced a new rule they cannot use them twice, or they do not like us- ing them twice [trial NE5, NE6,EH6]. Although they do not specifically mention, children in the other trials also tended to use only object blocks and figures they did not use before. This preference can be caused by the children being most interested in ex- ploring the robot responses. Therefore, they mainly explored the response of the robot on every element possible, before re-using elements.

In two trials children did not under- stand how Cozmo travelled to a certain location, they mentioned: "But how do we place him on the planet then?” [trial

NE4] and "How does he get to the

97