Phase 1: Write and Draw

The write and draw study was conducted in five sessions with a total of 144 children. The first session was a pilot study consisting of 24 children. After analysing the results, the methods were revised and four subsequent sessions (definitive study) were conducted with 120 children.

149 Pilot Study

The pilot study for Phase 1 was conducted in School A. There were a total of 24 children in the class, consisting of 14 girls and 10 boys. The exercise took place in the children’s classroom during class time and all members of the year group in attendance on the day of the research took part. The exercise was divided into two sessions. In the first part of the exercise, children were invited to draw one or more pictures of what they thought robots looked like. Any enquires as to the type of robot children were required to draw, received the simple response that children should draw their thoughts on the robots’ appearance. Children were asked to write their age and gender at the top of the page and were specifically instructed not to write their names in order to preserve anonymity. The researcher asked the children unplanned questions relating to their drawings to clarify what was drawn and their responses were documented in field notes. For example, one child drew lines emerging out of the robot’s eyes and the child was asked to explain what the lines signified. An account was written as soon as possible after the session and a copy was attached to the child’s drawing. The first session of the pilot exercise took 20 minutes.

In the second part of the session, children were requested to write a story about the robot they had drawn. The length of the story was not specified, only that they should write as much as possible. The children were asked to stop writing after 15 minutes. Stories and drawings were collected together and were classified as ‘School A’ and each child’s work was designated with a number.

150 Definitive Study

The data was analysed using Collaizi’s (1978) seven-step process of analysis (see section 3.10). After analysing the results of the pilot study, the drawing exercise remained the same but the procedure for the writing exercise was slightly changed. Even though children were requested to write a story about the robot they had drawn, an additional two questions were asked in order to provide guidance and prompt more detailed responses. In the definitive study, they were written on the board as a guide for children to follow: (1) ‘Why have you drawn your chosen robot?’ and (2) ‘Where did the idea come from?’ Children were asked to bear these questions in mind when constructing their stories.

The procedure was changed because in the pilot, the children had written very little (3 to 4 lines) when requested to write a story about the robot they had drawn. The following is an example of a story from the pilot:

‘One Monday morning I saw a little robot moveing around in the frunt by the door. My robot was chaned in Blue then somebody took my Robot and my Robot is noty all the time. I put my robot in the frunt by the door.

In addition, whilst walking around the classroom taking field notes, a child was overheard telling her friend that she was drawing that particular robot because she had seen it in a film. Since my interest is the origin of children’s perception of robots, these comments were relevant data for my research. Furthermore, the questions provided a structure to the writing pieces which made coding and

151 classifying easier. Thus, due to these advantages, the use of prompting questions was implemented in the subsequent three sessions.

3.11.1. Write and Draw Method of Analysis

Drawings

Collaizi’s (1978) seven step process was implemented in analysing children’s drawings and stories. The data was coded and key themes that emerged from the coding process were identified. Various aspects of each drawing such as shape, colour, method of movement and general characteristics of each robot were then compared. Consistencies and inconsistencies across the drawings of robot characteristics were noted, as well as robot characteristics that were gendered. Drawing on semiotic analysis, the representation of images were scrutinised for connotative meanings; in other words, the ways in which the word ‘robot’ produces not only an image but also a set of ideological assumptions. The analysis here seeks to explore specific stereotypes of robot imagery. However, Collaizi’s seventh step, where he suggests returning to the subject to interview them about the findings thus far, was not implemented in this research. Collaizi’s stages were taken into account during the analysis phase of the research, after the data collection phase had been completed.

Writings

The children’s stories of robots were transcribed together with the field notes. A range of questions was formulated in order to interrogate the data. The questions were: ‘How does the robot function?’ ‘Who or what controls the robot(s)?’ ‘Where

152 is the robot?’ ‘What is the robot doing?’ ‘What is the identity of the robot?’ ‘What is the relationship between the robot and the child?’ and ‘What are the origins of children’s ideas?’ The analysis of the data using these questions identified five key themes: ‘anthropomorphism’, ‘gender attribution’, ‘robot identity’, ‘child/robot relationship’ and ‘story setting’.

In the results chapter that follows, the findings of the pilot study are included with the overall analysis. Despite the introduction of two prompting questions, stories from the pilot study were relatively similar to those in the definitive study, and demonstrated identified themes (albeit in a shorter and less detailed way). In addition, the method used for executing the drawing exercise remained the same in both the pilot and definitive study.