## 3 Results
### Qualitative Results
#### 3.2.1 Effectiveness of the Robot as a Teacher  
In this theme, the contrast of opinions between the teachers who only saw videos and those who interacted with an actual NAO robot is significant; thus we report their views separately. On one hand, those who only saw videos were hesitant to affirm that [PERSON] was an effective teacher because of the following: (1) In one of the videos, [PERSON] was giving the learner an elementary arithmetic exercise with interactive feedback; thus the teachers thought that the robot was only suitable for such elementary topics and could not deliver on more complex ones. (2) In both videos, the robot offered one-to-one tutoring and support; hence the teachers could not imagine it teaching in a big class. Some of their interesting quotes, translated from their original Swahili, include the following:  
_\"In the first video, we see it teaching basic concepts, specifically addition and subtraction. Can it really teach advanced topics such as algebra and geometry?\"_  
_\"Can it be audible in a class of 100 pupils? Also, sometimes when you ask a question in class several pupils shout the answer at once, with some providing incorrect ones. How can the robot deal with such a situation? Based on these videos, it might be effective just for one-to-one tutoring.\"_  
Despite their reservations, the teachers offered insightful comments about the role and adoption of the NAO robot. They recommended it for pupils with special needs, such as children with learning difficulties, as the tailored one-to-one tutoring might help their understanding. In some public schools, such pupils are present in dedicated classes. On the other hand, the teachers who actually interacted with the NAO robot and observed it as it taught pupils were generally positive about its effectiveness as a teacher. Their opinions were also influenced by the fact that they witnessed an objective improvement in the pupils' performance as a result of NAO's tutoring. Pre- and post-tests were administered before and after the intervention, respectively, and were marked and graded by the teachers. In addition to the objective attribute of performance increase, subjective commendations for the robot's personality and teaching methods were also presented, such as the offering of personalised feedback to pupils; its calm demeanor; its patience even when pupils got the questions wrong; the use of innovative teaching techniques; and the constant (but correct) variations in the topic introduction, examples, exercises, and feedback. Here are some of their views:  
1. On personalised feedback:  
_\"The robot addressed the pupils individually and by name, which is good practice. Also, it praised them when they did well, which is a motivation to them.\"_
2. On its personality and demeanor:  
_\"It was always patient, even when some pupils kept getting the questions wrong. It did not intimidate them at all.\"_
3. On its teaching methods and techniques:  
_\"I have learnt something new, that in a large class, instead of having pupils use abacuses (counting frames) in turns as I currently do, I can teach them to use a table to identify place values and achieve the same.\"_  
_\"I liked that it gives the pupils exercises after introducing the topic to test their understanding.\"_  
_\"It knows how to deliver the concepts and techniques to the pupils. For example, it constantly reminded them to use the right-left method in determining the place values of digits, which helped the pupils.\"_  
Nevertheless, the teachers also identified some weaknesses and limitations observed during both their personal interactions with NAO and the pupils' tutoring.