James Kennedy
Paul Baxter
Tony Belpaeme
ABSTRACT
Social robots are finding increasing application in the domain of education, particularly for children, to support and augment learning opportunities. With an implicit assumption that social and adaptive behaviour is desirable, it is therefore of interest to determine precisely how these aspects of behaviour may be exploited in robots to support children in their learning. In this paper, we explore this issue by evaluating the effect of a social robot tutoring strategy with children learning about prime numbers. It is shown that the tutoring strategy itself leads to improvement, but that the presence of a robot employing this strategy amplifies this effect, resulting in significant learning. However, it was also found that children interacting with a robot using social and adaptive behaviours in addition to the teaching strategy did not learn a significant amount. These results indicate that while the presence of a physical robot leads to improved learning, caution is required when applying social behaviour to a robot in a tutoring context.
Supplemental Material
- R. K. Atkinson, R. E. Mayer, and M. M. Merrill. Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1):117--139, 2005.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- P. Baxter, R. Wood, and T. Belpaeme. A touchscreen-based 'sandtray' to facilitate, mediate and contextualise human-robot social interaction. In Proc. HRI'12, pages 105--106, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Belpaeme, P. Baxter, R. Read, R. Wood, H. Cuayahuitl, B. Kiefer, et al. Multimodal child-robot interaction: Building social bonds. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 1(2):33--53, 2012.Google Scholar
- O. A. Blanson Henkemans, B. P. Bierman, J. Janssen, M. A. Neerincx, R. Looije, H. van der Bosch, et al. Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: A pilot study. Patient Education and Counseling, 92(2):174--181, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. S. Bloom. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational researcher, pages 4--16, 1984.Google Scholar
- J. Han, M. Jo, S. Park, and S. Kim. The educational use of home robots for children. In IEEE RO-MAN'05, pages 378--383, 2005.Google Scholar
- T. Kanda, T. Hirano, D. Eaton, and H. Ishiguro. Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1):61--84, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kennedy, P. Baxter, and T. Belpaeme. Constraining content in mediated unstructured social interactions: Studies in the wild. In Proc. AFFINE'13, at ACII'13, pages 728--733, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kennedy, P. Baxter, and T. Belpaeme. Children comply with a robot's indirect requests. In Proc. HRI'14, pages 198--199, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kennedy, P. Baxter, and T. Belpaeme. Comparing robot embodiments in a guided discovery learning interaction with children. International Journal of Social Robotics, accepted.Google Scholar
- H. Kose-Bagci, E. Ferrari, K. Dautenhahn, D. S. Syrdal, and C. L. Nehaniv. Effects of embodiment and gestures on social interaction in drumming games with a humanoid robot. Advanced Robotics, 23(14):1951--1996, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1):159--174, 1977.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Leyzberg, S. Spaulding, and B. Scassellati. Personalizing robot tutors to individual learning differences. In Proc. HRI'14, pages 423--430, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Leyzberg, S. Spaulding, M. Toneva, and B. Scassellati. The physical presence of a robot tutor increases cognitive learning gains. In Proc. CogSci'12, pages 1882--1887, 2012.Google Scholar
- R. E. Mayer, S. Fennell, L. Farmer, and J. Campbell. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2):389, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Moshkina, S. Trickett, and J. G. Trafton. Social engagement in public places: a tale of one robot. In Proc. HRI'14, pages 382--389, 2014. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. E. O'Neill. The genuine sieve of eratosthenes. Journal of Functional Programming, 19(01):95--106, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Saerbeck, T. Schut, C. Bartneck, and M. D. Janse. Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proc. CHI'10, pages 1613--1622, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Schermerhorn, M. Scheutz, and C. R. Crowell. Robot social presence and gender: Do females view robots differently than males? In Proc. HRI'08, pages 263--270, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Short, K. Swift-Spong, J. Greczek, A. Ramachandran, A. Litoiu, E. C. Grigore, et al. How to train your dragonbot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play. In IEEE RO-MAN'14, pages 924--929, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4):295--312, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Szafir and B. Mutlu. Pay attention!: Designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement. In Proc. CHI'12, pages 11--20, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. VanLehn. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4):197--221, 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. VanLehn, S. Siler, C. Murray, T. Yamauchi, and W. B. Baggett. Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21(3):209--249, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. S. Vygotsky. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press, 1980.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Zaki. Cue integration a common framework for social cognition and physical perception. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3):296--312, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- The Robot Who Tried Too Hard: Social Behaviour of a Robot Tutor Can Negatively Affect Child Learning
Recommendations
Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning
Inaugural Special Issue: Intersection of Systems Sciences and Human SciencesIn contrast to conventional teaching agents (including robots) that were designed to play the role of human teachers or caregivers, we propose the opposite scenario in which robots receive instruction or care from children. We hypothesize that by using ...
Heart vs Hard Drive: Children Learn More From a Human Tutor Than a Social Robot
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot InteractionThe field of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) is increasingly exploring the use of social robots for educating children. Commonly, non-academic audiences will ask how robots compare to humans in terms of learning outcomes. This question is also interesting ...
Engagement in longitudinal child-robot language learning interactions: Disentangling robot and task engagement
AbstractThis study investigated a seven sessions interaction between a peer-tutor robot and Dutch preschoolers (5 years old) during which the children learned English. We examined whether children’s engagement differed when interacting with a ...
Graphical abstractDisplay Omitted
Comments