Robot	
  as	
  a	
  Learning	
  Partner	
  for	
  Promo1ng	
  
Proac1ve	
  Discussion	
  in	
  Peer	
  Groups:	
  

A	
  C...
Research	
  Background	
  and	
  
Research	
  Ques1ons
2
Robots	
  as	
  learning	
  partner

-­‐	
  an	
  emerging	
  agenda	
  for	
  CSCL
!
• Two	
  reasons	
  to	
  apply	
  r...
Past	
  research	
  of	
  using	
  robots	
  
as	
  learning	
  partners	
  –	
  structured	
  seEngs
• Learning	
  Englis...
Past	
  research	
  of	
  using	
  robots	
  
as	
  learning	
  partners	
  –	
  structured	
  seEngs
• A	
  scripted	
  c...
Research	
  Agenda
• The	
  potenSal	
  of	
  robot	
  facilitaSon	
  in	
  ill-­‐structured	
  
se[ngs	
  
– With	
  ore	...
Research	
  Method	
  and	
  Design	
  (1)
7
• Design	
  
– Experimental	
  study	
  design
student
student
student
studen...
Research	
  Method	
  and	
  Design	
  (2)
• ParScipants	
  
– Undergraduate	
  students	
  (sophomores	
  and	
  juniors)...
Research	
  Method	
  and	
  Design	
  (3)
• Design	
  
– Experimental	
  study	
  design
9
student
student
student
studen...
10
Robot	
  
Operated	
  by	
  
Remote

Human	
  	
  
Facilitator
Professional

Human	
  	
  
Facilitator

Present
Research	
  Method	
  and	
  Design	
  (3)	
  
• Discussion	
  theme:	
  
– “So,	
  please	
  tell	
  us	
  about	
  your	...
12
Hello,	
  I’m	
  Robovie.	
  Nice	
  to	
  meet	
  you	
  all.	
  First	
  of	
  all,	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  st...
Research	
  Method	
  and	
  Design	
  (3)	
  
• Discussion	
  theme:	
  
– “So,	
  please	
  tell	
  us	
  about	
  your	...
Data	
  collec1on
• QuesSonnaires	
  (pre	
  and	
  post)	
  
– to	
  examine	
  the	
  results	
  were	
  significantly	
 ...
Analysis	
  and	
  Findings
Effec1veness	
  of	
  the	
  Peer	
  Group	
  

for	
  Career	
  Counseling	
  Purposes
16
2.56% 2.57%
2.07% 2.08% 2.13% 2....
Coding	
  rule	
  of	
  transcribed	
  peer	
  group
17
F F
F
F
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
prompt
prompt
prom
pt
prompt
Differences	
  of	
  Students’	
  Par1cipa1on	
  in	
  the	
  Peer	
  
18
23.5%
21.3%
17.9%
21.9%
79.3%
6.4%
17.2%
10.2%
0%...
Differences	
  of	
  Students’	
  Par1cipa1on	
  in	
  the	
  Peer	
  
19
23.5%
21.3%
17.9%
21.9%
79.3%
6.4%
17.2%
10.2%
0%...
Differences	
  of	
  Students’	
  Par1cipa1on	
  in	
  the	
  Peer	
  
20
23.5%
21.3%
17.9%
21.9%
79.3%
6.4%
17.2%
10.2%
0%...
Differences	
  of	
  Students’	
  Par1cipa1on	
  in	
  the	
  Peer	
  
21
23.5%
21.3%
17.9%
21.9%
79.3%
6.4%
17.2%
10.2%
0%...
Characteris1cs	
  of	
  Proac1ve	
  USerances	
  

in	
  the	
  Peer	
  Groups	
  
• To	
  clarify	
  how	
  the	
  parSci...
Characteris1cs	
  of	
  Proac1ve	
  USerances	
  

in	
  the	
  Peer	
  Groups	
  
23
The	
  facilitator	
  should	
  try	...
Characteris1cs	
  of	
  Proac1ve	
  USerances	
  

in	
  the	
  Peer	
  Groups	
  
24
There	
  were	
  significantly	
  man...
Conclusion
• Both	
  experimental	
  and	
  control	
  peer	
  groups	
  
produced	
  similar	
  results	
  with	
  regard...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Robot as a Learning Partner for Promoting Proactive Discussion in Peer Groups: A Case Study for Career Development

372 views

Published on

This paper describes an experiment on peer groups that had a robot as a learning partner, to examine whether the robot could encourage the participants to talk on their own initiative. The authors measured the number of proactive utterances of each participant during the sessions. The authors compared the experimental groups that had robot facilitators, which were manipulated by professional human facilitators, and the control groups, which were also led by professional human facilitators but without a robot. The result showed that the participants in the experimental sessions talked on their own initiative much more than those in the controlled sessions. Finally, the authors qualitatively examined the characteristics of the proactive utterances in the peer group and found that the utterances contained supportive responses, which encouraged the participants to voluntarily join the dialogue promoting the counseling.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
372
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Robot as a Learning Partner for Promoting Proactive Discussion in Peer Groups: A Case Study for Career Development

  1. 1. Robot  as  a  Learning  Partner  for  Promo1ng   Proac1ve  Discussion  in  Peer  Groups:  
 A  Case  Study  for  Career  Development Toshio  Mochizuki,  Senshu  Univ.,  Japan   Yoshitaka  Mitate,  The  University  of  Kitakyushu,  Japan   Yoshikazu  Tateno,  Jun  Nakahara,  &  Naomi  Miyake,
                     The  University  of  Tokyo,  Japan   Takehiro  Wakimoto,  Aoyama  Gakuin  University,  Japan   Yuko  Miyata,  Freelance  Career  Consultant 1
  2. 2. Research  Background  and   Research  Ques1ons 2
  3. 3. Robots  as  learning  partner
 -­‐  an  emerging  agenda  for  CSCL ! • Two  reasons  to  apply  robots  as  social  partner  in   learning  (Miyake  &  Okita,  2012;  Okita  et  al.,  2010)   – Robots  have  human-­‐like  appearance  and  behavior  that   can  elicit  social  responses  that  invite  acSve  engagement   • Not  too  human-­‐like  and  sSll  machine-­‐like.   • This  gives  people  room  for  imaginaSon  and  creaSvity  in  social   interacSon  and  elicits  greater  empathy.   ! – A  robot  can  be  an  interface  to  collect  the  process  data  of   collaboraSve  learning.   • In  order  to  analyze  the  mechanisms  and  design  the  principles  of   producSve  learning 3
  4. 4. Past  research  of  using  robots   as  learning  partners  –  structured  seEngs • Learning  English  with  children  (Kanda  et  al.,  2004)   – A  certain  social  and  emoSonal  support  was  required  in   order  to  enhance  collaboraSon  between  children  and   robots   ! • Use  of  Honda  ASIMO  in  a  variety  of  se[ngs  (Okita  et   al.,  2010)   – CooperaSve  interacSon  with  more  human-­‐like  voice  and   gestures  was  effecSve  to  make  children  engage. 4
  5. 5. Past  research  of  using  robots   as  learning  partners  –  structured  seEngs • A  scripted  collaboraSve  learning  based  on   Jigsaw  (Miyake,  2012)   – EffecSve  if  children  recognize  a  robot  as  “just  like   the  other  kid  who  does  not  know  the  answer,  but   sincerely  working  to  know  the  answer”   ! • Jigsaw-­‐based  reciprocal  teaching  (Oshima  &   Oshima,  2013)   – Robots  can  work  as  well  as  human  facilitator. 5
  6. 6. Research  Agenda • The  potenSal  of  robot  facilitaSon  in  ill-­‐structured   se[ngs   – With  ore  self-­‐regulated  student  discussions  in  order  to  learn   what  the  students  do  not  know  in  the  absence  of   educaSonal  materials.   ! • To  find  out  whether  it  creates  an  environment  to  encourage   parScipants  to  talk  on  their  own  iniSaSve.   – A  case  study  in  career  development   • Career  development  is  a  serious  learning  agenda  for  adolescents  in   every  country     – No  hierarchical  difference  between  robots  and  young   parScipants   – The  robots’  appearance  is  more  neutral  than  that  of  human   career  counselors 6
  7. 7. Research  Method  and  Design  (1) 7 • Design   – Experimental  study  design student student student student Career  counselor robot Remote   control Exp. Control Career   counselor student student
  8. 8. Research  Method  and  Design  (2) • ParScipants   – Undergraduate  students  (sophomores  and  juniors)   in  a  private  university  in  Tokyo   ! – Professional  facilitators  for  career  development   • More  than  5-­‐year  experience  of
 group  counseling.   – Desktop  Rovovie-­‐W  robot 8
  9. 9. Research  Method  and  Design  (3) • Design   – Experimental  study  design 9 student student student student Career  counselor robot Remote   control Exp. Control Career   counselor student student
  10. 10. 10 Robot   Operated  by   Remote
 Human     Facilitator Professional
 Human     Facilitator
 Present
  11. 11. Research  Method  and  Design  (3)   • Discussion  theme:   – “So,  please  tell  us  about  your  career  goals  for  the  future,  Mr.  B.”   – “How  do  you  plan  to  use  the  coming  summer  vacaSon  to  prepare  for  your   career  goals?”     – “Your  plan  is  (summary  of  what  Mr.  B.  says)”;  
 “What  do  you  think  of  his  goals,  Mr.  A?”     – “Do  you  all  have  any  suggesSons  for  preparing  for  Mr.  B’s  career  goals?  “ 11 Step Experimental  Group Control  Group 1 Pre-­‐quesSonnaire 2 Ice-­‐breaking  (10  min.) 3 IntroducSon  for  group  counseling  (5  min.) 4 Group  Counseling  Session  (30  min.) 5 Post  interview  (30min.) 6 Post-­‐quesSonnaire
  12. 12. 12 Hello,  I’m  Robovie.  Nice  to  meet  you  all.  First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  start  this
 session  by  introducing  ourselves  to  each  other.  Please  tell  your  name,  the  place  where   you  come  from,  and  your  goal  in  this  session.  We  have  10  minutes  from  now....
  13. 13. Research  Method  and  Design  (3)   • Discussion  theme:   – “So,  please  tell  us  about  your  career  goals  for  the  future,  Mr.  B.”   – “How  do  you  plan  to  use  the  coming  summer  vacaSon  to  prepare  for  your   career  goals?”     – “Your  plan  is  (summary  of  what  Mr.  B.  says)”;  
 “What  do  you  think  of  his  goal,  Mr.  A?”     – “Do  you  all  have  any  suggesSons  for  preparing  for  Mr.  B’s  career  goal?  “ 13 Step Experimental  Group Control  Group 1 Pre-­‐quesSonnaire 2 Ice-­‐breaking  (10  min.) 3 IntroducSon  for  group  counseling  (5  min.) 4 Peer  Group  Counseling  Session  (30  min.) 5 Post  interview  (30min.) 6 Post-­‐quesSonnaire
  14. 14. Data  collec1on • QuesSonnaires  (pre  and  post)   – to  examine  the  results  were  significantly  different   – the  General  Self-­‐Efficacy  Scales(GSES)(Sakano  &  Tojo,  1989)     – EffecSveness  of  peer  support  can  be  explained  by   individual’s  improved  self-­‐efficacy  (Bandura,  1997;  Benight   &  Bandura,  2004)   • Video  of  discussion  during  the  peer  group  acSvity   – to  examine  how  students  parScipated  in  the  discourse   • Post  group  interview  (video-­‐recorded  &  transcribed)   – To  examine  feelings  about  the  peer  group  experience. 14
  15. 15. Analysis  and  Findings
  16. 16. Effec1veness  of  the  Peer  Group  
 for  Career  Counseling  Purposes 16 2.56% 2.57% 2.07% 2.08% 2.13% 2.23%% 2.72% 2.61% 2.36% 2.15% 2.40%% 2.42% 1% 1.5% 2% 2.5% 3% 3.5% 4% Robot% Human% Robot% Human% Robot% Human% Agressiveness%of%Ac>on% Anxiety%to%failure% Social%posi>on%of%ability% Before% AEer% * * * * * * *p<.05
  17. 17. Coding  rule  of  transcribed  peer  group 17 F F F F P P P P P P P P prompt prompt prom pt prompt
  18. 18. Differences  of  Students’  Par1cipa1on  in  the  Peer   18 23.5% 21.3% 17.9% 21.9% 79.3% 6.4% 17.2% 10.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FP/p% FP/a% PP/p% PP/a% Experimental% Control% (S.D.=14.8) (S.D.=15.1) (S.D.=4.7) (S.D.=16.7) (S.D.=19.7) (S.D.=20.1) (S.D.=6.6) (S.D.=34.9) *** *** * **p<.001,  *p<.05
  19. 19. Differences  of  Students’  Par1cipa1on  in  the  Peer   19 23.5% 21.3% 17.9% 21.9% 79.3% 6.4% 17.2% 10.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FP/p% FP/a% PP/p% PP/a% Experimental% Control% (S.D.=14.8) (S.D.=15.1) (S.D.=4.7) (S.D.=16.7) (S.D.=19.7) (S.D.=20.1) (S.D.=6.6) (S.D.=34.9) *** *** * **p<.001,  *p<.05 Human  facilitators  could  speak   fluently  and  use  their  acSve   listening  strategy   The  robots  lacked  fluency  because  the   operators  could  only  input  messages  using  the   keyboard  aser  understanding  the  parScipants’   uterances   F P prompt
  20. 20. Differences  of  Students’  Par1cipa1on  in  the  Peer   20 23.5% 21.3% 17.9% 21.9% 79.3% 6.4% 17.2% 10.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FP/p% FP/a% PP/p% PP/a% Experimental% Control% (S.D.=14.8) (S.D.=15.1) (S.D.=4.7) (S.D.=16.7) (S.D.=19.7) (S.D.=20.1) (S.D.=6.6) (S.D.=34.9) *** *** * **p<.001,  *p<.05 F P The  parScipants  spoke  to  the   robot  facilitator  much  more  than   they  did  to  the  human  facilitator.    
  21. 21. Differences  of  Students’  Par1cipa1on  in  the  Peer   21 23.5% 21.3% 17.9% 21.9% 79.3% 6.4% 17.2% 10.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FP/p% FP/a% PP/p% PP/a% Experimental% Control% (S.D.=14.8) (S.D.=15.1) (S.D.=4.7) (S.D.=16.7) (S.D.=19.7) (S.D.=20.1) (S.D.=6.6) (S.D.=34.9) * **p<.001,  *p<.05 The  parScipants  in  the   experimental  groups  parScipated   in  the  discussion  much  more   proacSvely  than  in  the  control   groups,  even  with  fewer  prompts   from  the  robot  facilitators.   **p<.001,  *p<.05 F P P P
  22. 22. Characteris1cs  of  Proac1ve  USerances  
 in  the  Peer  Groups   • To  clarify  how  the  parScipants  proacSvely  spoke   in  the  experimental  groups     – Whether  the  peer  groups  produced  a  posiSve  mood   that  encouraged  the  members  to  disclose  what  they   thought  (Paine  et  al.,  1989)   • AcSve  listening  skills  for  proacSve  discussion   – clarifying,  paraphrasing,  and  summarizing   • given  in  the  scenario  in  both  group   – SupporSve  responses   • But  difficult  for  the  robot  operator  to  react  smoothly  by   using  supporSng  response.   22
  23. 23. Characteris1cs  of  Proac1ve  USerances  
 in  the  Peer  Groups   23 The  facilitator  should  try  to  elicit  supporSve  responses  from  other  
 members  during  the  self-­‐help  group  session  (Paine  et  al.,  1989)
  24. 24. Characteris1cs  of  Proac1ve  USerances  
 in  the  Peer  Groups   24 There  were  significantly  many  supporSve  responses  from  the  parScipants  
 in  the  experimental  groups  and  from  the  facilitators  in  the  control  groups.   (χ2(1)  =  69.664,  p  <  .01),   The  facilitator  should  try  to  elicit  supporSve  responses  from  other  
 members  during  the  self-­‐help  group  session  (Paine  et  al.,  1989) Uh huh
  25. 25. Conclusion • Both  experimental  and  control  peer  groups   produced  similar  results  with  regard  to  self-­‐efficacy   improvement   • The  parScipants  in  the  experimental  groups  talked   on  their  own  iniSaSve  during  the  sessions.     • The  parScipants  in  the  experimental  groups  used   supporSve  responses  much  more  than  those  in  the   control  groups  did. 25 The  robot  has  the  potenSal  to  create  a  similar  effecSve   peer  discussion,  and  a  more  parScipant-­‐centered   proacSve  discussion

×