Advertisement

The Effect of a Robot’s Social Character on Children’s Task Engagement: Peer Versus Tutor

  • Cristina ZagaEmail author
  • Manja Lohse
  • Khiet P. Truong
  • Vanessa Evers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9388)

Abstract

An increasing number of applications for social robots focuses on learning and playing with children. One of the unanswered questions is what kind of social character a robot should have in order to positively engage children in a task. In this paper, we present a study on the effect of two different social characters of a robot (peer vs. tutor) on children’s task engagement. We derived peer and tutor robot behaviors from the literature and we evaluated the two robot characters in a WoZ study where 10 pairs of children aged 6 to 9 played Tangram puzzles with a Nao robot. Our results show that in the peer character condition, children paid attention to the robot and the task for a longer period of time and solved the puzzles quicker and better than in the tutor character condition.

Keywords

Child-Robot Interaction Task engagement Robot characters Robot behaviors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alibali, M.W., Flevares, L.M., Goldin-Meadow, S.: Assessing knowledge conveyed in gesture: Do teachers have the upper hand? Journal of Educational Psychology 89(1), 183–193 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belpaeme, T., et al.: Child-robot interaction: perspectives and challenges. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, M.J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8239, pp. 452–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belpaeme, T., Baxter, P.E., Read, R., Wood, R., Cuayáhuitl, H., Kiefer, B., et al.: Multimodal child-robot interaction: Building social bonds. Journal of Human-Robot interaction 1(2), 33–53 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biddle, B.J.: Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. Academic Press (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borgers, N., De Leeuw, E., Hox, J.: Children as respondents in survey research: Cognitive development and response quality 1. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique 66(1), 60–75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cristenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Whyle, C.: Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science and Business Media (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Corrigan, L.J., Peters, C., Castellano, G.: Social-task engagement: striking a balance between the robot and the task. Embodied Commun. Goals Intentions Workshop ICSR 13, 1–7 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., Evans, M.E.: Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2013(139), 21–30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fawcett, L.M., Garton, A.F.: The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology 75(2), 157–169 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feil-Seifer, D., Matarić, M.: Human robot interaction. In: Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, pp. 4643–4659. Springer, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldin Meadow, S., Sandhofer, C.M.: Gestures convey substantive information about a child’s thoughts to ordinary listeners. Developmental Science 2(1), 67–74 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanheide, M., Lohse, M., Dierker, A.: SALEM-statistical anaLysis of Elan files in Matlab. In: Multimodal Corpora: Advances in Capturing, Coding and Analyzing Multimodality, pp. 121–123 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huber, A., Lammer, L., Weiss, A., Vincze, M.: Designing Adaptive Roles for Socially Assistive Robots: A New Method to Reduce Technological Determinism and Role Stereotypes. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3(2), 100–115 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahn Jr, P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L., Gill, B., Ruckert, J.H., Shen, S.: “Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology 48(2), 303–314 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., Ishiguro, H.: Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction 19(1), 61–84 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kennedy, J., Baxter, P., Belpaeme, T.: The robot who tried too hard: social behaviour of a robot tutor can negatively affect child learning. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Portland, USA, pp. 67–74 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: Empathic Robots for Long-term Interaction: Evaluating Social Presence, Engagement and Perceived Support in Children. International Journal of Social Robotics 6(3), 329–341 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lomranz, J., Shapira, A., Choresh, N., Gilat, Y.: Children’s personal space as a function of age and sex. Developmental Psychology 11(5), 541–545 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merola, G., Poggi, I.: Multimodality and gestures in the teacher’s communication. In: Camurri, A., Volpe, G. (eds.) GW 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2915, pp. 101–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(6), 938–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okita, S.Y., Ng-Thow-Hing, V., Sarvadevabhatla, R.K.: Multimodal approach to affective human-robot interaction design with children. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 1(1), 1–29 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sachs, J., Devin, J.: Young children’s use of age-appropriate speech styles in social interaction and role-playing. Journal of Child Language 3(01), 81–98 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidner, C.L., Kidd, C.D., Lee, C., Lesh, N.: Where to look: a study of human-robot engagement. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 78–84. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sidner, C.L., Lee, C., Kidd, C.D., Lesh, N., Rich, C.: Explorations in engagement for humans and robots. Artificial Intelligence 166(1), 140–164 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simmons, R., Makatchev, M., Kirby, R., Lee, M.K., Fanaswala, I., Browning, B., Forlizzi, J., Sakr, M.: Believable robot characters. AI Magazine 32(4), 39–52 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teasley, S.D.: The role of talk in children’s peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology 31(2), 207–220 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M.W., Klatzky, R.: Teachers gestures facilitate students learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28(2), 187–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Warren, A.R., Marsil, D.F.: Why Children’s Suggestibility Remains a Serious Concern. Law and Contemporary Problems 127–147 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License, which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Zaga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manja Lohse
    • 1
  • Khiet P. Truong
    • 1
  • Vanessa Evers
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations