Social robot tutoring for child second language learning

An increasing amount of research is being conducted to determine how a robot tutor should behave socially in educational interactions with children. Both human-human and human-robot interaction literature predicts an increase in learning with increased social availability of a tutor, where social availability has verbal and nonverbal components. Prior work has shown that greater availability in the nonverbal behaviour of a robot tutor has a positive impact on child learning. This paper presents a study with 67 children to explore how social aspects of a tutor robot's speech influences their perception of the robot and their language learning in an interaction. Children perceive the difference in social behaviour between `low' and `high' verbal availability conditions, and improve significantly between a pre- and a post-test in both conditions. A longer-term retention test taken the following week showed that the children had retained almost all of the information they had learnt. However, learning was not affected by which of the robot behaviours they had been exposed to. It is suggested that in this short-term interaction context, additional effort in developing social aspects of a robot's verbal behaviour may not return the desired positive impact on learning gains.

[1]  A. Mehrabian Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior , 1968 .

[2]  J. Gorham The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning , 1988 .

[3]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Development of the nonverbal immediacy scale (NIS): Measures of self‐and other‐perceived nonverbal immediacy , 2003 .

[4]  Lawrence R. Wheeless,et al.  A meta‐analytical review of the relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning , 2004 .

[5]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Donald J. Schuirmann A comparison of the Two One-Sided Tests Procedure and the Power Approach for assessing the equivalence of average bioavailability , 1987, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[7]  P. Kuhl Cracking the speech code: How infants learn language , 2007 .

[8]  Janie H. Wilson,et al.  immediacy Scale Represents Four Factors: Nonverbal and Verbal Components Predict Student Outcomes , 2008 .

[9]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  Robots in the wild: Understanding long-term use , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[10]  P. Kuhl Brain Mechanisms in Early Language Acquisition , 2010, Neuron.

[11]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Expressive robots in education: varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor , 2010, CHI.

[12]  F. Tanaka,et al.  Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning , 2012, HRI 2012.

[13]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Pay attention!: designing adaptive agents that monitor and improve user engagement , 2012, CHI.

[14]  R. Weber,et al.  Testing Equivalence in Communication Research: Theory and Application , 2012 .

[15]  Joris B. Janssen,et al.  Using a robot to personalise health education for children with diabetes type 1: a pilot study. , 2013, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey , 2013, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[17]  Fabio Tesser,et al.  Multimodal child-robot interaction: building social bonds , 2013, HRI 2013.

[18]  K. Board,et al.  Language Trends 2013/14: The State of Language Learning in Primary and Secondary Schools in England. , 2014 .

[19]  Ivana Kruijff-Korbayová,et al.  Effects of off-activity talk in human-robot interaction with diabetic children , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[20]  Shaobo Huang,et al.  How to train your DragonBot: Socially assistive robots for teaching children about nutrition through play , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[21]  Ali Meghdari,et al.  Employing Humanoid Robots for Teaching English Language in Iranian Junior High-Schools , 2014, Int. J. Humanoid Robotics.

[22]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Can Children Catch Curiosity from a Social Robot? , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[23]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  The Robot Who Tried Too Hard: Social Behaviour of a Robot Tutor Can Negatively Affect Child Learning , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[24]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Can Less be More? The Impact of Robot Social Behaviour on Human Learning , 2015 .

[25]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Higher Nonverbal Immediacy Leads to Greater Learning Gains in Child-Robot Tutoring Interactions , 2015, ICSR.

[26]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  The Interplay of Robot Language Level with Children's Language Learning during Storytelling , 2015, HRI.

[27]  Jonathan S. Herberg,et al.  Robot watchfulness hinders learning performance , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).