The Impact of Robot Tutor Nonverbal Social Behavior on Child Learning

Several studies have indicated that interacting with social robots in educational contexts may lead to greater learning than interactions with computers or virtual agents. As such, an increasing amount of social human-robot interaction research is being conducted in the learning domain, particularly with children. However, it is unclear precisely what social behaviour a robot should employ in such interactions. Inspiration can be taken from human-human studies; this often leads to an assumption that the more social behaviour an agent utilises, the better the learning outcome will be. We apply a nonverbal behaviour metric to a series of studies in which children are taught how to identify prime numbers by a robot with various behavioural manipulations. We find a trend which generally agrees with the pedagogy literature, but also that overt nonverbal behaviour does not account for all learning differences. We discuss the impact of novelty, child expectations, and responses to social cues to further the understanding of the relationship between robot social behaviour and learning. We suggest that the combination of nonverbal behaviour and social cue congruency is necessary to facilitate learning.

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

[2]  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).

[3]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  The Physical Presence of a Robot Tutor Increases Cognitive Learning Gains , 2012, CogSci.

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

[5]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Comparing Robot Embodiments in a Guided Discovery Learning Interaction with Children , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[6]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  A touchscreen-based ‘Sandtray’ to facilitate, mediate and contextualise human-robot social interaction , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  W. Revelle,et al.  Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma , 2009 .

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

[9]  Sungho Kim,et al.  The educational use of home robots for children , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[10]  Laura J. Christensen,et al.  The Linear Relationship between Student Reports of Teacher Immediacy Behaviors and Perceptions of State Motivation, and of Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Learning. , 1998 .

[11]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Effects of Physical Embodiment on Social Presence of Social Robots , 2004 .

[12]  Louis Guttman,et al.  A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability , 1945, Psychometrika.

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

[14]  N. Borgers,et al.  Response Effects in Surveys on Children and Adolescents: The Effect of Number of Response Options, Negative Wording, and Neutral Mid-Point , 2004 .

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

[16]  Susan Bell Trickett,et al.  Social Engagement in Public Places: A Tale of One Robot , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[17]  Virginia P. Richmond,et al.  Validity of the verbal immediacy scale , 1995 .

[18]  John-John Cabibihan The influence of gazing and gestures of a storytelling robot on its persuasive power , 2011 .

[19]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Child-Robot Interaction: Perspectives and Challenges , 2013, ICSR.

[20]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Does the Design of a Robot Influence Its Animacy and Perceived Intelligence? , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

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

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

[23]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Heart vs hard drive: Children learn more from a human tutor than a social robot , 2016, 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[24]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

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

[26]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations , 1987 .

[27]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[28]  J. Gorham,et al.  Effects of immediacy on recall of information , 1988 .

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

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

[31]  J. Comstock,et al.  Food for thought: Teacher nonverbal immediacy, student learning, and curvilinearity , 1995 .

[32]  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).

[33]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load , 2001, Psychological science.

[34]  J. Zaki,et al.  Cue Integration , 2013, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

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

[36]  Joan M. Fayer,et al.  Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross‐cultural investigation , 1996 .

[37]  Roger K. Moore A Bayesian explanation of the ‘Uncanny Valley’ effect and related psychological phenomena , 2012, Scientific Reports.

[38]  R. Zajonc SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

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

[40]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  The Uncanny Valley [From the Field] , 2012, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

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

[42]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Children learning with a social robot , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[43]  Tony Belpaeme,et al.  Nonverbal Immediacy as a Characterisation of Social Behaviour for Human–Robot Interaction , 2016, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[44]  A. Lacic [A new look]. , 1989, Pielegniarka i polozna.

[45]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Embodiment and Human-Robot Interaction: A Task-Based Perspective , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[46]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Modeling and Evaluating Narrative Gestures for Humanlike Robots , 2013, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[47]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Assessing Knowledge Through Gesture: Using Children's Hands to Read Their Minds , 1992 .

[48]  N. Ambady,et al.  Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. , 1993 .

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

[50]  Erik C. Nook,et al.  A new look at emotion perception: Concepts speed and shape facial emotion recognition. , 2015, Emotion.

[51]  Jon F. Nussbaum,et al.  Effective teacher behaviors , 1992 .