The Effects of Physical form and Embodied Action in a Teachable Robot for Geometry Learning

A teachable agent is a learning companion that students teach about a domain they are trying to master. While most teachable agents have been virtual, there may be advantages to having students teach an agent with a physical form (i.e., a robot). The robot may better engage students in the learning activity, and if students take embodied action in order to instruct the robot, they may develop deeper knowledge. In this paper, we investigate these two hypotheses using the rTAG system, a teachable robot for geometry learning. In a study with 37 4th-6th grade participants, we compare rTAG to two other conditions, one where students use embodied action to teach a virtual agent, and one where students teach a virtual agent on a personal computer. We find that while there are no significant learning differences between conditions, students' perceptions of the agent are influenced by condition and prior knowledge.

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

[2]  Sang Ryong Kim,et al.  Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people's loneliness in human-robot interaction , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Hermann Astleitner,et al.  An Integrated Model of Multimedia Learning and Motivation , 2004 .

[4]  Chih-Hsiung Tu,et al.  On-line learning migration: from social learning theory to social presence theory in a CMC environment , 2000, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[5]  Kasia Muldner,et al.  Lessons Learned from In-School Use of rTAG: A Robo-Tangible Learning Environment , 2016, CHI.

[6]  Danae Stanton Fraser,et al.  Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies , 2004 .

[7]  Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti,et al.  Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[8]  Mijung Kim,et al.  CHILDREN’S GESTURES AND THE EMBODIED KNOWLEDGE OF GEOMETRY , 2011 .

[9]  Dor Abrahamson,et al.  The mathematical imagery trainer: from embodied interaction to conceptual learning , 2011, CHI.

[10]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Social Robots for Long-Term Interaction: A Survey , 2013, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[11]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning , 2009 .

[12]  Magnus Haake,et al.  A Teachable-Agent Arithmetic Game's Effects on Mathematics Understanding, Attitude and Self-efficacy , 2011, AIED.

[13]  Blaine A. Price,et al.  Using Robotics to Motivate ‘Back Door’ Learning , 2004, Education and Information Technologies.

[14]  Jeonghye Han,et al.  Comparative Study on the Educational Use of Home Robots for Children , 2008, J. Inf. Process. Syst..

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

[16]  Marina Fridin,et al.  Kindergarten Social Assistive Robot (KindSAR) for children's geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: A pilot study , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[18]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Designing Learning by Teaching Agents: The Betty's Brain System , 2008, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[19]  A. Baskin,et al.  Studying with the prince: The computer as a learning companion , 1988 .

[20]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation , 2008 .

[21]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  Jamy Li,et al.  The benefit of being physically present: A survey of experimental works comparing copresent robots, telepresent robots and virtual agents , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Nian-Shing Chen,et al.  A model for social presence in online classrooms , 2012, Educational Technology Research and Development.

[24]  F. Tanaka,et al.  Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning , 2012, J. Hum. Robot Interact..

[25]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  When Children Teach a Robot to Write: An Autonomous Teachable Humanoid Which Uses Simulated Handwriting , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[26]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Comparing a computer agent with a humanoid robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[27]  F. Reif,et al.  Teaching scientific thinking skills: Students and computers coaching each other , 1999 .

[28]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Gesturing Gives Children New Ideas About Math , 2009, Psychological science.

[29]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) An Autonomous Educational Mobile Robot Mediator , 2022 .

[30]  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..

[31]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  Understanding Tutor Learning: Knowledge-Building and Knowledge-Telling in Peer Tutors’ Explanations and Questions , 2007 .