When Even a Robot Tutor Zooms: A Study of Embodiment, Attitudes, and Impressions

This study used an online second language (L2) vocabulary lesson to evaluate whether the physical body (i.e., embodiment) of a robot tutor has an impact on how the learner learns from the robot. In addition, we tested how individual differences in attitudes toward robots, first impressions of the robot, anxiety in learning L2, and personality traits may be related to L2 vocabulary learning. One hundred Turkish-speaking young adults were taught eight English words in a one-on-one Zoom session either with a NAO robot tutor (N = 50) or with a voice-only tutor (N = 50). The findings showed that participants learned the vocabulary equally well from the robot and voice tutors, indicating that the physical embodiment of the robot did not change learning gains in a short vocabulary lesson. Further, negative attitudes toward robots had negative effects on learning for participants in the robot tutor condition, but first impressions did not predict vocabulary learning in either of the two conditions. L2 anxiety, on the other hand, negatively predicted learning outcomes in both conditions. We also report that attitudes toward robots and the impressions of the robot tutor remained unchanged before and after the lesson. As one of the first to examine the effectiveness of robots as an online lecturer, this study presents an example of comparable learning outcomes regardless of physical embodiment.

[1]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Social robots for education: A review , 2018, Science Robotics.

[2]  E. Hoff Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes: implications for closing achievement gaps. , 2013, Developmental psychology.

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

[4]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Robots or Agents - Neither Helps You More or Less During Second Language Acquisition - Experimental Study on the Effects of Embodiment and Type of Speech Output on Evaluation and Alignment , 2016, IVA.

[5]  Khiet P. Truong,et al.  Selecting the right robot: Influence of user attitude, robot sociability and embodiment on user preferences , 2015, 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).

[6]  Hatice Kose-Bagci,et al.  The Effect of Embodiment in Sign Language Tutoring with Assistive Humanoid Robots , 2015, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[7]  Jacques Mehler,et al.  Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Mohamed Chetouani,et al.  Towards Engagement Models that Consider Individual Factors in HRI: On the Relation of Extroversion and Negative Attitude Towards Robots to Gaze and Speech During a Human–Robot Assembly Task , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[9]  J. Kanero,et al.  Social robots for early language learning: Current evidence and future directionsijdschrift Approachvan dencal practice: A pilot study.uali , 2018 .

[10]  J. Astington,et al.  Language and theory of mind: meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. , 2007, Child development.

[11]  C. Bartneck,et al.  A design-centred framework for social human-robot interaction , 2004, RO-MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No.04TH8759).

[12]  Ali Meghdari,et al.  The Impact of Social Robotics on L2 Learners’ Anxiety and Attitude in English Vocabulary Acquisition , 2015, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[13]  Returns to Foreign Language Skills in a Developing Country: The Case of Turkey , 2015 .

[14]  Adriana Tapus,et al.  Impact of sensory preferences of individuals with autism on the recognition of emotions expressed by two robots, an avatar, and a human , 2016, Autonomous Robots.

[15]  Anja Gampe,et al.  Communicative and social consequences of interactions with voice assistants , 2020, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Rolf Pfeifer,et al.  Understanding intelligence , 2020, Inequality by Design.

[17]  E. Horwitz,et al.  Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety , 1986 .

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

[19]  Anne Marie Piper,et al.  Hey Google, Do Unicorns Exist?: Conversational Agents as a Path to Answers to Children's Questions , 2019, IDC.

[20]  S. Kotz,et al.  How relevant is social interaction in second language learning? , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[21]  F. Craik,et al.  Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. , 2004, Psychology and aging.

[22]  Janine Willis,et al.  First Impressions , 2006, Psychological science.

[23]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[24]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[25]  B. Scassellati,et al.  Social eye gaze in human-robot interaction , 2017, J. Hum. Robot Interact..

[26]  Junko Kanero,et al.  Six Principles of Language Development: Implications for Second Language Learners , 2014, Developmental neuropsychology.

[27]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[28]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Influences on proxemic behaviors in human-robot interaction , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[29]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction , 2006, AI & SOCIETY.

[30]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Social Interaction and Language Acquisition , 2017 .

[31]  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..

[32]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  Embodiment in Socially Interactive Robots , 2019, Found. Trends Robotics.

[33]  T. Göksun,et al.  Are Tutor Robots for Everyone? The Influence of Attitudes, Anxiety, and Personality on Robot-Led Language Learning , 2021, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[34]  G. Tarcan Kumkale,et al.  Individual differences in willingness to become an organ donor: A decision tree approach to reasoned action , 2013 .

[35]  Iris Groher,et al.  Intelligent virtual agents as language trainers facilitate multilingualism , 2014, Front. Psychol..

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

[37]  Vivian Zayas,et al.  Impressions Based on a Portrait Predict, 1-Month Later, Impressions Following a Live Interaction , 2017 .

[38]  A Turkish Version of Foreign Language Anxiety Scale: Reliability and Validity , 2016 .