Exploring elicitation frequency of learning-sensitive information by a robotic tutor for interactive personalization

We formalize and analyze a robotic tutor's elicitation of learning-sensitive information to be leveraged by interactive machine learning methods for personalized education. The user study presented in this paper is an initial exploration of elicitation frequency of learning sensitive information, and the social and computational implications thereof. Our results, evaluated using a variety of subjective measures, demonstrate that a humans-in-the-loop approach positively benefits the human-robotic tutor interaction, while minimizing the computational complexity of personalization.

[1]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  How Humans Teach Agents - A New Experimental Perspective , 2012, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[2]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Power to the People: The Role of Humans in Interactive Machine Learning , 2014, AI Mag..

[3]  Michael J. Pazzani,et al.  Content-Based Recommendation Systems , 2007, The Adaptive Web.

[4]  Ben J. A. Kröse,et al.  Assessing Acceptance of Assistive Social Agent Technology by Older Adults: the Almere Model , 2010, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[5]  B. Bloom.  The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring , 1984 .

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

[7]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information , 2009, Neural Networks.

[8]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Graded cueing feedback in robot-mediated imitation practice for children with autism spectrum disorders , 2014, The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[9]  Michael Zbyszynski,et al.  Interactive Machine Learning for End-User , 2017 .

[10]  Geoffrey I. Webb,et al.  # 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Machine Learning for User Modeling , 1999 .

[11]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Modeling and Intelligent Tutoring , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Benjamin S. Bloom,et al.  A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives , 2000 .

[13]  Jussi Rintanen,et al.  Complexity of Planning with Partial Observability , 2004, ICAPS.

[14]  Albert T. Corbett,et al.  Cognitive Computer Tutors: Solving the Two-Sigma Problem , 2001, User Modeling.

[15]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  AutoTutor: an intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[17]  T. Kanda,et al.  Measurement of negative attitudes toward robots , 2006 .

[18]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Personalizing Robot Tutors to Individuals’ Learning Differences , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[19]  S. Srivastava,et al.  The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. , 1999 .

[20]  Brett Browning,et al.  A survey of robot learning from demonstration , 2009, Robotics Auton. Syst..

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