Robot watchfulness hinders learning performance

Educational technological applications, such as computerized learning environments and robot tutors, are often programmed to provide social cues for the purposes of facilitating natural interaction and enhancing productive outcomes. However, there can be potential costs to social interactions that could run counter to such goals. Here, we present an experiment testing the impact of a watchful versus non-watchful robot tutor on children's language-learning effort and performance. Across two interaction sessions, children learned French and Latin rules from a robot tutor and filled in worksheets applying the rules to translate phrases. Results indicate better performance on the worksheets in the session in which the robot looked away from, as compared to the session it looked toward the child, as the child was filling in the worksheets. This was the case in particular for the more difficult worksheet items. These findings highlight the need for careful implementation of social robot behaviors to avoid counterproductive effects.

[1]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Using Virtual Peers to Guide Visual Attention During Learning , 2010, J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl..

[2]  Noah L. Schroeder,et al.  How Effective are Pedagogical Agents for Learning? A Meta-Analytic Review , 2013 .

[3]  M. Inzlicht,et al.  What Is Ego Depletion? Toward a Mechanistic Revision of the Resource Model of Self-Control , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[4]  N. Epley,et al.  Reflexively mindblind: Using theory of mind to interpret behavior requires effortful attention , 2010 .

[5]  R. Baumeister,et al.  Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  L. S. Vygotksy Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes , 1978 .

[7]  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).

[8]  Richard P. DeShon,et al.  A tale of two tasks: reversing the self-regulatory resource depletion effect. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  R. Geen,et al.  Evaluation apprehension and response withholding in solution of anagrams , 1985 .

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

[11]  S. Saito,et al.  Cognitive load on working memory both encourages and discourages reasoning bias regarding the mental states of others , 2013 .

[12]  D. Algom,et al.  Selective attention improves under stress: implications for theories of social cognition. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Jonathan Evans Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[14]  Britta Wrede,et al.  Social facilitation with social robots? , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[15]  J. R. Aiello,et al.  Social facilitation from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. , 2001 .

[16]  R. Mayer The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Principles of Multimedia Learning Based on Social Cues : Personalization, Voice, and Image Principles , 2005 .

[17]  A. Bandura Social Foundations of Thought and Action , 1986 .

[18]  B. Latané The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[19]  Pascal Huguet,et al.  Social Context and Cognitive Performance: Towards a Social Psychology of Cognition , 1999 .

[20]  James C. Lester,et al.  Life-Like Pedagogical Agents in Constructivist Multimedia Environments: Cognitive Consequences of their Interaction , 2000 .

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

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

[23]  Maria Virvou,et al.  Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system , 2002, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[24]  C. Carver,et al.  Origins and Functions of Positive and Negative Affect: A Control-Process View. , 1990 .

[25]  Jonathan S. Herberg,et al.  Social audiences can disrupt learning by teaching , 2012 .

[26]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[27]  G. Csibra,et al.  Natural pedagogy , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  James C. Lester,et al.  The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents , 1997, CHI.

[29]  G. Clarebout,et al.  Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning , 2011 .

[30]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The energetics of motivated cognition: a force-field analysis. , 2012, Psychological review.

[31]  N. B. Cottrell,et al.  Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audicence and the mere presence of others. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[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]  P. Huguet,et al.  Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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