Personalizing Robot Tutors to Individuals’ Learning Differences

In education research, there is a widely-cited result called “Bloom’s two sigma” that characterizes the differences in learning outcomes between students who receive one-on-one tutoring and those who receive traditional classroom instruction [1]. Tutored students scored in the 95th percentile, or two sigmas above the mean, on average, compared to students who received traditional classroom instruction. In human-robot interaction research, however, there is relatively little work exploring the potential benefits of personalizing a robot’s actions to an individual’s strengths and weaknesses. In this study, participants solved grid-based logic puzzles with the help of a personalized or non-personalized robot tutor. Participants’ puzzle solving times were compared between two non-personalized control conditions and two personalized conditions (n=80). Although the robot’s personalizations were less sophisticated than what a human tutor can do, we still witnessed a “one-sigma” improvement (68th percentile) in post-tests between treatment and control groups. We present these results as evidence that even relatively simple personalizations can yield significant benefits in educational or assistive human-robot interactions. Categories and Subject Descriptors I.2.9 [Artificial Intelligence]: Robotics; J.4 [Computer Applications]: Social And Behavioral Sciences—Psychology General Terms Experimentation

[1]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Long-Term Interactions with Empathic Robots: Evaluating Perceived Support in Children , 2012, ICSR.

[2]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  The design of a semi-autonomous robot avatar for family communication and education , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[3]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Personalization in HRI: A longitudinal field experiment , 2012, 2012 7th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

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

[5]  Hideki Kozima,et al.  Interactive robots for communication-care: a case-study in autism therapy , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[6]  Ian R. Fasel,et al.  The RUBI project: A progress report , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[7]  Jacqueline Bourdeau,et al.  Building Intelligent Tutoring Systems: An Overview , 2010, Advances in Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[8]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Robots that express emotion elicit better human teaching , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[9]  K. VanLehn The Relative Effectiveness of Human Tutoring, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, and Other Tutoring Systems , 2011 .

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

[11]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Robots at home: Understanding long-term human-robot interaction , 2008, 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[12]  Eun-Ja Hyun,et al.  Relationships between user experiences and children's perceptions of the education robot , 2010, HRI 2010.

[13]  Sven Behnke,et al.  Towards a humanoid museum guide robot that interacts with multiple persons , 2005, 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005..

[14]  Ling-Hwei Chen,et al.  An efficient algorithm for solving nonograms , 2009, Applied Intelligence.

[15]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  "Pimp My Roomba": designing for personalization , 2009, CHI.