robot as a learning partner for promoting proactive discussion in peer groups: a case study for...

Robot as a Learning Partner for Promo1ng Proac1ve Discussion in Peer Groups: A Case Study for Career Development

Toshio Mochizuki, Senshu Univ., Japan Yoshitaka Mitate, The University of Kitakyushu, Japan Yoshikazu Tateno, Jun Nakahara, & Naomi Miyake, The University of Tokyo, Japan Takehiro Wakimoto, Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan Yuko Miyata, Freelance Career Consultant �1

Research Background and Research Ques1ons

�2

Robots as learning partner -‐ an emerging agenda for CSCL!• Two reasons to apply robots as social partner in learning (Miyake & Okita, 2012; Okita et al., 2010) – Robots have human-‐like appearance and behavior that can elicit social responses that invite acSve engagement • Not too human-‐like and sSll machine-‐like. • This gives people room for imaginaSon and creaSvity in social interacSon and elicits greater empathy. !

– A robot can be an interface to collect the process data of collaboraSve learning. • In order to analyze the mechanisms and design the principles of producSve learning

�3

Past research of using robots as learning partners – structured seEngs

• Learning English with children (Kanda et al., 2004) – A certain social and emoSonal support was required in order to enhance collaboraSon between children and robots !

• Use of Honda ASIMO in a variety of se[ngs (Okita et al., 2010) – CooperaSve interacSon with more human-‐like voice and gestures was effecSve to make children engage.

�4

Past research of using robots as learning partners – structured seEngs• A scripted collaboraSve learning based on Jigsaw (Miyake, 2012) – EffecSve if children recognize a robot as “just like the other kid who does not know the answer, but sincerely working to know the answer” !

• Jigsaw-‐based reciprocal teaching (Oshima & Oshima, 2013) – Robots can work as well as human facilitator.

�5

Research Agenda

• The potenSal of robot facilitaSon in ill-‐structured se[ngs –With ore self-‐regulated student discussions in order to learn what the students do not know in the absence of educaSonal materials. !

• To find out whether it creates an environment to encourage parScipants to talk on their own iniSaSve. – A case study in career development

• Career development is a serious learning agenda for adolescents in every country

– No hierarchical difference between robots and young parScipants

– The robots’ appearance is more neutral than that of human career counselors

�6

Research Method and Design (1)

�7

• Design – Experimental study design

student

student

student

student

Career counselor

robot

Remote controlExp.

ControlCareer

counselor student

student

Research Method and Design (2)• ParScipants – Undergraduate students (sophomores and juniors) in a private university in Tokyo !

– Professional facilitators for career development • More than 5-‐year experience of group counseling.

– Desktop Rovovie-‐W robot

�8

Research Method and Design (3)• Design – Experimental study design

�9

student

student

student

student

Career counselor

robot

Remote controlExp.

ControlCareer

counselor student

student

�10

Robot Operated by Remote Human Facilitator

Professional Human FacilitatorPresent


• Discussion theme: – “So, please tell us about your career goals for the future, Mr. B.” – “How do you plan to use the coming summer vacaSon to prepare for your

career goals?” – “Your plan is (summary of what Mr. B. says)”;

“What do you think of his goals, Mr. A?” – “Do you all have any suggesSons for preparing for Mr. B’s career goals? “ �11

Step Experimental Group Control Group1 Pre-‐quesSonnaire2 Ice-‐breaking (10 min.)3 IntroducSon for group counseling (5 min.)4 Group Counseling Session (30 min.)5 Post interview (30min.)6 Post-‐quesSonnaire

�12

Hello, I’m Robovie. Nice to meet you all. First of all, I would like to start thissession by introducing ourselves to each other. Please tell your name, the place where you come from, and your goal in this session. We have 10 minutes from now....


• Discussion theme: – “So, please tell us about your career goals for the future, Mr. B.” – “How do you plan to use the coming summer vacaSon to prepare for your

career goals?” – “Your plan is (summary of what Mr. B. says)”;

“What do you think of his goal, Mr. A?” – “Do you all have any suggesSons for preparing for Mr. B’s career goal? “ �13

Step Experimental Group Control Group1 Pre-‐quesSonnaire2 Ice-‐breaking (10 min.)3 IntroducSon for group counseling (5 min.)4 Peer Group Counseling Session (30 min.)5 Post interview (30min.)6 Post-‐quesSonnaire

Data collec1on

• QuesSonnaires (pre and post) – to examine the results were significantly different – the General Self-‐Efficacy Scales(GSES)(Sakano & Tojo, 1989) – EffecSveness of peer support can be explained by individual’s improved self-‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Benight & Bandura, 2004)

• Video of discussion during the peer group acSvity – to examine how students parScipated in the discourse

• Post group interview (video-‐recorded & transcribed) – To examine feelings about the peer group experience.

�14

Analysis and Findings

Effec1veness of the Peer Group for Career Counseling Purposes

�16

2.56% 2.57%2.07% 2.08% 2.13% 2.23%%

2.72% 2.61% 2.36% 2.15% 2.40%% 2.42%

1%

1.5%

2%

2.5%

3%

3.5%

4%

Robot% Human% Robot% Human% Robot% Human%

Agressiveness%of%Ac>on% Anxiety%to%failure% Social%posi>on%of%ability%

Before% AEer%

* **

** *

*p<.05

Coding rule of transcribed peer group

�17

F F

FF

P P

P

P

P

P

P

P

prompt

prom

pt

prompt

prompt

Differences of Students’ Par1cipa1on in the Peer

�18

23.5%

21.3%

17.9%

21.9%

79.3%

6.4%

17.2%

10.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FP/p%

FP/a%

PP/p%

PP/a%

Experimental% Control%

(S.D.=14.8)

(S.D.=15.1)(S.D.=4.7)

(S.D.=16.7)(S.D.=19.7)

(S.D.=20.1)(S.D.=6.6)

(S.D.=34.9)

***

***

*

**p<.001, *p<.05


�19

23.5%

21.3%

17.9%

21.9%

79.3%

6.4%

17.2%

10.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FP/p%

FP/a%

PP/p%

PP/a%


(S.D.=14.8)

(S.D.=15.1)(S.D.=4.7)

(S.D.=16.7)(S.D.=19.7)

(S.D.=20.1)(S.D.=6.6)

(S.D.=34.9)

***

***

*

**p<.001, *p<.05

Human facilitators could speak fluently and use their acSve

listening strategy

The robots lacked fluency because the operators could only input messages using the keyboard aser understanding the parScipants’ uterances

F P

prompt


�20

23.5%

21.3%

17.9%

21.9%

79.3%

6.4%

17.2%

10.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FP/p%

FP/a%

PP/p%

PP/a%


(S.D.=14.8)

(S.D.=15.1)(S.D.=4.7)

(S.D.=16.7)(S.D.=19.7)

(S.D.=20.1)(S.D.=6.6)

(S.D.=34.9)

***

***

*

**p<.001, *p<.05

F P

The parScipants spoke to the robot facilitator much more than they did to the human facilitator.


�21

23.5%

21.3%

17.9%

21.9%

79.3%

6.4%

17.2%

10.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

FP/p%

FP/a%

PP/p%

PP/a%


(S.D.=14.8)

(S.D.=15.1)(S.D.=4.7)

(S.D.=16.7)(S.D.=19.7)

(S.D.=20.1)(S.D.=6.6)

(S.D.=34.9)

*

**p<.001, *p<.05

The parScipants in the experimental groups parScipated in the discussion much more proacSvely than in the control groups, even with fewer prompts from the robot facilitators.

**p<.001, *p<.05

F P

P

P

Characteris1cs of Proac1ve USerances in the Peer Groups • To clarify how the parScipants proacSvely spoke in the experimental groups –Whether the peer groups produced a posiSve mood that encouraged the members to disclose what they thought (Paine et al., 1989)

• AcSve listening skills for proacSve discussion – clarifying, paraphrasing, and summarizing • given in the scenario in both group

– SupporSve responses • But difficult for the robot operator to react smoothly by using supporSng response. �22

Characteris1cs of Proac1ve USerances in the Peer Groups

�23

The facilitator should try to elicit supporSve responses from other members during the self-‐help group session (Paine et al., 1989)

Characteris1cs of Proac1ve USerances in the Peer Groups

�24

There were significantly many supporSve responses from the parScipants in the experimental groups and from the facilitators in the control groups. (χ2(1) = 69.664, p < .01),

The facilitator should try to elicit supporSve responses from other members during the self-‐help group session (Paine et al., 1989)

Uh huh

Conclusion• Both experimental and control peer groups produced similar results with regard to self-‐efficacy improvement

• The parScipants in the experimental groups talked on their own iniSaSve during the sessions.

• The parScipants in the experimental groups used supporSve responses much more than those in the control groups did.

�25

The robot has the potenSal to create a similar effecSve peer discussion, and a more parScipant-‐centered proacSve discussion

robot as a learning partner for promoting proactive discussion in peer groups: a case study for...

Education