PRE2016 3 Groep18

Group members

Name	Student ID
L.H.M.M. Abuerban	0926850
N.J. Bennenbroek	0954352
C.R.C. van der Gracht	0815638
R.M.H van Hout	0814519
S.H.N. van der Linde	0899183
J.R. Michels	0888603

Introduction

It’s the first day after summer vacation. Kids are running excitingly, at least most of them, to their classrooms. The door swings open as they rush to their seats. But instead of a human being in front of the class, the only thing they see is a robot. They are greeted by the robot, combined with a welcoming gesture.

Imagine this futuristic idea of teaching in elementary school. Teachers completely replaced by educational robots. Educational robots that can communicate with either an individual or a complete class by speaking, moving and making gestures. Artificial Intelligent software, like motion tracking and speech recognition assists within this overall communication.

Objectives

User

• Fun learning: To motivate children to learn, we want to make the learning experience more fun. That way, the child won't loathe studying and will actually enjoy it.

• Provide personalized learning experience for the students: Every child is different, but currently most of the school system is the same for every student. We want to provide a personalized learning experience for every child. Students who have trouble with the curriculum will get more time and exercise to study, while students who quickly master the material will get more advanced exercises. Students with learning disabilities can be helped easier and more direct using the robot

• (Long-term goal) Reduce the workload for the teachers: In the long-term, the robot will reduce the workload for teachers. A child who needs more time to master the material, will get individual attention from the robot. This way, the teacher can focus on just the rest of the class, without having to worry about the individual student.

• Learning to understand body language: Our project will be more comprehensive than normal education games on a computer or tablet. The system will use body language from which the child can learn. For example, the robot can use a handshake when greeting the child and a thumbs up when a child is successful in a exercise.

Society

• Making young students be more comfortable with interaction with robots: It's almost impossible to picture a future where there are no robots. Even now robots are already in the home of people. Our education robot will make the children more comfortable around the robots. The child will have fun when playing (learning) with the robot and thus will feel more comfortable around robots. Because of these happy experiences with a robot, the child will feel more comfortable around robots in general.

USE aspects

Users

The primary users for this project are the children of the elementary school who use the robot. The robot has to be able to teach the children something. Children will learn faster when they are motivated, the robot uses social cues and will speak in order to motivate the child. In order to keep the child motivated a personalized learning system is needed. A personalized learning system can help motivate a child by letting him learn on his own level, for instance when the child is bad at an subject the robot helps him with that subject, to better understand it. But also when a child is smarter than what the teacher teaches him, he can learn more with the robot.

The secondary users are the teachers of the elementary school. The robot will be implemented in a classroom, so the teacher has to know how the robot works. The robot will reduce the workload for the teacher in the long run, but all the teachers have to know something about the robot.

A tertiary user can be a parent of the child. A parent wants what is best for their child, and wants that the child learns as most as he can. The robot helps the child to learn on their personal level so the child will learn as much as he is able to learn.

Society

The society will benefit from the robot, because children starts using a robot with a young age. This way they know how a robot works and know what to expect from it. In the future more and more robots will be used so a child has to be comfortable around robots.

Enterprise

The enterprise is not really a big factor for this project, because the only one involved would be the companies that developes the robots.

Approach

The goal of our project is to make a start on decreasing the load of teachers on elementary school, by implementing a teaching robot.

We will do this in the following order

• Determine the basic objectives of the robot. What should the robot do?
• What has already been done? Explore state-of-the-art.
• Choose which robot could be implemented to fit the needs of the project, or design a new robot.
• Choose one specific task in the form of an educational game that the robot should be able to do.
• Experiment with the robot.
• Try to implement an algorithm which will make the robot able to perform the chosen task(s).
• Refine the algorithm/reformulate task robot.

State-of-the-art

Social cues and gestures

Social cues and gestures are very important in any conversation whether that is human-human interaction or human-robot interaction. For this reason, research has been made for the interaction between humans and robots. It was shown that interactions between robots and humans have resulted in better message retention. In the classroom environment, this is needed. (Chapter 6, Torta, 2014)

Appearance

To ensure that child-robot interaction is successful, it must be ensured that the children are comfortable with interacting with the robot. For that, the appearance of the robot must be carefully designed. Children respond better to human-like features but not to a completely humanoid robot appearance. (Fang-Wu Tung, 2016)

Role-switching mechanism

‘Role-switching’ as an intrinsic motivational mechanism facilitates the engagement in long-term child–robot interaction. In this study, this was done in the specific learning framework of improving knowledge and habits with regards to healthy-life styles, though the article suggests that this can be applied in other learning frameworks as well (Ros, R., Oleari, E., Pozzi, C. et al. Int J of Soc Robotics (2016)

Robots in the classroom

Most special needs schools cannot afford the NAO. The paper investigates the non-humanoid Lego Mindstorm robot as an alternative learning method for pupils with intellectual disabilities. An interview at the end concludes that three out of four students were significantly more engaged with the non-humanoid robot than the humanoid robot, whilst one student was found to be equally engaged with both robots. (Sarmad Aslam, Penny J. Standen, Nick Shopland, Andy Burton, David J. Brown. iTAG (2016)

Logbook

Week 1

• Brainstorm session
• Discussion about the possible topics for this course
• Come to a decision about the topic
• Make the idea more concrete such that everyone in the team knows what we will be doing further on. We have made an initial list of objectives and approach.

Week 2

• Had a meeting with one of the professors of the course and two of the team members. This was to ensure that the idea was sufficient for this course and that it was also feasible. Within this meeting it was discussed whether we are able to use the Nao robot for the purposes of our project. Furthermore, some extensions were discussed. A follow-up meeting will be scheduled to further discuss this.
• Preparations for the presentation were made and the decision of who will be presenting for the first, and the later, presentations were also made.

Week 3

• Second presentation

Week 4

• Weekly feedback sessions

Week 5

• Weekly feedback sessions

Week 6

• Weekly feedback sessions

Week 7

• Weekly feedback sessions

Week 8

• Final presentation

References

• Torta, E. (2014). Approaching independent living with robots Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven DOI: 10.6100/IR766648
• Fang-Wu Tung (2016) Child Perception of Humanoid Robot Appearance and Behavior, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32:6, 493-502, DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2016.1172808
• Ros, R., Oleari, E., Pozzi, C. et al. Int J of Soc Robotics (2016) 8: 599. doi:10.1007/s12369-016-0356-9