JRM Vol.28 No.1 pp. 69-78
doi: 10.20965/jrm.2016.p0069


Toward Understanding Pedagogical Relationship in Human-Robot Interaction

Hirofumi Okazaki*,***, Yusuke Kanai*, Masa Ogata*,***, Komei Hasegawa*, Kentaro Ishii**,***, and Michita Imai*,***

*Keio University
3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 223-8522, Japan

**Osaka Institute of Technology
1-79-1 Kitayama, Hirakata, Osaka 573-0196, Japan

***CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency
4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi, Saitama 332-0012, Japan

July 17, 2015
December 28, 2015
February 20, 2016
pedagogical relationship, human-robot interaction, natural interaction
This study aims to investigate the behavior of a person who teaches a robot, and the behavior required for the robot to learn from such a person. A robot used for education needs to have a pedagogical relationship, namely, to understand the roles of teacher and learner, and recognize user behavior. In order for a robot to establish a pedagogical relationship with people, it has to understand the characteristic behavior of the person teaching it. Moreover, the robot needs to demonstrate to its “teacher” the characteristic behavior learned from this person. For this purpose, we observe and analyze through case studies the characteristic behavior of a human teacher and the effectiveness of the behavior designed for the robot. The results of the observation and analysis of a situation where a person teaches a robot a game on a tablet device show that, as the robot attempted through trial-and-error to perform the actions learned from the human teacher, the latter became more careful when teaching, and attempted to verify what the robot expressed to show its human teacher how much it understood.
Investigating pedagogical relationship

Investigating pedagogical relationship

Cite this article as:
H. Okazaki, Y. Kanai, M. Ogata, K. Hasegawa, K. Ishii, and M. Imai, “Toward Understanding Pedagogical Relationship in Human-Robot Interaction,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.28 No.1, pp. 69-78, 2016.
Data files:
  1. [1] J. Han, S. L. Lee, B. Kang, S. Park, J. Kim, M. Kim, and M. Kim, “A trial English class with a teaching assistant robot in elementary school,” Proc. of the 5th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’10), pp. 335-336, 2010. T. Kanda, T. Hirano, D. Eaton, and H. Ishiguro, “Interactive Robots as Social Partners and Peer Tutors for Children: A Field Trial,” Human-Computer Interaction, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 61-84, 2004. T. Kanda, R. Sato, N. Saiwaki, and H. Ishiguro, “A Two-Month Field Trial in an Elementary School for Long-Term Human-Robot Interaction,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics, Vol.23, No.5, pp. 962-971, 2007. T. Komatsubara, M. Shiomi, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “Can a social robot help children’s understanding of science in classrooms?,” Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI’14), pp. 83-90, 2014.
  2. [2] Z. You, C. Shen, C. Chang, B. Liu, and G. Chen, “A Robot as a Teaching Assistant in an English Class,” Proc. of the 6th IEEE Int. Conf. on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’06), pp. 87-91, 2006. F. Tanaka and S. Matsuzoe, “Children Teach a Care-Receiving Robot to Promote Their Learning: Field Experiments in a Classroom for Vocabulary Learning,” J. of Human-Robot Interaction, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 78-95, 2012.
  3. [3] R. J. Brand, D. A. Baldwin, and L. A. Ashburn, “Evidence for ‘motionese’: modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action,” Developmental Science, Vol.5, No.1. pp. 72-83, 2002. R. J. Brand and W. L. Shallcross, “Infants prefer motionese to adult-directed action,” Developmental Science, Vol.11, No.6. pp. 853-861, 2008.
  4. [4] K. Nakadai, K. Hidai, G. H. Okuno, H. Mizoguchi, and H. Kitano, “Real-time Auditory and Visual Multiple-speaker Tracking For Human-robot Interaction,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.14, No.5, pp. 497-505, 2002.
  5. [5] K. Suzuki, R. Hikiji, and S. Hashimoto, “Development of an Autonomous Humanoid Robot, iSHA, for Harmonized Human-Machine Environment,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.14, No.5, pp. 479-489, 2002.
  6. [6] M. Prats, S. Wieland, T. Asfour, A. P. Del Pobil, and R. Dillmann, “Compliant Interaction in Household Environments by the Armar-III Humanoid Robot,” Proc. of the 8th IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. on Humanoid Robots, pp. 475-480, 2008.
  7. [7] K. Yokoyama, H. Handa, T. Isozumi, Y. Fukase, K. Kaneko, F. Kanehiro, Y. Kawai, F. Tomita, and H. Hirukawa, “Cooperative Works by a Human and a Humanoid Robot,” Proc. of the 2003 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA ’03), Vol.3, pp. 2985-2991, 2003.
  8. [8] Y. Miyaji and K. Tomiyama, “Implementation Approach of Affective Interaction for Caregiver Support Robot,” J. of Robotics and Mechatronics, Vol.25, No.6, pp. 1060-1069, 2013.
  9. [9] J. Han, M. Jo, S. Park, and S. Kim, “The educational use of home robots for children,” IEEE Int. Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN ’05), pp. 378-383, 2005.
  10. [10] F. Tanaka, A. Cicourel, and J. R. Movellan, “Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.104, No.46. pp. 17954-17958, 2007.
  11. [11] J. Han and D. Kim, “r-Learning services for elementary school students with a teaching assistant robot,” Proc. of the 4th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human Robot Interaction (HRI ’09), pp. 255-256, 2009.
  12. [12] G. Gordon, C. Breazeal, and W. Ma, “Can Children Catch Curiosity from a Social Robot?,” Proc. of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’15), pp. 91-98, 2015.
  13. [13] R. Dillmann, “Teaching and learning of robot tasks via observation of human performance,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Vol.47, No.2, pp. 109-116, 2004.
  14. [14] C. Breazeal, G. Hoffman, and A. Lockerd, “Teaching and Working with Robots as a Collaboration,” Proc. of the 3rd Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Vol.3 (AAMAS ’04), 2004, pp. 1030-1037, 2004.
  15. [15] D. Hood, S. Lemaignan, and P. Dillenbourg, “When children teach a robot to write: An autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting,” Proc. of the 10th Annual ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’15), pp. 83-90, 2015.
  16. [16] A. Sauppé and B. Mutlu, “How social cues shape task coordination and communication,” Proc. of the 17th ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’14), pp. 97-108, 2014.
  17. [17] Y. Nagai, A. Nakatani, and M. Asada, “How a robot’s attention shapes the way people teach,” Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Epigenetic Robotics (EpiRob ’10), 2010, pp. 81-88, 2010.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Jul. 19, 2024