Changes for page Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
17	17
18	18	Besides, Our group decided to use a mixed-method approach for the evaluation.
19	19
20		-* Quantitative data will be derived during the experiment such as the number of mistakes the participant makes during the quiz. The participants were also asked to provide a score based on the given system usability scale^^1^^.
	20	+* Quantitative data will be derived during the experiment such as the number of mistakes the participant makes during the quiz. The participants were also asked to provide a score based on the given system usability scale^^[1]^^.
21	21	* Qualitative data expected to be gathered through questionnaires, such as to what extent participants are satisfied with using the robot, is also adopted for evaluation.
22	22
23	23	By measuring these two types of data, we will manage to assess if our claims are achieved and the research questions are answered.
...	...	@@ -100,12 +100,12 @@
100	100
101	101	= Results =
102	102
103		-[[image:result2.png||height="400px"]]
	103	+[[image:result2.png||height="300px"]]
104	104	From the left figure, we can see the distribution of the number of correct answers. The average score of all participants is 3.6 among 6 questions. For group A, the average score is 3.3 and for group B the average score is 3.8. This bias can be explained because our group size is not large enough to eliminate the various memory ability. but we can also find that all participants in group A can learn something because they have no 0 scores but several participants in group B got 0 scores. In this degree, we can show that our robot does help in memory.
105	105
106	106	From the middle figure, we can find that people in group A tend to think our robot can help improve the memory task and only a few of them thought our robot is annoying, as shown in the right figure.
107	107
108		-[[image:result4.png||height="400px"]]
	108	+[[image:result4.png||height="300px"]]
109	109	As shown in the above figure, group A with our intelligent robot gave our robot an average score of 66.7, and group B with the dumb robot gave 58.2. In this scale, we can see that participants are more willing to play with our intelligent robot.
110	110
111	111	Also, we collect some feedback from the participants. Most of them liked the appearance of the robot which is consistent with the reasons we choose the NAO. People are more engaged and willing to interact with a humanoid robot. Some of them complained about the speech recognition of this robot.