Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Ilinca Rentea on 2023/04/11 12:25
From version 9.1
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:45
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 10.1
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:47
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@
90 90  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
91 91  **Aggregated score**
92 92  
93 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
94 94  
95 95  [[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/8pM8mwBwL6UidLnOFDJ_Bjl6EA10teBaiLZe7Wseh8RXDvNImY4MiCzu-ygAUvMvUwBxlN5wV7hsHJZJHZ-x_yGbepWHWqfkLU9HL9mCyHwie8KrSlE9YVBSQuy2DaxRsLuIpRAbEISTCe4X0EFUVJOyuw=s2048||height="260" width="308"]]
96 96  
... ... @@ -108,9 +108,6 @@
108 108  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
109 109  The students were agreeing on average with the statement "I would like to paint more in the future with the robot". However, for question 4, the general response was ambivalent. This is understandable as confidence in certain activity often only comes after multiple repetitions and not in one encounter.
110 110  
111 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
112 -The participants were also required to answer two more questions AQ1 and AQ2 after the activity which was used to investigate whether the participants preferred the activity with a robot or without it. The mean responses for AQ1 were in favour of painting with the robot but for AQ2 no definite conclusion could be made. This could be because of the confounding factor related to the painting activity itself; participants who liked to paint preferred the activity either way with or without the robot.
113 -
114 114  = 4. Discussion =
115 115  
116 116  The results do not show a conclusive effect in general towards the added value of having a robot performing the activity. This is can be attributed to different possible causes.