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 10.2
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:48
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  
... ... @@ -108,14 +108,11 @@
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 -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.
112 +The results do not show a conclusive effect towards the added value of having a robot performing the activity. This is can be attributed to different possible causes.
117 117  
118 -First of all, the questions that were asked were more focused on the experience of the activity rather than the specific added value a robot might give when doing such an activity. It is understandable that painting can be generally viewed as an enjoyable and engaging activity, so when focusing on the enjoyment, it could be understood that the robot does not make a significant impact there. However, the robot might give significant improvement in terms of support, motivation and structure during the activity. Especially if the test was conducted on actual PwDs. For future work it would be interesting to explore during the design process on which parts of the activity the robot might be able to do more than paper instructions and to investigate how these contributions might be measured.
114 +First of all, the questions that were asked were more focused on the experience of the activity rather than the specific added value a robot might giveto the activity. Painting can be generally viewed as an enjoyable and engaging activity, so when focusing on the enjoyment part, it could be understood that the robot does not make a significant impact there. However, the robot might give significant improvement in terms of support, motivation and structure during the activity. Especially if the test was conducted on actual PwDs. For future work it would be interesting to explore during the design process on which parts of the activity the robot might be able to do more than paper instructions and to investigate how these contributions might be measured.
119 119  
120 120  Moreover, as we alluded to earlier, the activity might be experienced highly different for PwDs than 20 year old TU Delft students. Therefore, it is hard to draw any conclusions on the use of the robot by testing it on people who do not need much support from it.
121 121