Changes for page Hrishita - Self Reflection

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -54,9 +54,42 @@
54	54
55	55	== Week 3: PAL ==
56	56
	57	+The robot intervention system PAL was aimed at teaching kids with Type 1 diabetes how to become self-sufficient in managing their blood glucose levels (T1DM). The system through games and conversations would remind the kid to check their blood glucose levels and administer their prescribed dosage of insulin regularly, look forward to their meals and exercises and overall learn to cope with T1DM.
57	57
	59	+Through the project presentation, I was able to learn several aspects of robot intervention designs and how they can be evaluated.
	60	+
	61	+==== Collaborative Learning: ====
	62	+
	63	+The PAL system was based on the theory of collaborative learning which believes that individuals learn better when they actively interact with the information such as through knowledge exchange, sharing their experiences, etc. The educator's role in this kind of learning is to ensure that the learner's experience is within their **Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD)**, i.e the content to be learnt should be in an optimal zone where the difficulty of the content is not too high for the learner's skill level that they are left confused but it should neither be too simple for the learner's skill level that they are bored.
	64	+
	65	+In PAL they made use of collaborative learning by deploying a robot which would not only play along with the kid but the robot would also adapt the tasks in the game to the kid's learning progress. The developers believed this would motivate the kids to perform the activity as it is tailored to their capabilities and would therefore be fun for them, however, they also noted that some kids may not reach the minimum performance level that they set within the time of evaluation due their relatively long learning curve. Their evaluation results corroborated their claim, and the children chose to play with the adaptive robot more often than the non-adaptive variant. They also noticed when using the adaptive robot, individual patients converted to their personal level of learning over the evaluation period which also corroborated their second claim. In the case of the non-adaptive robot, the kids all converged to a more common learning level with a lower overall mean across the patients.
	66	+
58	58	== Week 4: First Presentation ==
59	59
60	60	My teammate and I presented our chosen problem scenario and our plans for the robot intervention. We elaborated on our personas and the issues all our direct stakeholders are facing during Georgina (the PwD)'s mealtime. Georgina is losing interest in her meals, Sam her son feels hesitant to talk to his mother for fear of triggering her anxiety/irritability and Eleana wishes to see her patient happy. Thus we introduce an intervention wherein the robot takes the role of a storyteller and engages all the present direct stakeholders in easy-going and nostalgic conversations around the story it narrates.
61	61
62	62	At the end of the presentation, we received some feedback and questions which we then used to improve our design for our implementation.
	72	+
	73	+== Week 5: ==
	74	+
	75	+== Week 6: ==
	76	+
	77	+== Week 7: Evaluation ==
	78	+
	79	+Due to the limited number of participants as well as the limited time available for evaluation, my team and I decided to conduct a within-study for our evaluation. We invited fellow students taking this course as well as other TU delft students to participate in our experiment. Each participant would be first asked to sign a consent form after which we explained to them how the evaluation would be conducted. The participant would first perform one story session with the robot and then report their evaluation in a modified Godspeed questionnaire and then perform another story session with the robot followed by the same questionnaire once again. In both scenarios, the participant took the role of the PwD while the roles of the formal caretaker and family member were performed by one of us within the team.
	80	+
	81	+There were two types of storytelling sessions which the participant had to participate in and evaluate:
	82	+
	83	+~1. Experiment scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and in between asked questions to spark conversations
	84	+
	85	+2. Control Scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and enacted conversations via voice modulations to portray different characters
	86	+
	87	+Half of the participants started with the control scenario and the other half started with the experiment scenario so that our results and analysis would not be influenced by the carry-over bias.
	88	+
	89	+We conducted a one-tailed sample t-test
	90	+
	91	+== Week 8: Final Presentation ==
	92	+
	93	+My teammates presented our project. They first began with a quick recap of our problem scenario and personas and then moved on to our design scenario elaborating on the theories on which we based our design. Then they explained our experiment and control scenarios, followed by our evaluation procedure and results, and finally wrapped up with our takeaways and limitations.
	94	+
	95	+We received some feedback on our choice of evaluation questionnaire and statistical analysis which we then added to our XWiki report as part of our critical analysis and takeaway for future projects.