Skip to Content
Last modified by Hrishita Chakrabarti on 2023/04/10 17:38
From version 5.5
edited by Hrishita Chakrabarti
on 2023/04/09 18:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 5.8
edited by Hrishita Chakrabarti
on 2023/04/09 18:24
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -56,12 +56,24 @@
56 56  
57 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.
58 58  
59 +Through the project presentation, I was able to learn several aspects of robot intervention designs and how they can be evaluated.
60 +
59 59  ==== Collaborative Learning: ====
60 60  
61 61  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. 
62 62  
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 +
63 63  == Week 4: First Presentation ==
64 64  
65 65  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.
66 66  
67 67  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: ==
78 +
79 +== Week 8: ==