Someone to Read with: Design of and Experiences with an In-Home Learning Companion Robot for Reading
Open accessAbstract
The development of literacy and reading proficiency is a building block of lifelong learning that must be supported both in the classroom and at home. While the promise of interactive learning technologies has widely been demonstrated, little is known about how an interactive robot might play a role in this development. We used eight design features based on recommendations from interest-development and human-robot-interaction literatures to design an in-home learning companion robot for children aged 11--12. The robot was used as a technology probe to explore families' (N=8) habits and views about reading, how a reading technology might be used, and how children perceived reading with the robot. Our results indicate reading with the learning companion to be a way to socially engage with reading, which may promote the development of reading interest and ability. We discuss design and research implications based on our findings.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Such unconditional embracing of families' imaginations could foster their creative self-expression, and psychological self-healing and renewal.
“Such unconditional embracing of families' imaginations could foster their creative self-expression, and psychological self-healing and renewal [72].”
From "When He Feels Cold, He Goes to the Seahorse"—Blending Generative AI into Multimaterial Storymaking for Family Expressive Arts Therapy (2024) · cites this paper as [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 47
- Authors
- Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2017-05-02
- Pages
- 301-312
- OpenAlex
- W2611702064
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 7.53
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1149970)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
- Keywords
- reading interest, literacy development, reading proficiency, human-robot interaction, interactive learning technologies, children's reading habits
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
