Assignments

Course Assignments

---

• Reading Reflections
• Discussion Leadership
• Final Paper
  • Timeline & Grading
  • Suggested Paper Structure
  • Final Paper Presentation
  • Feedback for Peers in the Class

Reading Reflections

---

For each of the assigned readings, each student will submit a reading reflection that contains the following three components.

Part 1: Critical Engagement with the Paper (1 paragraph): In one paragraph, critically engage with the content of the paper. You are welcome to use the following questions for guidance for this part of your reflection:

• Examination of the Conclusions: Do you agree with the authors' conclusions? What are the implications of these conclusions? Are there certain limitations or edge cases that you think the authors did not consider?
• Evaluation of Evidence and Reasoning: What kind of evidence does the author use (empirical, theoretical, philosophical) to support their conclusions? What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the evidence used by the authors and conclusions drawn from them?
• Relationship / Comparison with Other Readings and Concepts: How does this paper build upon or contrast with other papers we've read or concepts we've already discussed in this class?
• Your Critical Take: What is one aspect of this paper you found particularly insightful or problematic? What is a key idea you want to remember from this paper?
• Necessary Future Work: Are there particular directions of future work that you feel are necessary in order to verify the authors' conclusions or fill in gaps in the research?

Part 2: Development of Your Own Theory (1 paragraph): In one paragraph reflect on how this paper contributes to your understanding of how people conceptualize and interact with robots as well as the theory you are developing for your final paper. Feel free to use the following questions to guide this part of your reflection:

• Connection to Your Own Theory Development: How does this paper help you refine the conditions under which a robot is treated as a tool vs. a social agent? What ideas or mechanisms from this paper could inform your own theory?
• Challenge or Reinforcement of Your Thinking: How does this paper either challenge or reinforce your own thinking about how people conceptualize and interact with robots?

Part 3: GenAI Use (1 sentence): In one sentence, describe whether you used genAI tools with this reading reflection and if so, how you used them. Please refer to the Use of Generative AI section of the course syllabus for the expectations of genAI use in this course.

Discussion Leadership

---

Each paper discussed in this course will be accompanied by 3 student-led presentations. These students will guide the class through a critical and engaging discussion. Below are the descriptions, expectations, and presentation structure for each role.

All three discussion leads will contribute to the Google Slides presentation in this Google Drive folder by 10:00am the day of class.

Role 1: The Advocate

---

Your goal: Your goal is to support and defend the core argument or conclusion(s) of the paper. You are to frame the paper as a valuable and valid contribution to our understanding of human-robot interaction.

Presentation objectives: In your presentation to the class, your objectives are to:

• Identify and summarize the paper's main argument or contribution.
• Find at least 2 external sources (empirical studies, reviews, news articles, or theoretical work) that support or confirm the paper's conclusions.
• Explain why this paper is important to the field.
• Highlight potential applications of its ideas or findings.

Suggested slide format:

• Title Slide: Your name, role = Advocate
• Main Argument(s): What are the core claim(s) of the paper? Which will you be advocating for?
• Supporting Evidence #1: External source, key findings
• Supporting Evidence #2: External source, key findings
• Contribution: How do these supporting works contribute to supporting the main paper's claim(s)?
• Applications & Implications: What are the real-world or theoretical stakes?
• Discussion Prompt: Develop 2-3 questions that invites the class to explore the strengths of the paper.

Role 2: The Critic

---

Your goal: Your goal is to present a critical response to the paper. You may challenge its assumptions, methods, or conclusions. You will also be asked to provide an alternative interpretation better explains the findings or an alternative framework/model that better explains a central construct of the paper.

Presentation objectives: In your presentation to the class, your objectives are to:

• Identify a specific critique of the paper (e.g., flawed methodology, weak evidence, overstated conclusions).
• Present at least 1 external source that supports your critique.
• Propose an alternative interpretation, conclusion, or model.
• Acknowledge what the paper does well, even as you critique it.

Suggested slide format:

• Title Slide: Your name, role = Critic
• Your Critique: What's your primary issue or concern?
• Supporting Evidence: External source(s) that support your critique
• Your Alternative: How would you propose the interpretation, conclusion, or model be altered?
• Discussion Prompt: Develop 2-3 questions that invites the class to explore the limitations of the paper.

Role 3: The Literature Analyst

---

Your goal: Your goal is to situate the paper in the broader academic conversation: where did its ideas come from, and how have others responded to or built upon it?

Presentation objectives: In your presentation to the class, your objectives are to:

• Find 1 "prior work" paper published before the main paper. Show how the earlier work laid the groundwork for this paper's ideas or methods.
• Find 1 "follow-up" paper published after the main paper. Show how it extends, refines, or challenges the main paper's claims.
• Analyze the trajectory of the topic—how has thinking on this issue evolved?

Suggested slide format:

• Title Slide: Your name, role = Literature Analyst
• Prior Work Paper: What are the main ideas and conclusions from the prior paper? How did it shape and inform the main paper?
• Follow-Up Paper: What are the main ideas and conclusions from the follow-up paper? How does it extend, refine, or challenge the main paper's claims?
• Current Gaps or Questions: What's still unclear or contested?
• Discussion Prompt: Develop 2-3 questions that invites the class to explore the development of the ideas in the field related to this paper.

Final Paper

---

The final paper for this course is your opportunity to propose a new theory that explains and predicts how humans interact with robots, with a particular focus on contributing to our understanding of when and why people engage with robots and machines as tools versus social agents.

Your theory should build upon and extend existing work in Human–Robot Interaction (HRI), psychology, cognitive science, and related areas. This includes the papers we read and discussed in class as well as other relevant literature you discover. The paper should demonstrate your ability to synthesize prior research, identify conceptual gaps, and propose a coherent theoretical framework supported by evidence and testable ideas.

As you're developing your theory and writing the final paper, I encourage you to consider the points brought up by Bartneck, C. (2023). The Dorian Gray Refutation. in his response to Clark and Fischer (2023)'s Social Robots as Depictions of Social Agents paper. He mentions three aspects that constitute a good theory:

• Explanatory Power: "The more observations a theory is able to accurately model, the higher its value." In other words, the more generalizable the theory is, the greater its value.
• Accuracy & Reliability: The more accurately and reliably a theory can predict and explain the phenomena it addresses, the stronger it is.
• Simplicity: "The simplicity of the theory itself makes it preferable over others." I believe truly elegant theories are the ones where, after you hear of them, you think to yourself, "well, that's obvious." However, it really wasn't obvious until someone was finally able to articulate it clearly.

There is no single "right" way to write a theory paper. Different papers we've read this quarter model different approaches to framing, argumentation, and structure. Feel free to use these as possible examples for how you structure your own paper.

Timeline & Grading

---

The following timeline outlines the key deadlines related to the final paper as well as what percentage each deliverable contributes to the final paper grade.

Here is a detailed rubric that outlines how each deliverable will be graded.

Suggested Paper Structure

---

Template: We recommend that you use the ACM SIG format ("sigconf", double column format) for your paper. Templates for this format can be found at this link.

Expected Length: We expect your paper to be 6-8 pages in length (using the specified template), excluding references.

We encourage you to include the sections listed below in your final paper. While you do not need to strictly follow this structure, you will be graded on the inclusion of the content described in each of these sections. So, feel free to use the structure that best fits your theory, making sure to cover the necessary components.

1. Abstract: A concise (100-250 word) summary of your theory, its motivation, and its key contributions.
2. Introduction: Motivate your proposed theory. Clearly articulate the phenomenon or question your theory seeks to explain, and why it matters. Briefly preview your theoretical contribution and its implications for understanding human-robot interaction.
3. Background and Related Work: Review relevant existing theories and empirical work in the area. Identify the conceptual or empirical gaps that your theory aims to address. (Clark and Fischer (2023)'s Social Robots as Depictions of Social Agents paper is a strong example of how to situate a new theoretical contribution within prior work.)
4. Proposed Theory: Lay out your theory clearly and systematically. Describe its key constructs, mechanisms, and predictions. Visual representations (e.g., conceptual diagrams or models) are encouraged if they help clarify relationships between components.
5. Supporting Evidence: Either integrated into the previous section or presented separately, provide evidence that supports your theory (e.g., empirical studies in HRI - Thellman et al. (2022) has some great supplementary tables that might help here). Your goal here is to illustrate how your theory aligns with or extends what is already known.
6. Proposed Empirical Studies: Outline 4-6 empirical studies that could be conducted to test your theory. For each study, briefly describe:
   • The research question or hypothesis
   • The study design (e.g., participants, methods, measures)
   • The expected results and how they would support or challenge your theory
   You don't need to fully design each study, but aim to show that your theory is testable and generates meaningful, falsifiable predictions.
7. Discussion: Contextualize your theory in light of existing frameworks and findings. Discuss its broader implications—for example, how it might inform the design of future robots. Acknowledge potential limitations and directions for future work.
8. Conclusion: Summarize your main arguments and restate your theory's contribution to the field.
9. References: A standard reference list formatted according to the ACM SIG template. Your paper should have at least 20 or so references.

Final Paper Presentation

---

During our last week of class, you will make a 6-8 minute presentation summarizing your proposed theory (I will cut you off strictly at 8 minutes). The date and order of your presentation can be found on this Final Presentation Schedule spreadsheet. Your presentation should cover the following components:

• Introduction and Motivation: Briefly explain (1) the phenomenon or question your theory addresses, (2) why it is important, and (3) what gaps in existing knowledge it aims to fill.
• Theory Overview: Clearly present your theory: its main ideas, constructs, and predictions. We encourage you to use visuals (e.g., diagrams, examples, or conceptual models) to illustrate your framework.
• Supporting Evidence: Highlight 1-2 pieces of evidence (obtained from prior work) that support your theory.
• Proposed Studies to Test Your Theory: Outline 1-2 of the empirical studies you proposed to test your theory.
• Implications: Discuss the broader implications of your theory for understanding human-robot interaction and potential applications.

Feedback for Peers in the Class

---

After each student has submitted their first draft of the final paper, you will be assigned to provide feedback on the drafts of 2 peers in the class. Use the following links to find the two peers you'll be providing feedback to and a Google Drive folder where you can find the final paper drafts. Your feedback should be constructive and aimed at helping your peers improve their papers.

You'll submit the two feedback documents on Canvas (due 6:00pm on Wed, Nov 19). After receiving all of the feedback documents, I'll send each student the feedback they received from their peers. During class on Nov 20, you will have a chance to discuss the feedback you provided and received as a way to help each of you to improve your final paper before the final submission.

The format of your feedback follows the guidelines I give for writing peer reviews. Your review is expected to be approximately 1-2 pages in length and should include all of the following elements:

• Header information: The paper title, year, authors as well as YOUR name.
• Summary: Summarize the paper and its contributions in 1 paragraph.
• Strengths: List out 3-5 strengths of the paper as it is currently written, these can be formatted as bullet points. Examples of strengths I've listed for papers I've reviewed include:
  • "The paper is well written and is situated in the relevant literature."
  • "The analysis of the results, especially using Bayesian statistics, is thorough and well explained."
  • "The authors provide helpful information (including tables) on their methods and measures."
  • "The authors chose a nice array of explanation types to investigate and also studied interesting personality dispositions that may influence human-robot rapport."
  • "The study design is robust, well executed, and communicated effectively."
  • "The influence of anthropomorphism on a person's trust of and relationship with a robot is a very interesting and relevant topic to the HRI community."
• Weaknesses: List out the 3-5 main weaknesses you see in the paper/work as it is currently presented. Examples of weaknesses I've listed for papers I've reviewed include:
  • "The study did not yield many results, most of the hypotheses were not confirmed, and there are few takeaways of this work about the main variables of interest. It seems that to answer the authors' research questions, a new study needs to be designed that addresses the shortcomings of the study presented in this paper."
  • "The study design itself does not make the robot's trust violations negatively impact the participant, nor does it seem to set up a situation in which repair attempts could be successful."
  • "There is a potential confounding effect that could explain the results of the study, which is the robot in one condition appears more human-like than the robot in the other condition."
  • "Some of the claims made by the authors about the significance of their findings seem overstated (e.g., the claim that this work is the first to demonstrate the influence of robot anthropomorphism on people's positive impressions of the robot). The paper needs reframing with regards to the claims it makes about its novelty."
  • "The paper does not motivate the research by providing real-life examples of when robots may leverage different embodiments, and could improve in its motivation of the concepts studied and the research questions posed."
• Suggestions for Improvement: List out the main 4-6 changes you think the authors could make that would serve to make the largest improvement for the paper. Please elaborate on each of these suggestions for improvement.
• Conclusion: In a few sentences, summarize your overall impressions of the paper. Praise what you believe to be the main merits and strengths of the paper and also briefly summarize the main change(s) you believe will help improve the paper.