Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3610977.3634979acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

"Give it Time:" Longitudinal Panels Scaffold Older Adults' Learning and Robot Co-Design

Published: 11 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Participatory robot design projects with older adults often use multiple sessions to encourage design feedback and active participation from users. Prior projects have, however, not analyzed the learning outcomes for older adults across co-design sessions and how they support constructive design feedback and meaningful participation. To bridge this gap, we examined the learning outcomes within a "longitudinal panel." This panel comprised seven co-design sessions with 11 older adults of varying cognitive abilities over six months, aimed at designing a robot to guide a photograph-based conversational activity. Using Nelson and Stolterman's framework of the hierarchy of design-learning, we demonstrate how older adult panelists achieved multiple design-learning outcomes- capacity, confidence, capability, competence, courage, and connection- which allowed them to provide actionable design suggestions. We provide guidelines for conducting longitudinal panels that can enhance user design-learning and participation in robot design.

Supplemental Material

ZIP File
Codebook for design-learning outcomes and longitudinal panel's supplementary worksheet for the participants.

References

[1]
Gopika Ajaykumar, Kaitlynn Taylor Pineda, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2023. Older adults' expectations, experiences, and preferences in programming physical robot assistance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 180 (2023), 103127.
[2]
Patrícia Alves-Oliveira, Elin A Björling, Patriya Wiesmann, Heba Dwikat, Simran Bhatia, Kai Mihata, and Maya Cakmak. 2022. Robots for Connection: A Co-Design Study with Adolescents. In 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 578--583.
[3]
Victor Nikhil Antony, Sue Min Cho, and Chien-Ming Huang. 2023. Co-designing with older adults, for older adults: Robots to promote physical activity. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 506--515.
[4]
Edwin Blake, Uariaike Mbinge, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Donovan Maasz, Colin Stanley, Chris Paul Muashekele, and Gereon Koch Kapuire. 2021. Going beyond empowered design by scaffolding inter-community engagement. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies- Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech. 224--233.
[5]
Edwin H Blake, William David Tucker, Meryl Glaser, and Adinda Freudenthal. 2011. Deaf telephony: Community-based co-design (case study). (2011).
[6]
Lisa M Bouillion and Louis M Gomez. 2001. Connecting school and community with science learning: Real world problems and school--community partnerships as contextual scaffolds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 38, 8 (2001), 878--898.
[7]
Edward Joseph Caruana, Marius Roman, Jules Hernández-Sánchez, and Piergiorgio Solli. 2015. Longitudinal studies. Journal of Thoracic Disease 7, 11 (2015), E537.
[8]
Katerina Cerna, Claudia Müller, Dave Randall, and Martin Hunker. 2022. Situated scaffolding for sustainable participatory design: Learning online with older adults. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1--25.
[9]
Victoria Clarke, Virginia Braun, and Nikki Hayfield. 2015. Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods 3 (2015), 222--248.
[10]
Chris Conley. 2004. Leveraging design's core competencies. Design Management Review 15, 3 (2004), 45--51.
[11]
Sara J Czaja,Walter R. Boot, Neil Charness, andWendy A. Rogers. 2019. Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. CRC press.
[12]
Neuciani Ferreira da Silva Sousa and Marilisa Berti de Azevedo Barros. 2020. Level of active aging: Influence of environmental, social and health-related factors. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 90 (2020), 104094.
[13]
Isha Datey, Hunter Soper, Khadeejah Hossain, Wing-Yue Geoffrey Louie, and Douglas Zytko. 2023. Ethical participatory design of social robots through coconstruction of participatory design protocols. (2023), 2454 -- 2461.
[14]
Jennifer L. Davidson and Carlos Jensen. 2013. Participatory design with older adults: An analysis of creativity in the design of mobile healthcare applications. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (Sydney, Australia) (C&C '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 114--123. https://doi.org/10.1145/2466627.2466652
[15]
Tripp Driskell, James E Driskell, C Shawn Burke, and Eduardo Salas. 2017. Team roles: A review and integration. Small Group Research 48, 4 (2017), 482--511.
[16]
Jane Elliott, Janet Holland, and Rachel Thomson. 2008. Longitudinal and panel studies. The SAGE handbook of social research methods (2008), 228--248.
[17]
Tech enhanced Life. 2023. Longevity Explorers: About. Retrieved 2023 from https://www.techenhancedlife.com/longevity-explorers
[18]
Priska Flandorfer. 2012. Population ageing and socially assistive robots for elderly persons: The importance of sociodemographic factors for user acceptance. International Journal of Population Research 2012 (2012).
[19]
Héctor García and Francesc Miralles. 2017. Ikigai: The Japanese secret to a long and happy life. Penguin.
[20]
Amanda A Geppert. 2014. Co-design for community capacity building. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference: Short Papers, Industry Cases, Workshop Descriptions, Doctoral Consortium papers, and Keynote abstracts-Volume 2. 251--254.
[21]
Maribeth Gettinger and Jill K Seibert. 2002. Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychology Review 31, 3 (2002), 350--365.
[22]
Antonio González, María Paz Ramírez, Vicente Viadel, et al. 2015. ICT learning by older adults and their attitudes toward computer use. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research 2015 (2015).
[23]
Philip J Guo. 2017. Older adults learning computer programming: Motivations, frustrations, and design opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 7070--7083.
[24]
Christina N. Harrington, Katya Borgos-Rodriguez, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Engaging low-income African American older adults in health discussions through community-based design workshops. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300823
[25]
Diana Hicks. 2001. Mixed-ability classrooms: Turning weakness into strength. Readings in Methodology (2001), 79.
[26]
Jocelyn A Hollander. 2004. The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33, 5 (2004), 602--637.
[27]
Long-Jing Hsu, Janice K Bays, Katherine M Tsui, and Selma Sabanovic. 2023. Codesigning Social Robots with People Living with Dementia: Fostering Identity, Connectedness, Security, andAutonomy. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACMDesigning Interactive Systems Conference. 2672--2688.
[28]
Long-Jing Hsu, Waki Kamino, Weslie Khoo, Katherine Tsui, David Crandall, and Selma Sabanović. 2023. Working together toward ikigai: Co-designing robots that can help us achieve meaning and purpose in life. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 30, 1 (2023), 38--45.
[29]
Long-Jing Hsu, Weslie Khoo, Natasha Randall, Waki Kamino, Swapna Joshi, Hiroki Sato, David J Crandall, KatherineMTsui, and Selma Sabanović. 2023. Finding its voice: The influence of robot voice on fit, social attributes, and willingness to use among older adults in the U.S. and Japan. In 2023 32nd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). 2072--2079. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309390
[30]
Eric Jensen, Nicholas Jones, Megan Rabe, Beverly Pratt, Lauren Medina, Kimberly Orozco, and Lindsay Spell. 2021. The chance that two people chosen at random are of different race or ethnicity groups has increased since 2010. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-statespopulation- more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html
[31]
Birgit Jobst, Eva Köppen, Tilmann Lindberg, Josephine Moritz, Holger Rhinow, and Christoph Meinel. 2012. The faith-factor in design thinking: Creative confidence through education at the design thinking schools Potsdam and Stanford? Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context (2012), 35--46.
[32]
Waki Kamino, Long-Jing Hsu, Swapna Joshi, Natasha Randall, Abhijeet Agnihotri, Katherine M Tsui, and Selma Sabanović. 2023. Making meaning together: Codesigning a social robot for older adults with Ikigai experts. International Journal of Social Robotics (2023), 1--16.
[33]
Weslie Khoo, Long-Jing Hsu, Kyrie Jig Amon, Pranav Vijay Chakilam, Wei- Chu Chen, Zachary Kaufman, Agness Lungu, Hiroki Sato, Erin Seliger, Manasi Swaminathan, et al. 2023. Spill the tea: When robot conversation agents support well-being for older adults. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 178--182.
[34]
Amanda Lazar, Raymundo Cornejo, Caroline Edasis, and Anne Marie Piper. 2016. Designing for the third hand: Empowering older adults with cognitive impairment through creating and sharing. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 1047--1058.
[35]
Hee Rin Lee, Selma Sabanović, Wan-Ling Chang, Shinichi Nagata, Jennifer Piatt, Casey Bennett, and David Hakken. 2017. Steps toward participatory design of social robots: Mutual learning with older adults with depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 244-- 253.
[36]
Hee Rin Lee, Fei Sun, Tariq Iqbal, and Brenda Roberts. 2023. Reimagining robots for dementia: From robots for care-receivers/giver to robots for carepartners. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 475--484.
[37]
Tuck Wah Leong and Toni Robertson. 2016. Voicing values: Laying foundations for ageing people to participate in design. In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full papers-Volume 1. 31--40.
[38]
Nathan A Lewis and Patrick L Hill. 2020. Does being active mean being purposeful in older adulthood? Examining the moderating role of retirement. Psychology and Aging 35, 7 (2020), 1050.
[39]
Alex Jiahong Lu, Shruti Sannon, Cameron Moy, Savana Brewer, Jaye Green, Kisha N Jackson, Daivon Reeder, Camaria Wafer, Mark S Ackerman, and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2023. Participatory Noticing through Photovoice: Engaging Arts-and Community-Based Approaches in Design Research. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 2489--2508.
[40]
LuxAI. 2023. LuxAI - Award winning social robots for autism and special needs education. https://luxai.com Accessed Sept. 27, 2023.
[41]
Michael Massimi, Ronald M Baecker, and Michael Wu. 2007. Using participatory activities with seniors to critique, build, and evaluate mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 155--162.
[42]
Brenna McNally, Matthew Louis Mauriello, Mona Leigh Guha, and Allison Druin. 2017. Gains from participatory design team membership as perceived by child alumni and their parents. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5730--5741.
[43]
Meredith Minkler. 2005. Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health 82 (2005), ii3--ii12.
[44]
Sanika Moharana, Alejandro E Panduro, Hee Rin Lee, and Laurel D Riek. 2019. Robots for joy, robots for sorrow: Community based robot design for dementia caregivers. In 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 458--467.
[45]
Amal Nanavati, Patricia Alves-Oliveira, Tyler Schrenk, Ethan K Gordon, Maya Cakmak, and Siddhartha S Srinivasa. 2023. Design principles for robot-assisted feeding in social contexts. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. 24--33.
[46]
Harold G Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2014. The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT press.
[47]
OpenAI. 2023. ChatGPT: Get instant answers, find inspiration, learn something new. https://chat.openai.com/ Accessed Sept. 27, 2023.
[48]
Simon O'Rafferty, Hannah Curtis, and Frank O'Connor. 2014. Mainstreaming sustainability in design education--a capacity building framework. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 15, 2 (2014), 169--187.
[49]
Anastasia K Ostrowski, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. 2021. Long-term co-design guidelines: Empowering older adults as co-designers of social robots. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, 1165--1172.
[50]
Natasha Randall, Swapna Joshi,Waki Kamino, Long-Jing Hsu, Abhijeet Agnihotri, Grace Li, Donald Williamson, Kate Tsui, and Selma Sabanović. 2022. Finding ikigai: How robots can support meaning in later life. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9 (2022), 1011327.
[51]
Natasha Randall, Selma Sabanović, and Wynnie Chang. 2018. Engaging older adults with depression as co-designers of assistive in-home robots. In Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare. 304--309.
[52]
JM Rocha, MJ Honorato, and E Costa. 2016. Assessment of expert panels. IEEE Latin America Transactions 14, 1 (2016), 303--308.
[53]
Wendy A Rogers, Travis Kadylak, and Megan A Bayles. 2022. Maximizing the benefits of participatory design for human--robot interaction research with older adults. Human Factors 64, 3 (2022), 441--450.
[54]
Dawn K Sakaguchi-Tang, Jay L Cunningham, Wendy Roldan, Jason Yip, and Julie A Kientz. 2021. Co-design with older adults: Examining and reflecting on collaboration with aging communities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1--28.
[55]
Laura Stegner, Emmanuel Senft, and Bilge Mutlu. 2023. Situated participatory design: A method for in situ design of robotic interaction with older adults. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--15.
[56]
AndersWTell. 2014. What capability is not. In Perspectives in Business Informatics Research: 13th International Conference, BIR 2014, Lund, Sweden, September 22--24, 2014. Proceedings 13. Springer, 128--142.
[57]
Sofia Thunberg and Tom Ziemke. 2021. Social robots in care homes for older adults: Observations from participatory design workshops. In Social Robotics: 13th International Conference, ICSR 2021, Singapore, Singapore, November 10--13, 2021, Proceedings 13. Springer, 475--486.
[58]
Sefora Tunc, Femke Nijboer, Angelica M Tinga, and Monique Tabak. 2023. ?Hi, my mame is Robin"--Remotely co-designing an embodied conversational agent for empathy with older adults. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 376--391.
[59]
Jenny Waycott, Sonja Pedell, Frank Vetere, Elizabeth Ozanne, Lars Kulik, Alan Gruner, and John Downs. 2012. Actively engaging older adults in the development and evaluation of tablet technology. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. 643--652.
[60]
Lauren Wilcox, Betsy DiSalvo, Dick Henneman, and Qiaosi Wang. 2019. Design in the HCI classroom: Setting a research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 871--883.
[61]
Charlotta Windahl. 2017. Market sense-making in design practice: Exploring curiosity, creativity and courage. Journal of Marketing Management 33, 3--4 (2017), 280--291.
[62]
Ya-Huei Wu, Jérémy Wrobel, Mélanie Cornuet, Hélène Kerhervé, Souad Damnée, and Anne-Sophie Rigaud. 2014. Acceptance of an assistive robot in older adults: a mixed-method study of human--robot interaction over a 1-month period in the Living Lab setting. Clinical Interventions in Aging (2014), 801--811.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Facilitating co-design among older adults in a digital setting: methodological challenges and opportunitiesCoDesign10.1080/15710882.2024.2372595(1-18)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2024
982 pages
ISBN:9798400703225
DOI:10.1145/3610977
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 March 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. co-design
  2. design-learning
  3. older adults
  4. participatory design
  5. photograph
  6. social robots

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

HRI '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)247
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)58
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Facilitating co-design among older adults in a digital setting: methodological challenges and opportunitiesCoDesign10.1080/15710882.2024.2372595(1-18)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media