Tutoring in adult-child interaction

Abstract

Research of tutoring in parent-infant interaction has shown that tutors -when presenting some action -modify both their verbal and manual performance for the learner ('motherese', 'motionese'). Investigating the sources and effects of the tutors' action modifications, we suggest an interactional account of 'motionese'. Using video-data from a semi-experimental study in which parents taught their 8 to 11 month old infants how to nest a set of differently sized cups, we found that the tutors' action modifications (in particular: high arches) functioned as an orienting device to guide the infant's visual attention (gaze). Action modification and the recipient's gaze can be seen to have a reciprocal sequential relationship and to constitute a constant loop of mutual adjustments.Implications are discussed for developmental research and for robotic 'Social Learning'.We argue that a robot system could use on-line feedback strategies (e.g. gaze) to proactively shape a tutor's action presentation as it emerges.

Interaction analysis and joint attention tracking in augmented reality

“…In this vein, Schegloff treats quantification as a challenging task and suggests that some phenomena, like e.g. repairs with its definable sequential properties, are more suitable to quantify than others [13] [14].…”

Limits and opportunities for mathematizing communicational conduct for social robotics in the real world? Toward enabling a robot to make use of the human’s competences

“…This not only constitutes an individual deictic act, but also requires-at least basic-forms of interactional coordination (Pitsch and Wrede 2014). In our case (session 4-004), the robot is set up to invite the visitors to orient to the life-size image of a tomb slab by saying ''over there you can see who used to live at the Sparrenburg [i.e., the name of local medieval castle]'' and extend its right arm to perform a pointing gesture with its head turned to the visitors (Fig.…”

“…) asks critically whether it would be possible to mathematize joint attention, expectations or indexical expressions, or more generally: ''Are there limits to mathematization? '' In what follows, we will discuss this question using the example of an autonomous robotic research prototype set up as guide in a real-world museum site (e.g., Pitsch and Wrede 2014). We will point to challenges in mathematizing social conduct on different levels, in particular those that become evident when combining the robot's internal perspective with the participants' view.…”

“…Levinson (2006: 45/56) points out that there is ''no such thing as a formal grammar of discourse'' because interaction is ''governed not by rule but by expectations'' (see also Schegloff 1996;Button 1990;Luhmann 1984). This becomes particularly evident at times that require a high degree of interactional coordination between co-participants, such as the opening of an encounter and attempts to establish co-orientation (e.g., Pitsch et al 2013Pitsch et al , 2014. Thus, Lindemann (this vol.…”

“…The limits of mathematization are thus not predefined per se, but depend on the frame we choose (Lenhard and Otte 2005). In this regard, the current conceptualizations in Social Robotics/HRI range from highly restricted one-way communication over laboratory experiments with highly idealized conditions of the physical environment and pre-trained users (e.g., Sugiyama et al 2012 for a ''model of natural deictic interaction'') up to approaches dealing with the complexity of real-world settings (Shiomi et al 2008;Yamazaki et al 2009;Pitsch and Wrede 2014). While highly idealized laboratory conditions provide better grounds to model more sophisticated interactional conduct, we believe that it is necessary to assume early on the challenge of exploring autonomous systems in realworld settings (see Lindemann and Matzusaki 2014).…”