Reading Deliverables

Reading Reflections

For each of the assigned readings, each student will submit a reading reflection that contains the following three components. This reading reflection will be submitted on Canvas by 12:30pm the day of class.

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 (interviews, surveys, behavioral observations) 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: Personal Reflection on Human-Robot Interaction (1 paragraph): In one paragraph, reflect on how this paper has shaped or shifted your own thinking about human-robot interaction. Feel free to use the following questions to guide this part of your reflection:

Impact on Your Perspective: Did this paper change or challenge any of your prior assumptions about human-robot interaction? If so, how?
Design Implications: What does this paper suggest about how robots should (or should not) be designed to interact with people? Are there particular behaviors, design principles, or interaction strategies that you found compelling or concerning?
Ethical and Social Considerations: What ethical questions or societal implications does this work raise? How should designers and researchers address these concerns?
Personal Takeaways: What is one idea, insight, or question from this paper that will influence how you think about human-robot interaction going forward?
Connections to Your Interests: How might the ideas in this paper relate to your own interests, experiences, or potential future work in robotics, AI, or technology design?

Part 3: GenAI Use (1 sentence): In one sentence, describe whether you used genAI tools with this reading reflection and if so, which tool(s) you used and 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, each of which should last no more than 8 minutes. 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 12:30pm the day of class.

Role 1: The Expert

Your goal: Your goal is to help the class understand the technical system behind the robot in the paper.

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

Explain the technical system used in the paper.
Use at least 2 external sources to deepen the class's understanding of the robot/system
Identify technical limitations of the system.

Suggested slide format:

Title Slide: Your name, role = Expert
Technical System: Explain the technical system used in the paper
External Sources: As you're explaining the system, leverage at least 2 external sources (e.g., technical papers, documentation, web pages explaining certain concepts, videos) to help explain the system
Technical Limitations: Identify the technical limitations of the system
Impact: Describe the impact of the technical system on the research study / field as a whole
Discussion Prompt: Develop 2-3 questions that invite the class to think about how the technical system influences the human-robot interaction outcomes

Role 2: 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 3: 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 4: 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.

Peer Reviews

During the quarter, students enrolled in CMSC 20620 will be asked to write 2 peer-reviews and students enrolled in CMSC 30630 (grad level) will be asked to write 3 peer-reviews of the assigned course readings. Your review should be submitted via Canvas at 12:30pm on the same day that the paper will be discussed. 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.
Review Score: For most conferences, papers are given a score to indicate the reviewer's perspective on whether they believe the paper should be accepted or rejected, please choose a score from the list below. Your score should reflect what you have written in your review.
- Strong Accept (SA): This is a very strong paper, I will fight for its acceptance.
- Accept (A): This is a strong paper that should be accepted.
- Weak Accept (WA): My opinion on this paper could be swayed, but I am leaning accept.
- Weak Reject (WR): My opinion on this paper could be swayed, but I am leaning reject.
- Reject (R): This is not a strong paper that should be rejected.
- Strong Reject (SR): The paper is trivial, known, or wrong, I will fight for its rejection.
GenAI Use: In one sentence, describe whether you used genAI tools with this reading reflection and if so, which tool(s) you used and 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.