Assignments
Course Assignments
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: Paper title, paper citation, your name, date, role = Advocate
- Main Argument(s): What are the core claim(s) of the paper?
- Supporting Evidence #1: External source, key findings, connection to paper
- Supporting Evidence #2: External source, key findings, connection to paper
- Impact: What makes this work impactful?
- 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: Paper title, paper citation, your name, date, role = Critic
- Main Argument(s): What are the core claim(s) of the paper?
- Your Critique: What's your primary issue or concern?
- Supporting Evidence: External source that supports your critique
- Your Alternative: How would you propose the interpretation, conclusion, or model be altered?
- Balanced View: What does the paper still get right?
- 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: Paper title, paper citation, your name, date, role = Critic
- Main Argument(s): What are the core claim(s) of the paper?
- 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?
- Evolution of the Idea: How has scholarly thinking shifted over time?
- 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
Coming soon.