JCU Logo
JOHN CABOT UNIVERSITY

COURSE CODE: "PS 399B"
COURSE NAME: "Special Topics in Psychology: Experimental Social Robotics"
SEMESTER & YEAR: Fall 2024
SYLLABUS

INSTRUCTOR: Merel Keijsers
EMAIL: [email protected]
 HOURS: MW 4:30 PM 5:45 PM
TOTAL NO. OF CONTACT HOURS: 45
CREDITS:
PREREQUISITES: Prerequisites: Junior Standing; PS 101
OFFICE HOURS:
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
An in-depth treatment of a current area of special concern in the field of Psychology. Topics may vary.
May be taken more than once for credit with different topics.
SUMMARY OF COURSE CONTENT:

In this special topic course, students will explore current issues in social robotics from an experimental perspective. By analyzing the relevant literature, designing, and setting up experimental studies, students will learn how to experimentally address questions in social robotics and HRI. They will also develop and refine their teamwork capacity and project-management skills. 

 

Students will first choose a topic to investigate among several proposed by the instructor. Through a combination of discussion and practice sections, students will then work in groups to conduct a literature review, create a research proposal, and complete an IRB request for their designed study. During the discussion sections, students will review how to evaluate sources and synthesize literature, how to develop testable hypothesis, how to design a controlled experiment, how to develop an analyses plan, and how to write an IRB application.

 
LEARNING OUTCOMES:

By the end of this course, students should be able to:

  • Effectively operationalize a general research question into a set of critical, relevant, and testable hypotheses (LOS 1, 2)
  • Demonstrate their ability to provide as well as respond to constructive feedback (LOS 2, 3)
  • Consider the ethical implications of their research design and complete an IRB application (LOS 4)
  • Write a literature review and justification for the current experiment (LOS 3)
  • Elaborate a detailed methodology and analysis plan to test a specific hypothesis (LOS 2, 3)
TEXTBOOK:
NONE
REQUIRED RESERVED READING:
NONE

RECOMMENDED RESERVED READING:
NONE
GRADING POLICY
-ASSESSMENT METHODS:
AssignmentGuidelinesWeight
PaperCompleted in four stages each worth 12.5%. This part of the grade is assessed as a group. The paper consists of four parts, which will be completed throughout the course: a literature review (week 7), IRB (week 8), OSF preregistration of methods and analysis plan (week 11) and finally, an Introduction and Methods section that is based on these three components (week 15). The first three of these will receive two rounds of review before the final version is due. The first round is based on peer feedback (see also the grading item Feedback below); the second round of feedback is provided by me. There is a strong recommendation to revise the section in between these rounds of feedback, but this is not strictly required. Since the fourth part (Introduction and Methods) is strongly based on the first three, this will only receive one round of feedback, provided by me.50% total (4 x 12.5%)
Planning, commitment, and team spiritThis part of the grade is assessed individually. Every Wednesday lecture, each group has to set a list of tasks/objectives to complete for upcoming Monday & assign names to these tasks; every Monday lecture will start by going over this list, share findings from completed tasks, and evaluate which can be considered complete and which will need further follow up by Wednesday. At the end of the semester, the collection of these will be used by me to assess the division of tasks, the following through on commitments of individual group members, the planning and adjustment of plans when necessary; this is 15% of the final grade. The remaining 5% is based on peer feedback, which will be completed by the group members. 20%
Giving feedback (written and in class discussions) This part of the grade is assessed individually. Written feedback: During the course, students are expected to help review and provide feedback on another’s work. To this end, each student will provide written feedback (based on a review form provided by me) to a first iteration of another group’s written section (i.e. literature, IRB, OSF). Each of these feedback forms will be graded by me, using the following scale: 0 (missing), 2 (incomplete or superficial), 3 (mostly complete, main issues identified but either missing some important issues or lacking in constructiveness), 4 (mostly complete, identifies all main issues, constructive), 5 (complete, critical, nuanced, constructive). Discussion participation: Furthermore, in week 1, 2, 3, 9, and and 12 the groups will informally present the current state of their project (week 1-3: hypotheses and rough research designs; week 12: results) to another and discuss. For each of these discussions, each student is expected to participate, meaning that they have to ask at least one critical question or piece of feedback to another group. If they do so, they earn 1 point to their course grade for each discussion; 5 in total. 20 (15% + 5%)
Presentation of the workThis part of the grade is assessed individually.
 Groups are expected to present their work during the finals week in a 20 minute presentation, plus 10 minutes for questions. 10%

-ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:
AWork of this quality directly addresses the question or problem raised and provides a coherent argument displaying an extensive knowledge of relevant information or content. This type of work demonstrates the ability to critically evaluate concepts and theory and has an element of novelty and originality. There is clear evidence of a significant amount of reading beyond that required for the course.
BThis is highly competent level of performance and directly addresses the question or problem raised.There is a demonstration of some ability to critically evaluatetheory and concepts and relate them to practice. Discussions reflect the student’s own arguments and are not simply a repetition of standard lecture andreference material. The work does not suffer from any major errors or omissions and provides evidence of reading beyond the required assignments.
CThis is an acceptable level of performance and provides answers that are clear but limited, reflecting the information offered in the lectures and reference readings.
DThis level of performances demonstrates that the student lacks a coherent grasp of the material.Important information is omitted and irrelevant points included.In effect, the student has barely done enough to persuade the instructor that s/he should not fail.
FThis work fails to show any knowledge or understanding of the issues raised in the question. Most of the material in the answer is irrelevant.
-ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS:
ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EXAMINATION POLICY
You cannot make-up a major exam (midterm or final) without the permission of the Dean’s Office. The Dean’s Office will grant such permission only when the absence was caused by a serious impediment, such as a documented illness, hospitalization or death in the immediate family (in which you must attend the funeral) or other situations of similar gravity. Absences due to other meaningful conflicts, such as job interviews, family celebrations, travel difficulties, student misunderstandings or personal convenience, will not be excused. Students who will be absent from a major exam must notify the Dean’s Office prior to that exam. Absences from class due to the observance of a religious holiday will normally be excused. Individual students who will have to miss class to observe a religious holiday should notify the instructor by the end of the Add/Drop period to make prior arrangements for making up any work that will be missed. The final exam period runs until ____________
ACADEMIC HONESTY
As stated in the university catalog, any student who commits an act of academic dishonesty will receive a failing grade on the work in which the dishonesty occurred. In addition, acts of academic dishonesty, irrespective of the weight of the assignment, may result in the student receiving a failing grade in the course. Instances of academic dishonesty will be reported to the Dean of Academic Affairs. A student who is reported twice for academic dishonesty is subject to summary dismissal from the University. In such a case, the Academic Council will then make a recommendation to the President, who will make the final decision.
STUDENTS WITH LEARNING OR OTHER DISABILITIES
John Cabot University does not discriminate on the basis of disability or handicap. Students with approved accommodations must inform their professors at the beginning of the term. Please see the website for the complete policy.
SCHEDULE

Week 1 Introductions to one another, the course; exploration and group discussion of the proposed research questions. In-class review on how to search for and select academic papers. Student groups start searching for and selecting academic sources to include. 

Week 2 Student groups present their first thoughts on their research question, and receive input and feedback from the other groups. In-class review of how to critically evaluate papers, with a focus on relevant topics from methods and statistics. Student groups continue literature search. 

Week 3 Student groups present an updated proposal of their research question operationalisation/study design, and receive input and feedback from other groups. In-class review of operationalisation, validity, and reliability; thinking about statistical implications of experiment designs. 

Week 4 Final revisions/refinements of RQ/hypotheses, start of iterative experiment design; In-class review of ethical research design. Student groups complete their first draft for the literature review.

Week 5 Feedback #1 on the literature review, given by other groups in class. In-class discussion of how to write an IRB proposal. Student groups revise their literature review & submit their second draft; and start on the IRB.

Week 6 In class review on the details of study design: confounds, attention checks, sample size etc. Student groups receive feedback #2 on their literature review, continue working on their IRB proposal.

Week 7 Feedback #1 on the IRB, given by other groups in class. In class review on the setup of pilot; design of recruitment tactics; any preliminary tests; analysis plan. Student groups revise their IRB and hand in the final version of their literature review.

Week 8 In-class review of the OSF research proposal; what needs to go in there, where the different bits of information should come from. Student groups start drafting their OSF proposal, receive feedback #2 on IRB, groups revise and submit the final version.

Week 9 Student groups present their research proposal, provide another with feedback and questions. In class discussion of the required analyses and checks. Student groups complete and hand in the first draft of their OSF proposal.

Week 10 Feedback #1 on the OSF proposal. Student groups revise their proposal and prepare a second draft.

Week 11 Setup of the pilot. Student groups receive feedback #2 and complete the final version of their research proposal.

Week 12 Pilot testing; Student groups start drafting their Introduction and Methods.

Week 13 Student groups present their pilot outcomes, evaluating the data collection and findings: things that went well, things that would be done different, observations from data collection, first impressions on data.
Student groups hand in their final version of the OSF, finish their first draft of the Introduction and methods

Week 14 Instructor feedback on the introduction and Methods; student groups revise.

Week 15 Final presentation of work,  introduction and Methods final version due.