Building a Better Bot: Designing Robots to Help Students Thrive

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

Researchers partnered with college students to develop a socially assistive robot focused on boosting productivity and well-being through personalized support.

Lower aggregate preference scores indicate higher overall preference among the five robots evaluated.
Lower aggregate preference scores indicate higher overall preference among the five robots evaluated.

A participatory design approach identified key features and ethical considerations for a social robot aimed at improving time management and inclusivity for college students, including those with ADHD.

Conventional productivity tools often fail to address the nuanced challenges college students-particularly those with ADHD-face in maintaining focus and consistent self-regulation. This study, ‘Ethically-Aware Participatory Design of a Productivity Social Robot for College Students’, details a participatory design process involving students and a well-being coach to co-create a socially assistive robot tailored to enhance academic productivity. Key findings reveal specific design preferences and actionable recommendations, alongside stakeholder-derived ethical guidelines crucial for responsible implementation. How can we best leverage socially assistive robotics to foster inclusive and effective support for student well-being and success in higher education?

Navigating the Productivity Paradox in Higher Education

The demands of higher education increasingly present students with significant hurdles in effectively managing their time and prioritizing academic responsibilities. This struggle isn’t simply a matter of poor planning; a confluence of factors – including heavier workloads, the need for greater self-direction, and the pressures of social life – contribute to a growing productivity gap. Consequently, many students experience heightened levels of stress, anxiety, and ultimately, diminished academic performance. The consistent juggling of competing priorities often leads to procrastination, missed deadlines, and a feeling of being overwhelmed, creating a cycle that negatively impacts both well-being and scholastic success. This challenge is particularly acute in the current landscape where students are expected to be proactive and independent learners, navigating complex schedules and diverse commitments with limited direct oversight.

For students navigating the demands of higher education while managing conditions impacting executive function, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the typical challenges of time management and prioritization are significantly exacerbated. These individuals often experience difficulties with sustained attention, impulse control, and working memory – core skills essential for academic success. This isn’t simply a matter of needing to ‘try harder’; rather, neurological differences create inherent obstacles to planning, organizing, and completing tasks, even when motivation is present. Consequently, students with ADHD may require substantially more effort to achieve the same results as their peers, leading to increased stress, frustration, and a heightened risk of falling behind – highlighting the need for targeted support that acknowledges and addresses these specific cognitive challenges.

Current collegiate support structures frequently prove inadequate in addressing the nuanced productivity difficulties experienced by students. A recent study, involving a cohort of 32 undergraduates-predominantly freshmen (17), with representation from sophomore (7), junior (1), and senior (7) classes-sought to pinpoint the specific shortcomings of existing resources. Findings suggest a prevalent need for assistance that moves beyond generalized time management advice and instead offers personalized strategies tailored to individual executive function profiles and academic demands. Participants consistently reported a desire for proactive interventions – tools and support implemented before challenges escalate – rather than reactive measures offered only after academic performance suffers. This highlights a gap between available support and the practical, individualized assistance students require to thrive.

Co-Creation as a Guiding Principle

The robot’s development utilized a participatory design process, meaning students and a Student Success and Well-Being Coach were actively engaged throughout all phases. This involved direct input on requirements gathering, design iterations, and usability testing. This collaborative methodology ensured the final product would address genuine student needs and preferences, and that the robot’s functionality would be relevant and acceptable to the target user group. The inclusion of a Student Success and Well-Being Coach provided expert guidance on appropriate support mechanisms and potential impacts on student well-being.

Multiple robot prototypes were developed and iteratively refined through direct user testing. A focused group workshop, comprising nine participants – four diagnosed with ADHD and five neurotypical individuals – provided critical feedback on prototype functionality and user experience. This testing process prioritized identifying design elements that effectively supported student needs while avoiding potential usability issues for diverse cognitive profiles. Data collected during the workshop informed subsequent prototype revisions, ensuring the final design reflected user preferences and addressed specific challenges identified by participants.

The design process prioritized the seamless integration of a social robot into the daily routines of students, focusing on supportive functionality that avoids perceptions of obtrusiveness. This involved careful consideration of interaction timing, modality, and the robot’s physical presence to minimize disruption to existing study habits or social interactions. Research focused on identifying support mechanisms – such as reminders, study prompts, or well-being check-ins – that could be delivered proactively yet respectfully, allowing students to easily dismiss or customize interactions as needed. The goal was to create a supportive presence that enhanced, rather than interfered with, the student experience.

Participants were presented with a storyboard to guide their interaction and provide context for the task.
Participants were presented with a storyboard to guide their interaction and provide context for the task.

Form Follows Function: A Design Focused on Support

The robot’s physical design prioritized portability and minimized perceived intimidation. Dimensions were constrained to approximately 15cm in height and a base diameter of 10cm, allowing for easy transport in a backpack or placement on a standard desk. Weight was maintained under 500 grams to further enhance portability and prevent obstruction of workspace. The aesthetic focused on rounded edges and a neutral color palette, avoiding features commonly associated with authority or surveillance. This form factor was selected based on initial user studies indicating that smaller, less imposing robots were more readily accepted and integrated into daily student life than larger or more complex designs.

The robot incorporates two primary functionalities to support student well-being: task prioritization and stress monitoring. Task prioritization allows the robot to assist students in organizing assignments by intelligently sequencing tasks based on deadlines and estimated completion times. This feature utilizes a weighted algorithm considering both due dates and self-reported task difficulty. Complementing this, the robot employs physiological sensors – specifically, heart rate variability (HRV) and skin conductance – to continuously monitor stress levels. When elevated stress is detected, the robot initiates pre-programmed interventions, such as guided breathing exercises or reminders to utilize campus mental health resources, aiming to provide timely support and prevent escalation.

The robot’s communication strategy employed multiple modalities to facilitate effective interaction with users. Rather than issuing commands, the system was specifically designed to offer suggestions, preserving user autonomy in task management and study habits. Evaluation of this approach via user study resulted in a mean score of 4.0 (on a 5-point Likert scale) for stated willingness to recommend the productivity-focused robot, indicating a high degree of user acceptance of this non-directive communication paradigm.

Four distinct robot prototypes-Bimo, Max, Roberto, and Bammy-were developed by separate teams.
Four distinct robot prototypes-Bimo, Max, Roberto, and Bammy-were developed by separate teams.

Ethical Considerations and User Agency

Throughout the development of this robotic intervention, ethical considerations weren’t merely add-ons but foundational principles guiding the entire design process. Recognizing the sensitive nature of working with students, particularly regarding potential attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the team prioritized robust data privacy protocols to safeguard personal information. Beyond data security, significant effort was devoted to ensuring the robot’s functionality actively promoted student well-being. This involved careful consideration of the robot’s interactions – designing it to be a supportive aid that fostered independence and self-regulation, rather than a prescriptive or controlling presence. The aim was to create a tool that seamlessly integrated into the learning environment, enhancing student experience without compromising their autonomy or creating undue reliance.

Researchers proactively assessed potential negative attitudes toward robotic assistance, recognizing that initial apprehension could hinder the successful integration of the technology. This foresight allowed for the design of strategies to address concerns and build trust with student users. The study revealed a promising level of acceptance, with participants averaging a 3.7 out of 5 on a scale measuring their likelihood of actually utilizing the robot as a learning aid. This indicates a generally positive predisposition towards the technology, suggesting that, with careful implementation, the robot could be readily embraced as a supportive tool within educational settings and that initial resistance is not expected to be a significant barrier to adoption.

The robot’s development centered on fostering user agency, deliberately designed to operate as a supportive aid and not a directive force, thereby upholding individual autonomy. This approach was crucial in ensuring participants felt empowered, rather than controlled, during interactions. The study meticulously balanced representation by including an even distribution of participants-16 identified with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and 16 without-based on established Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) scores. This careful participant selection aimed to provide a robust and nuanced understanding of the robot’s impact across diverse cognitive profiles, ensuring findings were not skewed by a disproportionate representation of any single group and validating its potential as an inclusive assistive technology.

The pursuit of assistive technology, as demonstrated by this study’s participatory design process, often layers complexity onto simple needs. The researchers rightly focused on personalized support and inclusivity, recognizing that a truly effective robot must adapt to the individual. This echoes a sentiment expressed by Ken Thompson: “Sometimes it’s better to rewrite the code than to spend hours trying to understand it.” The same principle applies here – a relentless focus on core functionality, driven by direct user feedback, yields a more elegant and ultimately more useful design. The iterative process, prioritizing clarity over exhaustive feature lists, acknowledges that minimizing extraneous elements enhances the overall experience, mirroring a commitment to structural honesty.

What Remains?

The exercise, distilled, reveals not a blueprint for a productivity robot, but a map of student need. The participatory design process, while yielding predictable requests for scheduling and task management, highlighted a deeper current: a desire for support, not simply efficiency. The robot’s utility, then, isn’t in conquering procrastination, but in mitigating the anxieties that birth it. The lingering question isn’t ‘can a robot improve time management?’ but ‘what does it mean to be supported, and can that be engineered without diminishing the self?’

Future work must address the inherent paradox of assistive technology: the more personalized the support, the more reliant the user. The study cautiously circles the ethical implications of creating dependence, yet the design itself, however thoughtfully conceived, inevitably treads that line. The field requires a rigorous examination of ‘good’ assistance-assistance that empowers, rather than enables-and a willingness to accept that some needs may be better addressed through systemic change, rather than technological intervention.

Ultimately, the value of this work resides not in the robot that could be built, but in the questions it forces one to confront. The field’s trajectory demands a pruning of ambition, a stripping away of extraneous features to reveal the core principles of truly assistive design. What remains, after that process, is what truly matters.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.01111.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-03 00:53