Computer Science researchers have long sought ways to apply the fruits of their labors to education. From the Logo turtles to the latest Cognitive Tutors, the allure of computers that will understand and help humans learn and grow has been a constant thread in Artificial Intelligence research. Now, advances in robotics and our understanding of Human-Robot Interaction make it feasible to develop physically-present robots that are capable of presenting educational material in an engaging manner, adapting online to sensory information from individual students, and building sophisticated, personalized models of a student's mastery over complex educational domains. In this paper, we discuss how using physical robots as platforms for artificially intelligent tutors enables an expanded space of possible educational interactions. We also describe a work-in-progress to (1) extend previous work in personalized user models for robotic tutoring and (2) further explore the differences between interaction with physical robots and onscreen agents. Specifically, we are examining how embedding an tutoring interaction inside a story, game, or activity with an agent may differentially affect learning gains and engagement in interactions with physical robots and screen-based agents.

Recent research has demonstrated that emotion plays a key role in human decision making. Across a wide range of disciplines, old concepts, such as the classical rational actor" model, have fallen out of favor in place of more nuanced models (e.g., the frameworks of behavioral economics and emotional intelligence) that acknowledge the role of emotions in analyzing human actions. We now know that context, framing, and emotional and physiological state can all drastically influence decision making in humans. Emotions serve an essential, though often overlooked, role in our lives, thoughts, and decisions. However, it is not clear how and to what extent emotions should impact the design of artificial agents, such as social robots. In this paper I argue that enabling robots, especially those intended to interact with humans, to sense and model emotions will improve their performance across a wide variety of human-interaction applications. I outline two broad research topics (affective inference and learning from affect) towards which progress can be made to enable affect-aware" robots and give a few examples of applications in which robots with these capabilities may outperform their non-affective counterparts. By identifying these important problems, both necessary for fully affect-aware social robots, I hope to clarify terminology, assess the current research landscape, and provide goalposts for future research.

For business transformation to succeed, the whole of innovation must be greater than the progress of its parts. But in an era of digital Darwinism, as technology and society evolve faster than many businesses can keep up, it may be up to the "parts" to lead the way toward holistic business transformation. Digital Darwinism doesn't discriminate in selecting which companies survive, thrive or fade. Outcomes are dependent on the impact of business efforts. But experimentation and change have to start somewhere.

There has been a large body of research demonstrating that students that receive one-on-one tutoring perform, on average, significantly better than students learning via conventional classroom instruction when tested on the same material (Bloom 1984; VanLehn 2011). During tutoring, the teacher has the ability to tailor the instruction and support to the individual learner, creating a personalized learning environment for each student. Research involving robotic agents Figure 1: Child interacting with a NAO robot in a tutoring as tutors indicates that the physical presence of a robot tutor scenario can increase cognitive learning gains (Leyzberg et al. 2010). Further research shows that a robot tutor employing relatively simple personalization strategies can benefit the that on-demand help is useful in interactive learning environments learner (Leyzberg, Spaulding, and Scassellati 2014).