Abstract
Conversational pedagogical agents guide and scaffold student dialogue using natural language both in individual and collaborative learning settings. Although conversational agents have been developed to meet a wide variety of educational needs, there are still open research questions concerning the effective design of the agents. This chapter presents the results of an experimental collaborative learning activity exploring whether the different agent roles (peer or tutor) may affect the students’ perceptions of the agent or their conversational style in their responses to it. The study findings provide valuable insights into how the different agent appearance and communication styles can have an impact on the degree of formality in students’ utterances.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. F. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 334–352.
Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with helping agents. In Proceedings of the 14th Intl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2009) (pp. 365–372). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1997). Is it an Agent, or just a Program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Intelligent agents III agent theories, architectures, and languages (pp. 21–35). Berlin: Springer.
Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a social conversational pedagogical agent-design challenges and methodological approaches. In D. Perez-Marin & I. Pascual-Nieto (Eds.), Conversational agents and natural language interaction: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 128–155). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2008). Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 1–15.
Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2009). A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents—a user preference perspective. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(1), 39–71. IOS Press. Retrieved January 13, 2012.
Harrer, A., McLaren, B. M., Walker, E., Bollen, L., & Sewall, J. (2006). Creating cognitive tutors for collaborative learning: Steps toward realization. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(3–4), 175–209.
Kerly, A., Ellis, R., & Bull, S. (2009). Conversational agents in E-Learning. In Applications and Innovations in Intelligent Systems XVI - Proceedings of AI (pp. 169–182). London, UK: Springer.
Kumar, R., Ai, H., Beuth, J. L., & Rosé, C. P. (2010). Socially capable conversational tutors can be effective in collaborative learning situations. In Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 156–164). Berlin: Springer.
Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 383–390). Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(3). Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=3
Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Plant, E. A., Doerr, C. E., & Baylor, A. L. (2010). The influence of computer‐based model’s race and gender on female students’ attitudes and beliefs towards engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 35–44.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 77–88.
Sklar, E., & Richards, D. (2010). Agent-based systems for human learners. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(2), 111–135.
Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., O’Hara, K., & Powell, A. B. (2010). Supporting group math cognition in virtual math teams with software conversational agents. In First North American GeoGebra Conference. Ithaca, NY.
Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Tsiatsos, T. (2012). Using a conversational agent for promoting collaborative language learning. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS) (pp. 162–165). IEEE.
Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Tsiatsos, T. (2014). A configurable conversational agent to trigger students’ productive dialogue: A pilot study in the CALL domain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 62–91.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576–585.
Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 759–769). New York, NY: Springer.
Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 279–306.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kleoniki Agrafiotou and Normperta Magkitouka for their continued support in this project. We are also grateful to the students and teachers of the participating school for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tegos, S., Karakostas, A., Demetriadis, S. (2014). Conversational Agents for Learning: How the Agent Role Affects Student Communication. In: Karagiannidis, C., Politis, P., Karasavvidis, I. (eds) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6501-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6501-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6500-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6501-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)