Impact of Agent Role on Confusion Induction and Learning
The presentation of contradictory information to trigger deeper processing and increase learning has been investigated in a variety of ways (e.g., conversational agents, worked examples). However, the impact of information source (e.g., expertise, gender) and the relationship between the contradicting sources (e.g., status level) has not been investigated to the same degree. We previously reported that confusion can successfully be induced and learning increased when contradictory information was presented by two conversational agents (tutor, peer student). In the present experiment we investigated contradictions posed by two peer student agents. Self-reports of confusion and learner responses to embedded forced-choice questions revealed that the contradictions still successfully induced confusion. There were, however, differences in the nature of confusion induction based on the inter-agent relationship (i.e., student-student vs. tutor-student). Learners performed better on transfer tasks when presented with contradictions compared to a no-contradiction control, but only when they were successfully confused.
Keywordsconfusion contradiction affect tutoring animated pedagogical agents intelligent tutoring systems learning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Lehman, B., D’Mello, S., Strain, A., Mills, C., Gross, M., Dobbins, A., et al.: Inducting and tracking confusion with contradictions during complex learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 22, 71–93 (2013)Google Scholar
- 4.McLaren, B.M., et al.: To err is human, to explain and correct is divine: A study of interactive erroneous examples with middle school math students. In: Ravenscroft, A., Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C.D., Hernández-Leo, D. (eds.) EC-TEL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7563, pp. 222–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row Peterson, Evanston (1957)Google Scholar
- 10.Piaget, J.: The origins of intelligence. International University Press, New York (1952)Google Scholar
- 13.Goldman, S., Braasch, J., Wiley, J., Graesser, A., Brodowinska, K.: Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly 47, 356–381 (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Baylor, A., Kim, Y.: Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15, 95–115 (2005)Google Scholar
- 18.Graesser, A., D’Mello, S.: Emotions during the learning of difficult material. In: Ross, B. (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 57, pp. 183–225. Elsevier (2012)Google Scholar
- 22.Baylor, A., Kim, Y.: The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In: Richards, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, pp. 1503–1506. AACE, Chesapeake (2003)Google Scholar