What Do Learners and Pedagogical Agents Discuss When Given Opportunities for Open-Ended Dialogue?

Abstract

Researchers claim that pedagogical agents engender opportunities for social learning in digital environments. Prior literature, however, has not thoroughly examined the discourse between agents and learners. To address this gap, we analyzed a data corpus of interactions between agents and learners using open coding methods. Analysis revealed that: (1) conversations between learners and agents included sporadic on-task interactions with limited follow-up; (2) conversations were often playful and lighthearted; (3) learners positioned agents in multiple instructional/social roles; (4) learners utilized numerous strategies for understanding agent responses; (5) learners were interested in agents' relationship status and love interests; and (6) learners asked personal questions to the agent but did not reciprocate to requests to talk about themselves.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Davidson

Morton

Jack

(2008). Language learning with interactive virtual agent scenarios and speech recognition: Lessons learned. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds, 19, 605–619.

Baylor

(2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373–382.

Baylor

Kim

(2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115.

Baylor

Ryu

(2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394.

Bickmore

(2003). Relational agents: Effecting change through human–computer relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Boston, MA.

Bickmore

Cassell

(2000). “How about this weather?” Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. Proceedings from the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fall Symposium. North Falmouth, MA: AAAI Press.

Bickmore

Cassell

(2005). Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In van Kuppevelt

Dybkjaer

Bernsen

(Eds.), Advances in natural multimodal dialogue systems (pp. 23–54). New York, NY: Kluwer.

Bickmore

Gruber

(2010). Relational agents in clinical psychiatry. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18(2), 119–130.

Bickmore

Shulman

Yin

(2009). Engagement vs. deceit: Virtual humans with human autobiographies. Intelligent Virtual Agents: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5773, 6–19.

10.

Brahnam

De Angeli

(2008). Editorial: Special issue on the abuse and misuse of social agents. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 287–291.

11.

Choi

Clark

(2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441–466.

12.

De Angeli

(2009). Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents. PsycNology Journal, 7(1), 49–57.

13.

de Freitas

(2008). Serious virtual worlds: A scoping study. Bristol, England: JISC. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/seriousvirtualworldsv1.pdf

14.

Doering

Veletsianos

Yerasimou

(2008). Conversational agents and their longitudinal affordances on communication and interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 251–270.

15.

Giorgi

(1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.

16.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

17.

Graesser

Jeon

Duffy

(2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 298–322.

18.

Gulz

(2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.

19.

Gulz

(2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters—Differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 405–418.

20.

Gustafson

Bell

(2000). Speech technology on trial: Experiences from the August system. Natural Language Engineering, 1(1), 1–15.

21.

Heller

Procter

(2010). Animated pedagogical agents and immersive worlds: Two worlds colliding. In Veletsianos

(Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 301–316). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

22.

Hokanson

Fraher

(2008). Narrative structure, myth, and cognition for instructional design. Educational Technology, 48(1), 27–32.

23.

Kim

Baylor

A. L.

(2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223–243.

24.

Kim

Baylor

Shen

(2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 220–234.

25.

Kramer

N. C.

Bente

(2010). Personalizing e-learning: The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 71–87.

26.

Kreijns

Kirschner

P. A.

Jochems

(2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.

27.

Merriam

(1995). What can you tell from an N of 1?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60.

28.

Merriam, S., & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Moreno

Mayer

Spires

Lester

(2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.

30.

Nass

Moon

Carney

(1999). Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systems. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 1093–1109.

31.

Norman

(1997). How might people interact with agents. In Bradshaw

J. M.

(Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.

32.

Payr

(2003). The virtual university's faculty: An overview of educational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal, 17(1), 1–19.

33.

Payr

(2005). Not quite an editorial: Educational agents and (e-)learning. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 199–213.

34.

Reeves

Nass

(1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

35.

Robinson

Traum

Ittycheriah

Henderer

(2008). What would you ask a conversational agent? Observations of human-agent dialogues in a museum setting. In Calzolari

Choukri

Maegaard

Mariani

Odjik

Piperidis

Tapias

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Language Resources and Evaluation Association Conference (pp. 1125–1131). Marrakech, Morocco.

36.

Schumaker

R. P.

Liu

Ginsburg

Chen

(2006). Evaluating mass knowledge acquisition using the ALICE chatterbot: The AZ-ALICE dialog system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1132–1140.

37.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology (National Educational Technology Plan). Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf

38.

Veletsianos

(2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576–585.

39.

Veletsianos

(2012). How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 275–283.

40.

Veletsianos

Miller

(2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969–986.

41.

Veletsianos

Miller

Doering

(2009). EnALI: A research and design framework for virtual characters and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 171–194.

42.

Veletsianos

Russell

(in press). Pedagogical agents. In Spector

Merrill

Elen

Bishop

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer Academic.

43.

Veletsianos

Scharber

Doering

(2008). When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescent social studies students and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 292–301.