You are here:

Conversational Agents and Learning Outcomes: An Experimental Investigation
PROCEEDINGS

, , Athabasca University, Canada

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-62-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

An experimental approach was used to compare two types of web interfaces (text-based vs. conversation-based) to content on the life and theories of Jean Piaget. The content in each interface was identical with the exception of third- vs. first-person references. Fifty-nine students in psychology first completed a pretest of Piagetian knowledge and then were randomly assigned to one of the two interfaces. After 20 minutes of review/conversation, students completed a 35-item exam designed to measure knowledge retention and a questionnaire to measure their perceptions of the assigned interface. Contrary to expectations, the text-based interface was rated significantly higher on measures of enjoyment and utility and led to better learning outcomes in comparison to the conversational agent. Altogether, the findings indicate that the use of conversational agents in distance education needs to be carefully matched to the learning goals and outcomes.

Citation

Heller, B. & Procter, M. (2007). Conversational Agents and Learning Outcomes: An Experimental Investigation. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2007--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 945-950). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. André, E., Rist, T, & Müller, J. (1999). Employing AI methods to control the behaviour of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 415-448.
  2. Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
  3. Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson, H., & Yan, H. (2000). Human conversation as a system framework: Designing embodied conversational agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, and E. Churchhill (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents (pp. 29 – 63). Cambridge: MIT Press
  4. Clark, R.E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
  5. Craig, S.D., Driscoll, D.M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163-183.
  6. Dehn, D.M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of the empirical literature. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
  7. Dirkin, K.H., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14 (2), 113-128.
  8. Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: A Psychological theory of learning. In C. Fosnot (Ed.) Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, (pp.8-33). New York: Teachers College Press.
  9. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of Animated pedagogical agents: A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322-339.
  10. Hadwin, F.H., Winne, P.H., & Nesbit, J.C. (2005). Roles for software technologies in advancing research and theory in educational psychology. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 1-24.
  11. Heller, R.B., Procter, M., Mah, D., Jewell, L., & Cheung, B. (2005). Freudbot: An Investigation of Chatbot Technology in Distance Education. Proceedings of the World Conference on Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications.
  12. Heo, H. (2004). Storytelling and retelling as narrative inquiry in cyberlearning environments. In C.M.D.J.-D. &. R.P.R. Atkinson (Ed.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference.
  13. Johnson. W.L., Rickel, J.W., & Lester, J.C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
  14. Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806-813.
  15. Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261.
  16. Rumelhart, D.E (1975). Notes on schema for stories. In Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins, editors, Representation and Understanding: Studies on Cognitive Science, Language, Thought, and Culture: Advances in the Study of Cognition, pages 211-236. Academic Press, New York.
  17. Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read