Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning

Abstract

Betty’s Brain is a computer-based learning environment that capitalizes on the social aspects of learning. In Betty’s Brain, students instruct a character called a Teachable Agent (TA) which can reason based on how it is taught. Two studies demonstrate the protégé effect: students make greater effort to learn for their TAs than they do for themselves. The first study involved 8th-grade students learning biology. Although all students worked with the same Betty’s Brain software, students in the TA condition believed they were teaching their TAs, while in another condition, they believed they were learning for themselves. TA students spent more time on learning activities (e.g., reading) and also learned more. These beneficial effects were most pronounced for lower achieving children. The second study used a verbal protocol with 5th-grade students to determine the possible causes of the protégé effect. As before, students learned either for their TAs or for themselves. Like study 1, students in the TA condition spent more time on learning activities. These children treated their TAs socially by attributing mental states and responsibility to them. They were also more likely to acknowledge errors by displaying negative affect and making attributions for the causes of failures. Perhaps having a TA invokes a sense of responsibility that motivates learning, provides an environment in which knowledge can be improved through revision, and protects students’ egos from the psychological ramifications of failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  1. Ames R (1975) Teacher’s attributions of responsibility: some unexpected non-defensive effects. J Educ Psychol 67(5):668–676. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.67.5.668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arena DA, Schwartz DL, Bailenson JN (2009) Effects of social belief on spatial learning in virtual reality. Paper presented to the Games, Learning and Society Conference 5.0, Madison, WI

  3. Bailenson JN, Blascovich J (2004) Avatars. In: Bainbridge WS (ed) Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, vol 1. Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington, MA, pp 64–68

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baylor AL (2007) Pedagogical agents as a social interface. Educ Technol 47(1):11–14

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baylor AL, Kim Y (2005) Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. Int J Artif Intell Educ 15(2):95–115

    Google Scholar 

  6. Biswas G, Leelawong K, Schwartz DL, Vye N, TAG-V (2005) Learning by teaching: a new agent paradigm for educational software. Appl Artif Intell 19:363–392. doi:10.1080/08839510590910200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall A, Swinth K, Hoyt C, Bailenson JN (2002) Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol Inq 13:103–124. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_01

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Shohamy D, Ross V, Reeves B, Wagner AD (2009) The impact of social belief on the neurophysiology of learning and memory. Abstracts from the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. San Francisco, CA

  9. Chi MTH, Roy M, Hausmann RGM (2008) Observing tutorial dialogues collaboratively: insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious learning. Cogn Sci 32:301–348. doi:10.1080/03640210701863396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clarebout G, Elen J, Johnson WL, Shaw E (2002) Animated pedagogical agents: an opportunity to be grasped? J Educ Multimed Hypermedia 11(3):267–286

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davachi L, Mitchell JP, Wagner AD (2003) Multiple routes to memory: distinct medial temporal lobe processes build item and source memories. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(4):2157–2162. doi:10.1073/pnas.0337195100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dweck CS (2000) Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elliot E, Dweck C (1988) Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(1):5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerhard M, Moore D, Hobbs D (2004) Embodiment and copresence in collaborative interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61(4):453–480. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Imbert R, de Antonio A (2000) The Bunny Dilemma: stepping between agents and avatars. In: Proceedings of the 17th Twente workshop on language and technology

  16. Kuhl PK, Tsao F-M, Liu H-M (2003) Foreign-language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:9096–9101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lester JC, Converse SA, Kahler SE, Barlow ST, Stone BA, Bhogal RS (1997) The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 359–366

  18. Moreno R, Mayer RE, Spires HA, Lester JC (2001) The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn Instr 19:177–213. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Okita SY, Bailenson J, Schwartz DL (2007) The mere belief of social interaction improves learning. In: McNamara DS, Trafton JG (eds) The proceedings of the 29th meeting of the cognitive science society. August, Nashville, pp 1355–1360

    Google Scholar 

  20. Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C, LeMaster R (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. Phys Teach 44(1):18–23. doi:10.1119/1.2150754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pesce M (2000) The playful world: interactive toys and the future of imagination. Ballantine Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reeves B, Nass C (1998) The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Renkl A (1995) Learning for later teaching: an exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learn Instr 5:21–36. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)00015-H

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ross L, Bierbrauer G, Polly S (1974) Attribution of educational outcomes by professional and nonprofessional instructors. J Pers Soc Psychol 29(5):609–618. doi:10.1037/h0036740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ryokai K, Vaucelle C, Cassell J (2003) Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. J Comput Assist Learn 19:195–208. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00020.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwartz DL, Blair KP, Biswas G, Leelawong K, Davis J (2007) Animations of thought: interactivity in the teachable agents paradigm. In: Lowe R, Schnotz W (eds) Learning with animation: research and implications for design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 114–140

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schwartz DL, Chase C, Chin DB, Oppezzo M, Kwong H, Okita S, Biswas G, Roscoe RD, Jeong H, Wagster JD (2009) Interactive metacognition: monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In: Handbook of metacognition in education (in press)

  28. Shimoda TA, White BY, Frederiksen JR (2002) Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Sci Educ 86:244–263. doi:10.1002/sce.10003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59(236):433–460. doi:10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Turkle S (1995) Life on the screen: identity in the age of the internet. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wagster J, Tan J, Wu Y, Biswas G, Schwartz DL (2007) Do learning by teaching environments with metacognitive support help students develop better learning behaviors? In: The Proceedings of the 29th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 695–700). August, Nashville, USA

  32. Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yee N, Bailenson J (2007) The proteus effect: the effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum Commun Res 33:271–290. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants EHR-0634044, SLC-0354453, and by the Department of Education under grant IES R305H060089. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the granting agencies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine C. Chase.

Appendix

Appendix

Fever Passage (Studies 1 and 2)

Many people worry when they get a fever. But, a fever can be a good thing. It’s part of your body’s defense system and means your body is working to kill an infection. A fever means the body is hot, and the heat helps to kill germs like bacteria and viruses.

How does the body increase its temperature? The brain has a set point that determines how hot the body gets. When the set point rises, it causes the body to get hotter. The set point rises when germs invade the body. When this happens, your brain tells the body that the temperature must be raised a few degrees to kill the germs.

There are four different ways the set point causes the body temperature to increase. One way is to decrease blood flow to the skin, by shrinking the veins (blood vessels). When less blood gets near the skin, the blood cannot release as much heat through the skin. This explains why people can have a fever but still feel cold in their hands and feet. There is less blood near the skin.

A second way is shivering. Shivering makes the muscles move. When muscles move, they produce heat. Shivering can make the body produce more heat than normal.

A third way is to raise body hairs. When the small hairs on the body stand up, pores (small holes) in the skin close. This means less heat can escape through the pores. It also means that less sweat can escape through the skin. When you have a fever, you sweat less, because sweating cools the body. Raised hair explains why a fever causes a person’s skin to feel tender. The little hairs get rubbed and irritate the skin.

A fourth way is to increase the body’s metabolism. A higher metabolism means that the body burns energy faster, and this causes it to produce more heat. Higher metabolism explains why people have faster breathing and a faster heart rate when they have a fever. A body with high metabolism needs more blood and oxygen.

If the body gets too hot, it will begin to kill its own cells. How does the body stop from getting too hot? When the body temperature reaches the set point, all the processes reverse. Blood goes to the skin, shivering stops, the hairs lie down, and metabolism decreases. Aspirin and Tylenol help reduce a fever by bringing down the set point, so the body stops trying to heat up. The good thing about aspirin is that it makes you feel better. The bad part is that there is less fever to help kill the germs.

Posttest Questions (Study 1)

Factual

  1. (1)

    Even though a fever feels bad, it can still be good for you. Why?

  2. (2)

    If you hold hands with someone who has a fever:

  • The person’s hand feels (circle one):

  1. (a)

    DAMP

  2. (b)

    DRY

  • The person’s hand feels (circle one):

  1. (a)

    HOT

  2. (b)

    COLD

Integration

(3) Explain what body hairs have to do with causing a fever. If there are many steps in the process, be sure to describe all of them clearly.

(4) Why is shivering not enough to cause a fever?

Application

(5) Here is a common situation. People wake up all sweaty, and their flu is gone. Why are they sweaty?

(6) Why does a dry nose mean a dog might have a fever?

Posttest Questions (Study 2)

Factual

1. Why do your hands and feet get cold when you have a fever?

2. What does Aspirin or Tylenol do?

Integration

3. How does the body stop having a fever?

4. When do you know that your body is recovering, and why?

Causal Reasoning

5. If raised body hair increases, what happens to heat release? Why?

6. If bloodflow to the skin decreases, what happens to heat production? Why?

7. If temperature set point increases, what happens to heat release? Why?

8. If germs decrease, what happens to sweat? Why?

9. If shivering increases, what happens to body temperature? Why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chase, C.C., Chin, D.B., Oppezzo, M.A. et al. Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 334–352 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Educational technology
  • Motivation
  • K-12 education
  • Peer tutoring