Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of a chatbot as a dialogic reading facilitator: its influence on learning interest and learner interactions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educational chatbots are gaining momentum due to their distinctive affordances of interactivity, immediacy, ease of use, and individualized experience. However, a fairly limited body of literature discusses how a chatbot can facilitate collaborative learning among peers in extensive reading contexts to encourage more vibrant interactions supporting further interest development. Therefore, this research aimed to analyze the affordances and limitations of a chatbot to facilitate human–human interactions by incorporating the refined Academically Productive Talk framework for nurturing a learning community, forming accurate knowledge, fostering rigorous thinking, and encouraging affective responses for elementary school learners. Specifically, the purpose of the research was to observe the situational interest of the learners, their interaction patterns, and their social learning behaviors. This research developed a chatbot stored with 64 children’s storybooks to initiate and facilitate peer dialogues. A group of 30 learners were paired up to conduct two chatbot-facilitated dialogic reading activities. A total of 30 discourse logs and students’ feedback on a survey of situational interest were analyzed. The discourse analysis of this research supports the affordances of the chatbot acting as an effective dialogue initiator and discussion facilitator to support both human-chatbot and human–human social learning. The chatbot encourages a diverse interactive dialogic climate, and four interaction patterns were identified. The situational interest of the initial encounter with the chatbot was boosted; however, their interest was unable to be sustained. The implications for the affordances and limitations of educational chatbots are discussed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

References

  • Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Jang, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Towards an agile approach to adapting dynamic collaboration support to student needs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24, 92–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arguedas, M., & Daradoumis, T. (2021). Analysing the role of a pedagogical agent in psychological and cognitive preparatory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1167–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, I., & Barak, A. (2012). How do personality, synchronous media, and discussion topic affect participation? Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. E., & Halpern, J. (2021). AI chatbots cannot replace human interactions in the pursuit of more inclusive mental healthcare. SSM-Mental Health, 1, 100017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canale, M. (2014). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. Language and communication (pp. 14–40). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Park, H. W., & Breazeal, C. (2020). Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Computers & Education, 150, 103836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dozat, T., & Manning, C. D. (2018). Simpler but more accurate semantic dependency parsing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01396.

  • Dyke, G., Adamson, D., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Enhancing scientific reasoning and discussion with conversational agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Følstad, A., & Brandtzaeg, P. B. (2020). Users’ experiences with chatbots: Findings from a questionnaire study. Quality and User Experience, 5(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A., & Sherlock, Z. (2017). Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and human task partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A. (2019). Chatbot learning partners: Connecting learning experiences, interest and competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, R. M. (2019). Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 97, 200–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023). Investigating students’ engagement in chatbot-supported classroom debates. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2207181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennings, D. G. (1992). Beyond the read-aloud: Learning to read through listening to and reflecting on literature. Phi Delta Kappa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobert, S., & Meyer von Wolff, R. (2019). Say hello to your new automated tutor—A structured literature review on pedagogical conversational agents. In V. Pipek & T. Ludwig (Eds.), 14th International conference on wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 23–27). AIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., Hew, K. F., & Fryer, L. K. (2022). Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot-supported language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Isohätälä, J., & Sobocinski, M. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, J. (2022). Exploring AI chatbot affordances in the EFL classroom: Young learners’ experiences and perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2020). Speech and language processing - an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (3rd ed.). Pearson/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2013). Digital peers to help children’s text comprehension and perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Thayne, J., & Wei, Q. (2017). An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65, 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. P. C., & Chang, D. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary writers’ writing skills with a chatbot. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Durik, A. M., Conley, A. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 647–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on-line small group problem-solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. C., Liao, M. G., Chang, C. H., & Lin, H. M. (2022). An analysis of children’s interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading. Computers & Education, 189, 104576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X., Tong, S., Fang, Z., & Qu, Z. (2019). Frontiers: Machines vs. humans: The impact of artificial intelligence chatbot disclosure on customer purchases. Marketing Science, 38(6), 937–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTear, M. (2018). Conversational modelling for chatbots: current approaches and future directions. Studientexte zur Sprachkommunikation: Elektronische Sprachsignalverarbeitung, pp. 175–185.

  • Meng, L. M., Li, T., & Huang, X. (2023). Double-sided messages improve the acceptance of chatbots. Annals of Tourism Research, 102, 103644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B. (2018). Reading socially: Transforming the in-home reading experience with a learning-companion robot. Science Robotics, 3(21), 5999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelis, J. E., & Mutlu, B. (2019). Supporting interest in science learning with a social robot. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. pp. 71–82.

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., De Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent–child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schnaubert, L., & Rey, G. D. (2021). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikström, P., Valentini, C., Kärkkäinen, T., & Sivunen, A. (2022). How pedagogical agents communicate with students: A two-phase systematic review. Computers & Education, 188, 104564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sukthanker, R., Poria, S., Cambria, E., & Thirunavukarasu, R. (2020). Anaphora and coreference resolution: A review. Information Fusion, 59, 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2023). The impact of google assistant on adolescent EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(3), 1485–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2017). Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(1), 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., Papadopoulos, P. M., & Weinberger, A. (2016). Conversational agents for academically productive talk: A comparison of directed and undirected agent interventions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(4), 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 381–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vronay, D., Smith, M., & Drucker, S. (1999). Alternative interfaces for chat. In Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. pp. 19–26.

  • Wang, Y., Borst, S., Feng, J. L., & Chang, R. (2015). It does matter with whom you chat: Chinese learners’ perspective on NS vs. NNS chat partners. Studies in Chinese Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 18–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., & Turrou, A. C. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., Wang, D., Collins, P., Lee, H., & Warschauer, M. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: comparing children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. Computers & Education, 161, 104059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan ROC (#110-2511-H-008-006-MY3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering, National Central University, No. 300, Zhongda Rd., Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, 320317, Taiwan

    Chen-Chung Liu, Chen Wei Chiu & Chia-Hui Chang

  2. Center for General Education, Asia University, No. 500, Lioufeng Rd., Wufeng District, Taichung City, 413305, Taiwan

    Fang-ying Lo

Authors
  1. Chen-Chung Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chen Wei Chiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chia-Hui Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fang-ying Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fang-ying Lo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest in the research reported.

Ethical approval

This research was conducted after the informed consent of the participants. The protocol has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee of National Taiwan University. The committee is organized under, and operates in accordance with, Social and Behavioral Research Ethical Principles and Regulations of National Taiwan University and governmental laws and regulations (NTU-REC No.: 202105ES100).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, CC., Chiu, C.W., Chang, CH. et al. Analysis of a chatbot as a dialogic reading facilitator: its influence on learning interest and learner interactions. Education Tech Research Dev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10370-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10370-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation