The Plausibility Problem: An Initial Analysis
Many interactive systems in everyday use carry out roles that are also performed - or have previously been performed - by human beings. Our expectations of how such systems will and, more importantly, should, behave is tempered both by our experience of how humans normally perform in those roles and by our experience and beliefs about what it is possible and reasonable for machines to do. So, an important factor underpinning the acceptability of such systems is the plausibility with which the role they are performing is viewed by their users.
We identify three kinds of potential plausibility issue, depending on whether (i) the system is seen by its users to be a machine acting in its own right, or (ii) the machine is seen to be a proxy, either acting on behalf of a human or providing a channel of communication to a human, or (iii) the status of the machine is unclear between the first two cases.
KeywordsIntelligent Tutor System Human Tutor Human Teacher Remote Machine Learning Companion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.T.-W. Chan. Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global learning club. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(2):125–159, 1996.Google Scholar
- 2.N. Dahlback, A. Jonsson, and L. Ahrenberg. Wizard of Oz studies-why and how. In M. T. Maybury and W. Wahlster, editors, Readings in Intelligent User Interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998.Google Scholar
- 3.T. del Soldato. Motivation in tutoring systems. Technical Report CSRP 303, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, 1994.Google Scholar
- 4.T. del Soldato and B. du Boulay. Implementation of motivational tactics in tutoring systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4):337–378, 1996.Google Scholar
- 5.B. du Boulay, R. Luckin, and T. del Soldato. The plausibility problem: Human teaching tactics in the ‘hands’ of a machine. In S. P. Lajoie and M. Vivet, editors, Artificial Intelligence in Education: Proceedings of the International Conference of the AI-ED Society on Artificial Intelligence and Education, Le Mans France, pages 225–232. IOS Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- 6.B. Fogg and H. Tseng. The elements of computer credibility. In Proceedings of CHI’99, pages 80–87, Pittsburgh, 1999.Google Scholar
- 7.L. Hammerton and R. Luckin. Children and the internet: a study of 9–11 year olds. Paper to be presented in a workshop at AIED 2001, San Antonio, Texas, 2001.Google Scholar
- 8.L. Hammerton and R. Luckin. How to help? investigating children’s opinions on help. Poster to be presented at AIED 2001, San Antonio, Texas, 2001.Google Scholar
- 9.W. L. Johnson, J. W. Rickel, and J. C. Lester. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1):47–78, 2000.Google Scholar
- 10.J. M. Keller. Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth, editor, Instructional-design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983.Google Scholar
- 13.M. R. Lepper, M. Woolverton, D. L. Mumme, and J.-L. Gurtner. Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In S. P. Lajoie and S. J. Derry, editors, Computers as Cognitive Tools, pages 75–105. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1993.Google Scholar
- 14.A. Lesgold, S. Lajoie, M. Bunzo, and G. Eggan. Sherlock: A coached practice environment for an electronics troubleshooting job. In J. H. Larkin and R. W. Chabay, editors, Computer-Assisted Instruction and Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 289–317. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1992.Google Scholar
- 15.R. Luckin. ‘ECOLAB’: Explorations in the Zone of Proximal Development. Technical Report CSRP 386, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, 1998.Google Scholar
- 16.R. Luckin and B. du Boulay. Ecolab: The development and evaluation of a vygot-skian design framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2):198–220, 1999.Google Scholar
- 17.R. Luckin and J. Rimmer. Children and the internet: a study of 9-11 year olds perceptions of networked technologies. Technical report, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex. In preparation.Google Scholar
- 18.S. Puntambekar and B. du Boulay. Design and development of MIST-a system to help students develop metacognition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1):1–35, 1997.Google Scholar
- 19.J. A. Ramirez Uresti. Should I teach my computer peer? some issues in teaching a learning companion. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, and K. VanLehn, editors, Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 5th International Conference, ITS 2000, Montreal, number 1839 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 103–112. Springer, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.L. Sheeran, M. Sasse, J. Rimmer, and I. Wakeman. Back to basics: Is a better understanding of the internet a precursor for effective use of the web? In NordiCHI, Stockholm, 2000.Google Scholar