Advertisement

Pedagogical Agents to Support Embodied, Discovery-Based Learning

  • Ahsan AbdullahEmail author
  • Mohammad Adil
  • Leah Rosenbaum
  • Miranda Clemmons
  • Mansi Shah
  • Dor Abrahamson
  • Michael Neff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)

Abstract

This paper presents a pedagogical agent designed to support students in an embodied, discovery-based learning environment. Discovery-based learning guides students through a set of activities designed to foster particular insights. In this case, the animated agent explains how to use the Mathematical Imagery Trainer for Proportionality, provides performance feedback, leads students to have different experiences and provides remedial instruction when required. It is a challenging task for agent technology as the amount of concrete feedback from the learner is very limited, here restricted to the location of two markers on the screen. A Dynamic Decision Network is used to automatically determine agent behavior, based on a deep understanding of the tutorial protocol. A pilot evaluation showed that all participants developed movement schemes supporting proto-proportional reasoning. They were able to provide verbal proto-proportional expressions for one of the taught strategies, but not the other.

Keywords

Pedagogical agents Discovery-based learning Dynamic decision networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A., Bumbacher, E.: Fostering hooks and shifts: Tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 17(1–2), 61–86 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrahamson, D., Lee, R.G., Negrete, A.G., Gutiérrez, J.F.: Coordinating visualizations of polysemous action: Values added for grounding proportion. ZDM 46(1), 79–93 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, M.L., Richardson, M.J., Chemero, A.: Eroding the boundaries of cognition: Implications of embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(4), 717–730 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anderson, T., Shattuck, J.: Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher 41(1), 16–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antle, A.N.: Research opportunities: Embodied child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1(1), 30–36 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyer, T.W., Levine, S.C.: Prompting children to reason proportionally: Processing discrete units as continuous amounts. Developmental Psychology 51(5), 615 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, J., Core, M., Artstein, R., Armstrong, L., Hartholt, A., Wilson, C., Georgila, K., Morbini, F., Haynes, E., Gomboc, D., et al.: Developing inots to support interpersonal skills practice. In: 2011 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pp. 1–14. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conati, C.: Probabilistic assessment of user’s emotions in educational games. Applied Artificial Intelligence 16(7–8), 555–575 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Creswell, J.W.: Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dean, T., Kanazawa, K.: A model for reasoning about persistence and causation. Computational Intelligence 5(2), 142–150 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duijzer, C.A., Shayan, S., Bakker, A., Van der Schaaf, M.F., Abrahamson, D.: Touchscreen tablets: Coordinating action and perception for mathematical cognition. Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finkelstein, S., Yarzebinski, E., Vaughn, C., Ogan, A., Cassell, J.: The effects of culturally congruent educational technologies on student achievement. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 493–502. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gluz, J.C., Cabral, T., Baggio, P., Livi, P.: Helping students of introductory calculus classes: the leibniz pedagogical agentGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., Jackson, G.T., Mitchell, H.H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., Louwerse, M.M.: Autotutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods 36(2), 180–192 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hasegawa, D., Shirakawa, S., Shioiri, N., Hanawa, T., Sakuta, H., Ohara, K.: The Effect of Metaphoric Gestures on Schematic Understanding of Instruction Performed by a Pedagogical Conversational Agent, pp. 361–371. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard, R.A.: Readings on the principles and applications of decision analysis, vol. 1. Strategic Decisions Group (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howison, M., Trninic, D., Reinholz, D., Abrahamson, D.: The mathematical imagery trainer: from embodied interaction to conceptual learning. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1989–1998. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jaakkola, T., Singh, S.P., Jordan, M.I.: Reinforcement learning algorithm for partially observable markov decision problems. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 345–352 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jackson, G.T., Boonthum, C., McNAMARA, D.S.: istart-me: Situating extended learning within a game-based environment. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 59–68. AIED Brighton, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.: Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. SIGART Bull. 8(1–4), 16–21 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johnson, W.L., Lester, J.C.: Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26(1), 25–36 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.W., Lester, J.C.: 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
  23. 23.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development 54(6), 569–596 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A., et al.: Cognitive tutors: Technology bringing learning sciences to the classroom (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lakoff, G., Núñez, R.E.: Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic books (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lamon, S.J.: Rational numbers and proportional reasoning: Toward a theoretical framework for research. Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning 1, 629–667 (2007)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lester, J.C., Stone, B.A., Stelling, G.D.: Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 9(1), 1–44 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mott, B.W., Lester, J.C.: U-director: a decision-theoretic narrative planning architecture for storytelling environments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 977–984. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Murray, R.Charles, VanLehn, Kurt: DT Tutor: a decision-theoreticdynamic approach for optimal selection of tutorial actions. In: Gauthier, Gilles, Frasson, Claude, VanLehn, Kurt (eds.) ITS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1839, pp. 153–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45108-0_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pearl, J.: Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems (1988)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Piaget, J., Inhelder, B.: The psychology of the child, vol. 5001. Basic books (1969)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prendinger, H., Ishizuka, M.: The empathic companion: A character-based interface that addresses users’affective states. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19(3–4), 267–285 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roscoe, R.D., McNamara, D.S.: Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(4), 1010 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shaw, E., Ganeshan, R., Johnson, W.L., Millar, D.: Building a case for agent-assisted learning as a catalyst for curriculum reform in medical education. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 509–516 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tartaro, A., Cassell, J.: Authorable virtual peers for autism spectrum disorders. In: Proceedings of the Combined workshop on Language-Enabled Educational Technology and Development and Evaluation for Robust Spoken Dialogue Systems at the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intellegence (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vanlehn, K., Lynch, C., Schulze, K., Shapiro, J., Shelby, R., Taylor, T., Weinstein, A., Wintersgill, M.: The andes physics tutoring system: Lessons learned. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15(3), 147–204 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahsan Abdullah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammad Adil
    • 1
  • Leah Rosenbaum
    • 2
  • Miranda Clemmons
    • 2
  • Mansi Shah
    • 2
  • Dor Abrahamson
    • 2
  • Michael Neff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations