Rudeness and Rapport: Insults and Learning Gains in Peer Tutoring

  • Amy Ogan
  • Samantha Finkelstein
  • Erin Walker
  • Ryan Carlson
  • Justine Cassell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7315)


For 20 years, researchers have envisioned artificially intelligent learning companions that evolve with their students as they grow and learn. However, while communication theory suggests that positivity decreases over time in relationships, most tutoring systems designed to build rapport with a student remain adamantly polite, and may therefore inadvertently distance the learner from the agent over time. We present an analysis of high school friends interacting in a peer tutoring environment as a step towards designing agents that sustain long-term pedagogical relationships with learners. We find that tutees and tutors use different language behaviors: tutees express more playfulness and face-threat, while tutors attend more to the task. This face-threat by the tutee is associated with increased learning gains for their tutor. Additionally, a small sample of partners who were strangers learned less than friends, and in these dyads increased face-threat was negatively correlated with learning. Our findings support the idea that learning companions should gradually move towards playful face-threat as they build relationships with their students.


Rapport impoliteness virtual peers ECA teachable agent 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sharpley, A., Irvine, J., Sharpley, C.: An examination of the effectiveness of a cross-age tutoring program in mathematics for elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal 20(1), 101–111 (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rohrbeck, C.A., Ginsburg-Block, M.D., Fantuzzo, J.W., Miller, T.R.: Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Society 95(2), 240–257 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Webb, N.: Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research 13(1), 21–39 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brophy, S., Biswas, G., Katzberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D.: Teachable agents: combining insights from learning theory and computer science. Artificial Intelligence in Education 50, 21–28 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Stylianides, G.J., Cohen, W.W., Koedinger, K.R.: Learning by Teaching SimStudent – An Initial Classroom Baseline Study Comparing with Cognitive Tutor. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 213–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gulz, A., Silvervarg, A., Sjoden, B.: Design for off-task interaction - Rethinking pedagogy in technology enhanced learning. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chan, T., Baskin, A.: Studying with the prince: the computer as a learning companion. In: ITS 1988 Conference, Montreal, Canada, pp. 194–200 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goffman, E.: The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, NY (1959)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, P., Levinson, S.: Universals in Language Usage: Politeness phenomena. In: Goody, E.N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. University Press, London (1978)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLaren, B., DeLeeuw, K., Mayer, R.: Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve learning in classrooms? Computers and Education 56(3), 574–584 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, W.L., Rizzo, P.: Politeness in Tutoring Dialogs: “Run the Factory, That’s What I’d Do”. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 67–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R.: The Nature of Rapport and its Nonverbal Correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 285–293 (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Culpeper, J.: Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3), 349–367 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Straehle, C.A.: "Samuel?" "Yes dear?" Teasing and conversational rapport. In: Tannen, D. (ed.) Framing in Discourse. Open University Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keinpointer, M.: Varieties of rudeness: types and functions of impolite utterances. Functions of Language, 251–287 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ardington, A.: Playfully negotiated activity in girls’ talk. Journal of Pragmatics 38(1), 73–95 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mills, S.: Gender and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2), 263–280 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Mayfield, E., D’Adamo, C., Matsuda, N., Cassell, J.: “Oh dear Stacy!” Social Interaction, Elaboration, and Learning with Teachable Agents. In: To appear in Proceedings of CHI 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Graesser, A., McNamara, D.: Self-Regulated Learning in Learning Environments with Pedagogical Agents that Interact in Natural Language. In: The Measurement of Learners’ Self-Regulated Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes While Using Computer-Based Learning Environments, pp. 234–244 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cassell, J.: Towards a Model of Technology and Literacy Development: Story Listening Systems. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 25(1), 75–105 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walker, E., Rummel, N., Koedinger, K. R.: Adaptive support for CSCL: Is it feedback relevance or increased accountability that matters? In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, pp. 334–342 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyer, K.E., Phillips, R., Wallis, M., Vouk, M.A., Lester, J.C.: Balancing Cognitive and Motivational Scaffolding in Tutorial Dialogue. In: Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R., Lajoie, S. (eds.) ITS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5091, pp. 239–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herring, S., Zelenkauskaite, A.: Symbolic Capital in a Virtual Heterosexual Market. Written Communication 26, 5–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cassell, J., Gill, A., Tepper, P.: Coordination in Conversation and Rapport. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Embodied Natural Language. Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Ogan
    • 1
  • Samantha Finkelstein
    • 1
  • Erin Walker
    • 2
  • Ryan Carlson
    • 1
  • Justine Cassell
    • 1
  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.School of Computing, CIDSEArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations