Investigating Self-Regulated Learning in Teachable Agent Environments

  • John S. Kinnebrew
  • Gautam BiswasEmail author
  • Brian Sulcer
  • Roger S. Taylor
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 28)


We have developed a computer-based learning environment that helps students learn science by constructing causal concept map models. The system builds upon research in learning-by-teaching (LBT) and has students take on the role and responsibilities of being the teacher to a virtual student named Betty. The environment is structured so that successfully instructing their teachable agents requires the students to learn and understand the science topic for themselves. This learning process is supported through the use of adaptive scaffolding provided by feedback from the two agents in the system: the teachable agent, Betty, and a mentor agent, Mr. Davis. For example, if Betty performs poorly on a quiz, she may tell the student that she needs to learn more about the topics on which she is performing poorly. In addition, Mr. Davis may suggest that students ask Betty questions and get her to explain her answers to help them trace the causal reasoning chains in their map and find out where she may be making mistakes. Thus the system is designed to help students develop and refine their own knowledge construction and monitoring strategies as they teach their agent.

This chapter provides an overview of two studies that were conducted in fifth-grade science classrooms. A description of the analysis techniques that we have developed for interpreting students’ activities in this learning environment is also provided. More specifically, we discuss the generation of hidden Markov models (HMMs) that capture students’ aggregated behavior patterns, which form the basis for analyzing students’ metacognitive strategies in the system. Our study results show that students who utilized LBT versions of our system performed better than students who used a non-teaching version of the system. Further, students’ performances were strongest when the system explicitly provided support to help them develop self-regulated learning strategies. To gain further insight into the students’ reactions to feedback from the two agents, we present results from a second study that employed a think-aloud protocol. Overall, the results from this study illustrated that students were more receptive to the explicit strategy-oriented feedback from the mentor agent. Interestingly, this study also suggested that students had difficulty in correctly applying Betty’s feedback related to metacognitive monitoring activities.


Knowledge Construction Monitoring Strategy Relevance Score Metacognitive Strategy Teachable Agent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has been supported by Dept. of ED IES grant #R305H060089, NSF REESE Award #0633856, and NSF IIS Award #0904387.


  1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2006). Toward meta-cognitive tutoring: A model of help seeking with a Cognitive Tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(2), 101–128.Google Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated use of hypermedia. In A. Graesser, J. Dunlosky, & D. Hacker (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Witherspoon, A., Chauncey, A., Burkett, C., & Fike, A. (2009). MetaTutor: A metacognitive tool for enhancing self-regulated learning. Annual Meeting of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Symposium on Metacognitive and Cognitive Educational Systems (pp. 4–19). AQ: Please provide symposium location, publisher name and location for reference Azevedo et al. (2009).Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sulcer, B., & Roscoe, R. (2010). Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning (RPTEL), 5(2), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & Vanderbilt, T. T. A. G. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3), 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair, K., Schwartz, D. L., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: teachable agents. Educational Technology & Society: Special Issue on Pedagogical Agents, 47(1). AQ: Please provide page range for reference Blair et al. (2007)Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Burleson, W., Picard, R. W., Perlin, K., & Lippincott, J. (2004) A platform for affective agent research. Workshop on Empathetic Agents, International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  13. Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Mcdaniel, B., & Graesser, A. (2008). Automatic detection of learners affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Mello, S., Picard, R. W., & Graesser, A. (2007) Toward an affect-sensitive AutoTutor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22(4), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forbus, K. D. (1984) Qualitative process theory. Artificial intelligence, 24(1–3), 85–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hadwin, A. F., Nesbit, J. C., Jamieson-Noel, D., Code, J., & Winne, P. H. (2007). Examining trace data to explore self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 2(2), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadwin, A. F., Winne, P. H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J. C., & Woszczyna, C. (2001) Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeong, H., & Biswas, G. (2008). Mining student behavior models in learning-by-teaching environments. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Educational Data Mining, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (pp. 127–136).Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). Designing effective supports for causal reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Betty’s Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181–208.Google Scholar
  22. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97), Atlanta, GA (pp. 359–366).Google Scholar
  23. Li, C., & Biswas, G. (2000). A Bayesian approach to temporal data clustering using hidden Markov models. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 543–550).Google Scholar
  24. Li, C., & Biswas, G. (2002). A Bayesian approach for learning hidden Markov models from data. Scientific Programming: Special Issue on Markov Chain and Hidden Markov Models, 10(3), 201–219.Google Scholar
  25. Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Learning from learning kits: gStudy traces of students? Self-regulated engagements with computerized content. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement, 53(3), 801-813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rabiner, L. R. (1989). A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roll, I., Aleven, V., Mclaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2007). Designing for metacognition: Applying cognitive tutor principles to the tutoring of help seeking. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schraw, G., Kauffman, D. F., & Lehman, S. (2002). Self-regulated learning theory. In L. Nadel (Ed.), The encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 1063–1073), London: Nature Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, D. L., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., & Davis, J. (2007). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agent paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design (pp. 114–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M., Kwong, H., Okita, S. et al. (2009) Interactive metacognition: Monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 340–358). New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tan, J., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. (2006). Feedback for metacognitive support in learning by teaching environments. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 828–833).Google Scholar
  40. Wagster, J., Tan, J., Wu, Y., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. (2007). Do learning by teaching environments with metacognitive support help students develop better learning behaviors. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN (pp. 695–700).Google Scholar
  41. Weinstein, C. E., Schulte, A. C., and Palmer, D. R. (1987). The learning and study strategies inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John S. Kinnebrew
    • 1
  • Gautam Biswas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian Sulcer
    • 1
  • Roger S. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EECS & ISISVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations