Successes and Failures in Building Learning Environments to Promote Deep Learning: The Value of Conversational Agents

  • Arthur C. Graesser
  • Anne M. Lippert
  • Andrew J. Hampton


This chapter describes some attempts to promote deep learning (as opposed to shallow learning) through conversational pedagogical agents. Learning environments with agents have been developed to serve as substitutes for humans who range in expertise from novices to experts. For example, AutoTutor helps students learn by holding a dialogue in natural language with the student, whereas trialogues have two agents interacting with the student in a three-way interaction. Agents can guide the interaction with the learner, instruct the learner what to do, and interact with other agents to model ideal behavior, strategies, reflections, and social interactions. Some agents generate speech, gestures, body movements, and facial expressions in ways similar to people. These agent-based systems have sometimes facilitated deep learning more than conventional learning environments. Agents have shown learning gains on a variety of subject matters and skills, including science, technology, engineering, mathematics, research methods, metacognition, and language comprehension. Learning environments are currently being developed to improve lifelong learning and collaborative problem solving.


AutoTutor Collaboration Conversational agents Deep learning Games Intelligent tutoring systems Metacognition Self-regulated learning 



The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (0325428, 633918, 0834847, 0918409, 1108845, 1443068), the Institute of Education Sciences (R305B07460, R305B070349, R305A080594, R305C120001), and the Office of Naval Research (N00014-00-1-0600, N00014-12-C-0643; N00014-16-C-3027). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these funding sources.


  1. Autor, D., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1279–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevedo, R., Moos, D., Johnson, A., & Chauncey, A. (2010). Measuring cognitive and metacognitive regulatory processes used during hypermedia learning: Issues and challenges. Educational Psychologist, 45, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagley, E., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Learning in an urban and regional planning practicum: The view from educational ethnography. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26(4), 369–393.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, L. (1985). Differences in standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 298–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, R. S., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive-affective states during interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 223–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J., 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, 5, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braasch, J., Rouet, J.-F., Vivert, N., & Britt, M. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bräten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Care, E., Scoular, C., & Griffin, P. (2016). Assessment of collaborative problem solving in education environments. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnevale, A. P., & Smith, N. (2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, D., Tanner-Smith, E., & Killingsworth, S. (2014). Digital games, design and learning: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  13. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Brittingham, J. K., Williams, J. L., & Shubeck, K. (2012). Promoting vicarious learning of physics using deep questions with explanations. Computers & Education, 58, 1042–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 20, 147–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Mello, S., Lehman, S., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gholson, B., Witherspoon, A., Morgan, B., Brittingham, J. K., Coles, R., Graesser, A. C., … Craig, S. D. (2009). Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science, 37, 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381.Google Scholar
  20. Graesser, A. C. (2015). Deeper learning with advances in discourse science and technology. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., Baer, W., Olney, A. M., Hu, X., Reed, M., & Greenberg, D. (2016). Reading comprehension lessons in AutoTutor for the Center for the Study of Adult Literacy. In S. Crossley & D. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 288–292). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graesser, A., & D’Mello, S. K. (2012). Emotions during the learning of difficult material. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 183–225). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graesser, A. C., Forsyth, C. M., & Foltz, P. (2016). Assessing conversation quality, reasoning, and problem solving performance with computer agents. In B. Csapo, J. Funke, & A. Schleicher (Eds.), On the nature of problem solving: A look behind PISA 2012 problem solving assessment (pp. 275–297). Heidelberg, Germany: OECD Series.Google Scholar
  26. Graesser, A. C., Forsyth, C., & Lehman, B. (2017). Two heads are better than one: Learning from agents in conversational trialogues. Teacher College Record, 119(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
  27. Graesser, A. C., Hu, X., Nye, B., & Sottilare, R. (2016). Intelligent tutoring systems, serious games, and the Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). In H. F. O’Neil, E. L. Baker, & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Using games and simulation for teaching and assessment (pp. 58–79). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Graesser, A. C., Langston, M. C., & Baggett, W. B. (1993). Exploring information about concepts by asking questions. In G. V. Nakamura, R. M. Taraban, & D. Medin (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Categorization by humans and machines (Vol. 29, pp. 411–436). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 374–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 180–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Olde, B. A., Cooper-Pye, E., & Whitten, S. (2005). Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: Comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1235–1247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graesser, A., Ozuru, Y., & Sullins, J. (2009). What is a good question? In M. G. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Threads of coherence in research on the development of reading ability (pp. 112–141). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  34. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Holt, D. V., Goldhammer, F., & Funke, J. (2013). Computer-based assessment of Complex Problem Solving: Concept, implementation, and application. Educational Technology Research and Development., 61, 407–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2015). ATC21S method. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., & Cai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. Nature Partner Journal: Science of Learning, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
  41. Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century sills (pp. 37–55). Heidelberg, GA: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jackson, G. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2006). Applications of human tutorial dialog in AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system. Revista Signos, 39, 31–48.Google Scholar
  44. Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1036–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, Twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson, L. W., & Valente, A. (2009). Tactical language and culture training systems: Using artificial intelligence to teach foreign languages and cultures. AI Magazine, 30, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. C., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework: Bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kopp, K., Britt, A., Millis, K., & Graesser, A. (2012). Improving the efficiency of dialogue in tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 22(5), 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehman, B., D’Mello, S. K., Strain, A., Mills, C., Gross, M., Dobbins, A., … Graesser, A. C. (2013). Inducing and tracking confusion with contradictions during complex learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 22, 85–105.Google Scholar
  51. Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257–307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls for 21st century learning: Answers to educators’ questions. New Directions for Youth Development, 110, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lorch, R. F. (2015). What about expository text? In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 348–361). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: Contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., & Frijters, J. C. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities., 45, 151–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Maki, R. H. (1998). Test predictions over text material. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 117–144). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Medimorecc, M. A., Pavlik, P., Olney, A., Graesser, A. C., & Risko, E. F. (2015). The language of instruction: Compensating for challenge in lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 971–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Wallace, P., Graesser, A. C., & Timmins, G. (2017). The impact of game-like features on learning from an intelligent tutoring system. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning, 22(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). Operation ARA: A serious game that combines intelligent tutoring and learning principles to teach science. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 169–183). Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology Series.Google Scholar
  61. Miyake, N., & Norman, D. A. (1979). To ask a question one must know enough to know what is not known. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Morgan, B., Keshtkar, F., Graesser, A., & Shaffer, D. W. (2013). Automating the mentor in a serious game: A discourse analysis using finite state machines. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Human computer interaction international 2013 (Vol. 374, pp. 591–595). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council. (2012). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  64. National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  65. Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 427–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 collaborative problem solving framework. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from rative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf Google Scholar
  67. OECD (2015). Adults, computers and problem solving: What’s the problem? Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved August 27, 2016, from
  68. Olney, A., D’Mello, S. K., Person, N., Cade, W., Hays, P., Williams, C., … Graesser, A. C. (2012). Guru: A computer tutor that models expert human tutors. In S. Cerri, W. Clancey, G. Papadourakis, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) 2012 (pp. 256–261). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Otero, J., & Graesser, A. C. (2001). PREG: Elements of a model of question asking. Cognition & Instruction, 19, 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A. C., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalf, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning: A practice guide (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence. New York, NY: International University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rapp, D. N., & Braasch, J. L. G. (Eds.). (2014). Processing inaccurate information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  77. Rowe, J. P., Shores, L. R., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21, 115–133.Google Scholar
  78. Rus, V., D’Mello, S., Hu, X., & Graesser, A.C. (2013). Recent advances in intelligent systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 34, 42–54.Google Scholar
  79. Rus, V., Lintean, M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text-to-text similarity of statements. In P. McCarthy & C. Boonthum-Denecke (Eds.), Applied natural language processing: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 110–121). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sabatini, J. P., & Albro, E. (2013). Assessing reading in the 21st century: Aligning and applying advances in the reading and measurement sciences. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.Google Scholar
  81. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50(3), 540–547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Swartout, W., Nye, B. D., Hartholt, A., Reilly, A., Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., … Rosenberg, M. (2016). Designing a personal assistant for life long learning (PAL3). In Z. Markov & I. Russel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 491–496). Palo Alto, CA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  83. Van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M.J. (2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M.T. McCrudden, J. Magliano, & G. Schraw (eds.), Relevance instructions and goal-focusing in text learning (pp. 123-140). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  84. VanLehn, K., Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rose, C. P. (2007). When are tutorial dialogues more effective than reading? Cognitive Science, 31, 3–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Ward, W., Cole, R., Bolaños, D., Buchenroth-Martin, C., Svirsky, E., & Weston, T. (2013). My science tutor: A conversational multimedia virtual tutor. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wouters, P., van Nimwegen, C., van Oostendorp, H., & van der Spek, E. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of the cognitive and motivational effects of serious games. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur C. Graesser
    • 1
  • Anne M. Lippert
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Hampton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Institute for Intelligent SystemsUniversity of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations