Teaching Without Learning: Is It OK With Weak AI?

  • Kristian Månsson
  • Magnus HaakeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10948)


Two different learning models for a teachable agent were tested with respect to perceived intelligence, the protégé effect, and learning in Swedish grade 5 and 6 students. A strong positive correlation was found between perceived intelligence and the protégé effect, but no significant differences were found between the two different implementations of the learning algorithm. The results suggest that while the perceived intelligence of the agent relates to the induced protégé effect, this perceived intelligence did not correspond to the implemented learning model. This, in turn, suggest that a simple learning model can be sufficient for a teachable agent system, but more research is needed.


Teachable agent Learning model Perceived intelligence Protégé effect Learning outcome 


  1. 1.
    Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., Kwong, H., Okita, S., Roscoe, R., Jeong, H., Wagster, J., Biswas, G.: Interactive metacognition: monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In: Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) Handbook of Metacognition in Education, pp. 340–358. Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N.: TAG-V: learning by teaching: a new agent paradigm for educational software. Appl. Artif. Intell. 19(3–4), 363–392 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chase, C., Chin, D.B., Oppezzo, M., Schwartz, D.L.: Teachable agents and the protégé effect: increasing the effort towards learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18(4), 334–352 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brophy, S., Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D.: Teachable agents: combining insights from learning theory and computer science. In: Lajoie, S.P., Vivet, M. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 21–28. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chin, D., Dohmen, I., Cheng, B., Oppezzo, M., Chase, C., Schwartz, D.: Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 58(6), 649–669 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bäckström, J., Månsson, K., Persson, M., Sakurai, E., Sundström, F.: Designing and implementing an associative learning model for a teachable agent. In: Balkenius, C., Gulz, A., Haake, M., Wallergård, M. (eds.) LUCS 168: Intelligent, Socially Oriented Technology III, pp. 5–13. Lund University, Lund (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirkegaard, C.: Adding challenge to a teachable agent in a virtual learning environment. Licentiate thesis, Linköping University, Linköping (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartneck, C., Kuli, D., Croft, E.: Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1(1), 71–81 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, Oxford (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LUCS, Lund University Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations