Coordinating Multi-dimensional Support in Collaborative Conversational Agents
The field of computer supported collaborative learning has evolved an ontology of types of support for group learning. In recent years, conversational agents have been used successfully to realize forms of dynamic micro and macro level script based support for group learning. However, using existing architectures for managing the coordination of these agent-based behaviors (which can vary widely in scope, timing, and constraints), infelicitous “collision” of behaviors have been observed. In this paper, we introduce a new architecture that facilitates the development, coordination, and co-performance of multiple agent-based support behaviors.
Keywordscollaborative learning intelligent agents multi-party conversational agents conversational scripting dynamic support
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In: Three Worlds of CSCL Can We Support CSCL, pp. 61–91 (2002)Google Scholar
- 3.Dyke, G., Howley, I., Adamson, D., Rosé, C.P.: Towards Academically Productive Talk Supported by Conversational Agents. In: Intelligent Tutoring Systems (in press, 2012)Google Scholar
- 4.Howley, I., Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Mayfield, E., Beuth, J., Rosé, C.P.: Group Composition and Intelligent Dialogue Tutors for Impacting Students Academic Self-Efficacy. Intelligent Tutoring Systems (in press, 2012)Google Scholar
- 8.Lison, P.: Multi-Policy Dialogue Management. In: Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2011 Conference, pp. 294–300. Association for Computational Linguistics (2011)Google Scholar
- 9.Wecker, C., Fischer, F.: Fading scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of distributed monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 8th Iternational Conference, pp. 764–772 (2007)Google Scholar
- 11.Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., Mandl, H.: Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. Environments 6(6), 191–211 (2007)Google Scholar