Pedagogical Machine: Studies Towards a Machine that Teaches Humans

Chapter

Abstract

This project aimed to better understand the possibilities and limitations of an artificial pedagogical agent. For example, could an agent be programmed into a robot or a computer to teach? If so, how should such an agent be designed? To answer these questions, we used an approach that integrated developmental cognitive science, information technology, and field studies in educational setting. This chapter discusses the results of our research to date and the outlook for the future development of pedagogical machines.

Keywords

Pedagogical machines Education Developmental cognitive science Mother-child interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    G. Csibra, G. Gergely, Natural pedagogy. Trends Cognit. Sci. 13, 148–153 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    T.M. Caro, M.D. Hauser, Is there teaching in nonhumananimals? Quart. Rev. Biol. 67, 151–174 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Thornton, K. McAuliffe, Teaching in wild meerkats. Science 313, 227–229 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Csibra, Teachers in the wild. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11, 95–96 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.K. Kuhl, F. Tsao, H. Liu, Foreign-language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 9096–9101 (2003). USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Grossmann, M.H. Johnson, The development of the social brain in human infancy. Eur. J. Neurosci. 25, 909–919 (2007). doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05379.x
  7. 7.
    M. Tomasello, M. Carpenter, J. Call, T. Behne, H. Moll, Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 675–735 (2005). doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000129
  8. 8.
    M. Morales, P. Mundy, C.E.F. Delgado, M. Yale, D. Messinger, R. Neal, H.K. Schwartz, Responding to joint attention across the 6-through 24-month age period and early language acquisition. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 21, 283–298 (2000). doi:10.1016/s0193-3973(99)00040-4
  9. 9.
    M. Tomasello, The social bases of language acquisition. Soc. Dev. 1(1), 67–87 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Krcmar, B. Grela, K. Lin, Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychol. 10, 41–63 (2007). doi:10.1080/15213260701375652
  11. 11.
    D.R. Anderson, T.A. Pempek, Television and very young children. Am. Behav. Sci. 48, 505–522 (2005). doi:10.1177/0002764204271506
  12. 12.
    S. Shimada, K. Hiraki, Infant’s brain responses to live and televised action. Neuroimage 32(2), 930–939 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.H. Goldstein, J.A. Schwade, Social feedback to infants’ babbling facilitates rapid phonological learning. Psychol. Sci. 19(5), 515–523 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Nielsen, G. Simcock, L. Jenkins, The effect of social engagement on 24-month-olds’ imitation from live and televised models. Dev. Sci. 11, 722–731 (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00722.x
  15. 15.
    S. Roseberry, K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, Skype me! socially contingent interactions help toddlers learn language. Child Dev. 85(3), 956–970 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.L. Troseth, M.M. Saylor, A.H. Archer, Young children’s use of video as a source of socially relevant information. Child Dev. 77, 786–799 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, Y. Kuchirko, L. Song, Why is infant language learning facilitated by parental responsiveness? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23(2), 121–126 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Striano, A. Henning, D. Stahl, Sensitivity to interpersonal timing at 3 and 6 months of age. Interact. Stud. 7(2), 251–271 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    N.A. Smith, L.J. Trainor, Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy 13(4), 410–420 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.J. Brand, D.A. Baldwin, L.A. Ashburn, Evidence for ‘motionese’: modifications in mothers’ infant-directed action. Dev. Sci. 5(1), 72–83 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Miyazaki, K. Hiraki, Delayed intermodal contingency affects young children’s recognition of their current self. Child Dev. 77(3), 736–750 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    W.S. Millar, J.S. Watson, Effect of delayed feedback on infant learning reexamined. Child Dev. 50(3), 747–751 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L.E. Bahrick, J.S. Watson, Detection of intermodal proprioceptive visual contingency as a potential basis of self-perception in infancy. Dev. Psychol. 21(6), 963–973 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Moreno, R.E. Mayer, H.A. Spires, J.C. Lester, The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn. Instr. 19, 177–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.L. Baylor, S. Kim, Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: when less is more. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 450–457 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.E. Mayer, C.S. DaPra, An embodiment e ect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 18, 239–252 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    R.K. Atkinson, R.E. Mayer, M.M. Merrill, Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 117–139 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001
  28. 28.
    K. Shockley, M.V. Santana, C.A. Fowler, Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. J. Exp. Psychol. 29, 326–332 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D.C. Richardson, R. Dale, N.Z. Kirkham, The art of conversation is coordination-common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychol. Sci. 18, 407–413 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    N.J. Emery, The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 24, 581–604 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Morales, P. Mundy, C.E.F. Delgado, M. Yale, D. Messinger, R. Neal, H.K. Schwartz, Responding to joint attention across the 6-through 24-month age period and early language acquisition. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 21, 283–298 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. Brooks, A.N. Meltzoff, The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Dev. Sci. 8, 535–543 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    T. Striano, X. Chen, A. Cleveland, S. Bradshaw, Joint attention social cues influence infant learning. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 3, 289–299 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    A. Senju, G. Csibra, Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Curr. Biol. 18, 239–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Y. Okumura, Y. Kanakogi, T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, S. Itakura, The power of human gaze on infant learning. Cognition 128, 127–133 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. D’Mello, A. Olney, C. Williams, P. Hays, Gaze tutor: a gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70, 377–398 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    L. Schilbach, M. Wilms, S.B. Eickho, S. Romanzetti, R. Tepest, G. Bente, N.J. Shah, G.R. Fink, K. Vogeley, Minds made for sharing: initiating joint attention recruits reward-related neurocircuitry. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 2702–2715 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Tomasello, M.J. Farrar, Joint attention and early language. Child Dev. 57, 1454–1463 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Blascovich, J. Loomis, A.C. Beall, K.R. Swinth, C.L. Hoyt, J.N. Bailenson, Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13, 103–124 (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    M. Krcmar, B. Grela, K. Lin, Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? an experimental approach. Media Psychol. 10, 41–63 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Krcmar, Can social meaningfulness and repeat exposure help infants and toddlers overcome the video de cit? Media Psychol. 13, 31–53 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    K.W. Lau, H.K. Tan, B.T. Erwin, P. Petrovic, Creative learning in school with LEGO (R) programmable robotics products, in 29th Annual 1999 FIE’99 Frontiers in Education Conference, vol. 2, pp. 12D4-26 (1999)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    P. Mosley, R. Kline, Engaging students: a framework using LEGO robotics to teach problem solving. J. Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform. 24(1), 39 (2006)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    M. Cooper, D. Keating, W. Harwin, K. Dautenhahn, Robots in the classroom: tools for accessible education, in Assistive Technology on the Threshold of the New Millennium, ed. by C. Buhler, H. Knops (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 448–452Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    F. Tanaka, J.R. Movellan, B. Fortenberry, K. Aisaka, Daily HRI evaluation at a classroom environment: reports from dance interaction experiments, in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, ACM, pp. 3–9 March 2006Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    F. Tanaka, A. Cicourel, J.R. Movellan, Socialization between toddlers and robots at an early childhood education center. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104(46), 17954–17958 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    M. Fridin, Storytelling by a kindergarten social assistive robot: a tool for constructive learning in preschool education. Comput. Educ. 70, 53–64 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    C.W. Chang, J.H. Lee, P.Y. Chao, C.Y. Wang, G.D. Chen, Exploring the possibility of using humanoid robots as instructional tools for teaching a second language in primary school. Educ. Technol. Soc. 13(2), 13–24 (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    F. Warneken, M. Tomasello, Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science 311, 1301–1303 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    E. Yamamoto, G. Matsuda, K. Nagata, D. Naoko, K. Hiraki, Subtle temporal delays on mothers’ responses affect imitation learning in children: mother-child interaction study. (submitted)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    H. Lee, Y. Kanakogi, K. Hiraki, Building a responsive teacher: how temporally contingent gaze interaction influences word learning with virtual tutors. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2, 140361 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    H. Okazaki, Y. Kanai, M. Ogata, K. Hasegawa, K. Ishii, M. Imai, Toward understanding pedagogical relationship in human-robot interaction. J. Robot. Mechatron. 28(1), 69–78 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Systems Studies and Center for Evolutionary Cognitive SciencesThe University of TokyoMeguro-ku, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations