Cited by 32Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningSocial Robot Interaction and HRIInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

MOCA: a motivational online conversational agent for improving student engagement in collaborative learning

Xie, Tao, Liu, Ruobin, Chen, Yijin, Liu, Geping·2021·IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies

Abstract

The use of conversational agents in computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has been identified as a useful tactic for motivational intervention. The purpose of the current study was to design and implement a conversational agent called a motivational online conversational agent (MOCA) that incorporated motivational interviewing (MI) and was based on an intelligent dialog engine to enhance learner engagement in CSCL. Additionally, the study empirically examined the effects of MOCA on promoting positive changes in collaborative learning engagement through multiturn conversation interventions. A prototype system was developed by combining MOCA and an immersive virtual world, and an effectiveness study was conducted with 40 volunteers. A series of multilevel growth models based on the framework of the hierarchical linear model was established through multiwave longitudinal data. The results indicated that the use of MOCA significantly improved student engagement scores (p< 0.001) and that female students performed better on collaborative tasks than male students (p< 0.05,t= 2.97). Additionally, time was an important predictor and significantly interacted with the MOCA-use condition. The study has implications for the design and assessment of conversational agents embodied in virtual reality.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tlt.2021.3129800

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xie, T., Liu, R., Chen, Y., & Liu, G.
Affiliations
Southwest University (CN)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
Published
2021-10-01
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
653-664
ISSN
  • 1939-1382 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-0050
OpenAlex
W3216247330
Cited by
32
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (61807027)
  • Social Science Planning Foundation of Chongqing (2018BS100)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
chatbots, computer-supported collaborative learning, student engagement, motivational interviewing, virtual reality, immersive virtual worlds, gender differences in learning, student motivation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review