CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 11Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationSpeech and dialogue systems

Using Conversational Agents To Support Learning By Teaching

Open access
Chhibber, Nalin, Law, Edith·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1909.13443arXiv 1909.13443
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Conversational agents are becoming increasingly popular for supporting and facilitating learning. Conventional pedagogical agents are designed to play the role of human teachers by giving instructions to the students. In this paper, we investigate the use of conversational agents to support the 'learning-by-teaching' paradigm where the agent receives instructions from students. In particular, we introduce Curiosity Notebook: an educational application that harvests conversational interventions to facilitate students' learning. Recognizing such interventions can not only help in engaging students within learning interactions, but also provide a deeper insight into the intricacies involved in designing conversational agents for educational purposes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1909.13443

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 14 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [1][1] Ronald C Arkin, Edward M Riseman, and Allen R Hanson. 1987. Aura: An architecture for vision-based robot navigation. In proceedings of the DARPA Image Understanding Workshop . Morgan Kaufmann Inc. Los Altos, California, 417-431. -
  2. [2][2] John A Bargh and Yaacov Schul. 1980. On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology 72, 5 (1980), 593. -
  3. [3][3] Gautam Biswas, Krittaya Leelawong, Daniel Schwartz, Nancy Vye, and The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. 2005. Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19, 3-4 (2005), 363-392. -
  4. [4][4] Sean Brophy, Gautam Biswas, Thomas Katzlberger, John Bransford, and Daniel Schwartz. 1999. Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science. In Artificial intelligence in education , Vol. 50. Citeseer, 21-28. -
  5. [5][5] Michelene TH Chi, Nicholas De Leeuw, Mei-Hung Chiu, and Christian LaVancher. 1994. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive science 18, 3 (1994), 439-477. -
  6. [6][6] Peter A Cohen, James A Kulik, and Chen-Lin C Kulik. 1982. Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American educational research journal 19, 2 (1982), 237-248. -
  7. [7][7] Arthur C Graesser, Katja Wiemer-Hastings, Peter Wiemer-Hastings, Roger Kreuz, Tutoring Research Group, et al. 1999. AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Cognitive Systems Research 1, 1 (1999), 35-51. -
  8. [8][8] Deanna Hood, Séverin Lemaignan, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2015. When children teach a robot to write: An autonomous teachable humanoid which uses simulated handwriting. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction . ACM, 83-90. -
  9. [9][9] Takayuki Kanda, Takayuki Hirano, Daniel Eaton, and Hiroshi Ishiguro. 2004. Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: A field trial. Human-Computer Interaction 19, 1-2 (2004), 61-84. -
  10. [10][10] Roxana Moreno, Richard E Mayer, Hiller A Spires, and James C Lester. 2001. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and instruction 19, 2 (2001), 177-213. -
  11. [11][11] Krista R Muis, Cynthia Psaradellis, Marianne Chevrier, Ivana Di Leo, and Susanne P Lajoie. 2016. Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology 108, 4 (2016), 474. -
  12. [12][12] John F Nestojko, Dung C Bui, Nate Kornell, and Elizabeth Ligon Bjork. 2014. Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition 42, 7 (2014), 1038-1048. -
  13. [13][13] Aannemarie Sullivan Palinscar and Ann L Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction 1, 2 (1984), 117-175. -
  14. [14][14] Jong-Eun Roselyn Lee, Clifford Nass, Scott Brenner Brave, Yasunori Morishima, Hiroshi Nakajima, and Ryota Yamada. 2006. The case for caring colearners: The effects of a computer-mediated colearner agent on trust and learning. Journal of Communication 57, 2 (2006), 183-204. -
  15. [15][15] Noreen M Webb. 1983. Predicting learning from student interaction: Defining the interaction variables. Educational psychologist 18, 1 (1983), 33-41. -
  16. [16][16] Etienne Wenger. 1987. Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems: computational and cognitive approaches to the communication of knowledge . Morgan Kaufmann.

Authors
Chhibber, N., & Law, E.
ORCID
Law, Edith
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1909.13443
arXiv
1909.13443
OpenAlex
W2975028745
Cited by
11
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
chatbots, learning by teaching, educational agents, student instruction, educational software, student engagement, conversational agent design

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