The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.03 - July-Sept. (2013 vol.6)
pp: 248-257
D. B. Chin , H-STAR Inst., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, USA
I. M. Dohmen , Hillbrook Sch., Los Gatos, CA, USA
D. L. Schwartz , Grad. Sch. of Educ., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, USA
A teachable agent (TA) is an instructional technology that capitalizes on the organizing metaphor of teaching another, in this case, a computer agent. As one instance, students teach their agents by creating concept maps that connect nodes with relational links. TAs use simple artificial intelligence to draw conclusions based on what they have been taught and to trace the path of their reasoning visually. TAs literally make thinking visible, with the goal of helping children learn to reason. TAs also provide interactive feedback and engender in students a sense of responsibility toward improving their agents' knowledge. We describe, in detail, a TA designed to teach hierarchical reasoning in science, and then present a 2-year research study using this TA with 153 fourth-grade children learning about organisms, taxonomies, and ecosystems. We show that the TA improved learning from the standard curriculum as measured by the curriculum's accompanying tests. The TA also helped children learn hierarchical reasoning, as measured by researcher-designed tests. The research indicates that, contrary to some theoretical positions, it is possible to help younger children learn scientific modes of reasoning, specifically by means of TA software.
Cognition, Education, Games, Taxonomy, Computers, Software, Legged locomotion,science curriculum, science education, Computer-assisted instruction, teachable agents, instructional design
D. B. Chin, I. M. Dohmen, D. L. Schwartz, "Young Children Can Learn Scientific Reasoning with Teachable Agents", IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol.6, no. 3, pp. 248-257, July-Sept. 2013, doi:10.1109/TLT.2013.24
[1] W.K. Adams, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S.B. McKagan, K.K. Perkins, M. Dubson, and C.E. Wieman, "A Study of Educational Simulations Part I - Engagement and Learning," J. Interactive Learning Research, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 397-419, July 2008.
[2] G. Biswas, K. Leelawong, D.L. Schwartz, N. Vye, and TAG-V, "Learning by Teaching: A New Agent Paradigm for Educational Software," Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 19, pp. 363-392, 2005.
[3] D.B. Chin, I.M. Dohmen, B.H. Cheng, M.A. Oppezzo, C.C. Chase, and D.L. Schwartz, "Preparing Students for Future Learning with Teachable Agents," Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 649-669, 2010.
[4] S.Y. Okita and D.L. Schwartz, "Learning by Teaching Humans and Computer Agents," J. Learning Sciences, to be published.
[5] Nat'l Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Nat'l Academies, 2012.
[6] J. Piaget, The Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Univ. of Chicago, 1985.
[7] K.E. Metz, "Reassessment of Developmental Constraints on Children's Science Instruction," Rev. of Educational Research, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 93-127, 1995.
[8] P. Cormier and Y. Dagenais, "Class-Inclusion Developmental Levels and Logical Necessity," Int'l J. Behavioral Development, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-14, 1983.
[9] V.J. Haars and E.J. Mason, "Children's Understanding of Class Inclusion and Their Ability to Reason with Implication," Int'l J. Behavioral Development, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 45-63, 1986.
[10] U. Müller, B. Sokol, and W.F. Overton, "Developmental Sequences in Class Reasoning and Propositional Reasoning," J. Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 69-106, 1999.
[11] G.S. Halford, G. Andrews, and I. Jensen, "Integration of Category Induction and Hierarchical Classification: One Paradigm at Two Levels of Complexity," J. Cognition and Development, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 143-177, 2002.
[12] J. Deneault and M. Ricard, "The Effect of Hierarchical Levels of Categories on Children's Deductive Inferences about Inclusion," Int'l J. Psychology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 65-79, 2005.
[13] G.A. Winer, "Class-Inclusion Reasoning in Children: A Review of the Empirical Literature," Child Development, vol. 51, pp. 309-328, 1980.
[14] G.S. Halford, Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.
[15] D.L. Schwartz, T. Martin, and J. Pfaffman, "How Mathematics Propels the Development of Physical Knowledge," J. Cognition and Development, vol. 6, pp. 65-88, 2005.
[16] A.L. Baylor, "Pedagogical Agents as a Social Interface," Educational Technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 11-14, 2007.
[17] C.Y. Chou, C.J. Lin, and T.W. Chan, "An Approach to Developing Computational Supports for Reciprocal Tutoring," Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 407-412, 2002.
[18] L. Annis, "The Processes and Effects of Peer Tutoring," Human Learning, vol. 2, pp. 39-47, 1983.
[19] A. Renkl, "Learning for Later Teaching: An Exploration of Mediational Links between Teaching Expectancy and Learning Results," Learning and Instruction, vol. 5, pp. 21-36, 1995.
[20] R.D. Roscoe and M. Chi, "Tutor Learning: The Role of Explaining and Responding to Questions," Instructional Science, vol. 36, pp. 321-350, 2008.
[21] J.A. Bargh and Y. Schul, "On the Cognitive Benefits of Teaching," J. Educational Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 593-604, 1980.
[22] G. Biswas, D.L. Schwartz, and J.D. Bransford, and The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt, "Technology Support for Complex Problem Solving: From SAD Environments to AI," Smart Machines in Education, K. Forbus and P. Feltovich, eds., pp. 71-98, AAAI/MIT, 2001.
[23] L. Martin and D.L. Schwartz, "Prospective Adaptation in the Use of Representational Tools," Cognition and Instruction, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1-31, 2009.
[24] C. Chase, D.B. Chin, M. Oppezzo, and D.L. Schwartz, "Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort toward Learning," J. Science Education and Technology, vol. 18, no. 4. pp. 334-352, 2009.
[25] K.P. Blair and D.L. Schwartz, "Milo and J-Mole: Computers as Constructivist Teachable Agents," Proc. Sixth Int'l Conf. Learning Sciences, pp. 588-588, 2004.
[26] L. Pareto, "A Teachable Agent Game for Elementary School Mathematics Promoting Causal Reasoning and Choice," Proc. First Int'l Workshop Adaptation and Personalization in EB/Learning Using Pedagogic Conversational Agents (APLEC '10), pp. 13-19, 2010.
[27] L. Pareto, M. Haake, P. Lindström, B. Sjödén, and A. Gulz, "A Teachable-Agent-Based Game Affording Collaboration and Competition: Evaluating Math Comprehension and Motivation," Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 60, pp. 723-751, 2012.
[28] N. Matsuda, W.W. Cohen, K.R. Koedinger, V. Keiser, R. Raizada, E. Yarzebinski, and G. Stylianides, "Studying the Effect of Tutor Learning Using a Teachable Agent that Asks the Student Tutor for Explanations," Proc. IEEE Fourth Int'l Conf. Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), pp. 25-32, 2012.
[29] M.T.H. Chi, M. Roy, and R.G.M. Hausmann, "Observing Tutorial Dialogues Collaboratively: Insights about Human Tutoring Effectiveness from Vicarious Learning," Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary J., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 301-341, 2008.
[30] A. Collins, J.S. Brown, and A. Holum, "Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible," Am. Educator, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 6-11 and 38-46, 1991.
[31] J.D. Novak and D.B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn. Cambridge Univ., 1984.
[32] S.Y. Okita and A. Jamalian, "Learning from the Folly of Others: Learning to Self-Correct by Monitoring the Reasoning of Projective Pedagogical Agents," Proc. 10th Int'l Conf. Learning Sciences (ICLS), pp. 281-285, 2012.
[33] D.L. Schwartz, K.P. Blair, G. Biswas, K. Leelawong, and J. Davis, "Animations of Thought: Interactivity in the Teachable Agents Paradigm," Learning with Animation: Research and Implications for Design, R. Lowe, R. and W. Schnotz, eds., pp. 114-140, Cambridge Univ., 2007.
[34] D. Premack, "Is Language the Key to Human Intelligence," Science, vol. 303, no. 5656, pp. 318-320, 2004.
[35] S.Y. Okita and D.L. Schwartz, "When Observation Beats Doing: Learning by Teaching," Proc. Seventh Int'l Conf. Learning Sciences (ICLS), 2006.
[36] B. Reeves and C. Nass, The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media like Real People and Places. Stanford Univ. Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1996.
[37] Z.-H. Chen, C. Liao, Q.-C. Chien, and T.-W. Chan, "Animal Companions: Fostering Children's Effort-Making by Nurturing Virtual Pets," British J. Educational Technology, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 166-180, 2011.
[38] A.N. Kluger and A. DeNisi, "Feedback Interventions: Toward the Understanding of a Double-Edged Sword," Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 67-72, 1998.
[39] A. Gulz, M. Haake, and A. Silvervarg, "Extending a Teachable Agent with a Social Conversation Module-Effects on Student Experiences and Learning," Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 106-114, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011.
[40] J.R. Segedy, J.S. Kinnebrew, and G. Biswas, "The Effect of Contextualized Conversational Feedback in a Complex Open-Ended Learning Environment," Educational Technology Research and Development, rapid post, 2012, doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9275-0.
[41] J. Hattie and H. Timperley, "The Power of Feedback," Rev. of Educational Research, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 81-112, 2007.
80 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool