Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
RepairNet: Contextual Sequence-to-Sequence Network for Automated Program Repair Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

“Can You Clarify What You Said?”: Studying the Impact of Tutee Agents’ Follow-Up Questions on Tutors’ Learning

verfasst von : Tasmia Shahriar, Noboru Matsuda

Erschienen in: Artificial Intelligence in Education

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Students learn by teaching others as tutors. Advancement in the theory of learning by teaching has given rise to many pedagogical agents. In this paper, we exploit a known cognitive theory that states if a tutee asks deep questions in a peer tutoring environment, a tutor benefits from it. Little is known about a computational model of such deep questions. This paper aims to formalize the deep tutee questions and proposes a generalized model of inquiry-based dialogue, called the constructive tutee inquiry, to ask follow-up questions to have tutors reflect their current knowledge (aka knowledge-building activity). We conducted a Wizard of Oz study to evaluate the proposed constructive tutee inquiry. The results showed that the constructive tutee inquiry was particularly effective for the low prior knowledge students to learn conceptual knowledge.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Assessing Algorithmic Fairness in Automatic Classifiers of Educational Forum Posts
Nächstes Kapitel Classifying Math Knowledge Components via Task-Adaptive Pre-Trained BERT
Literatur
1.
Annis, L.F.: The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Hum. Learn. 2(1), 39–47 (1983)
2.
Bargh, J.A., Schul, Y.: On the cognitive benefits of teaching. J. Educ. Psychol. 72(5), 593–604 (1980)CrossRef
3.
Cohen, P.A., Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.L.C.: Education outcomes of tutoring: a meta-analysis of findings. Am. Educ. Res. J. 19(2), 237–248 (1982)CrossRef
4.
Renkl, A.: Learning for later teaching: an exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learn. Instr. 5(1), 21–36 (1995)CrossRef
5.
Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.T.H.: Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(4), 534–574 (2007)CrossRef
6.
Chi, M.T.H., et al.: Learning from human tutoring. Cogn. Sci. 25, 471–533 (2001)CrossRef
7.
Cohen, E.G.: Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(1), 1–35 (1994)CrossRef
8.
Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R.S., Allen, V.L.: Research on children tutoring children: a critical review. Rev. Educ. Res. 46(3), 355–385 (1976)CrossRef
9.
Gartner, A., Kohler, M., Riessman, F.: Children Teach Children: Learning by Teaching. Harper & Row, New York (1971)
10.
Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K., Magliano, J.P.: Collaborative dialogue patterns in naturalistic one-to-one tutoring. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 9(6), 495–522 (1995)CrossRef
11.
Roscoe, R.D.: Opportunities and barriers for tutor learning: knowledge-building, metacognition, and motivation. University of Pittsburgh (2008)
12.
Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.: Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instr. Sci. 36(4), 321–350 (2008)CrossRef
13.
Butler, D.L.: Structuring instruction to promote self-regulated learning by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Exceptionality 11(1), 39–60 (2003)CrossRef
14.
Hong, H.-Y., et al.: Advancing third graders’ reading comprehension through collaborative Knowledge Building: a comparative study in Taiwan. Comput. Educ. 157, 103962 (2020)CrossRef
15.
Cohen, J.: Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychol. Sch. 23(2), 175–186 (1986)CrossRef
16.
Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.T.H.: The influence of the tutee in learning by peer tutoring. In: Forbus, K., Gentner, D, Regier, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1179–1184. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2004)
17.
18.
Chin, C., Osborne, J.: Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Stud. Sci. Educ. 44(1), 1–39 (2008)CrossRef
19.
Watts, M., et al.: Prompting teachers’ constructive reflection: pupils’ questions as critical incidents. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19(9), 1025–1037 (1997)CrossRef
20.
Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K.: Question asking during tutoring. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31(1), 104–137 (1994)CrossRef
21.
Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J.J.: Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learn. Instr. 17(5), 532–548 (2007)CrossRef
22.
23.
Matsuda, N., et al.: Studying the effect of tutor learning using a teachable agent that asks the student tutor for explanations. In: Sugimoto, M., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL 2012), pp. 25–32. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2012)
24.
Biswas, G., et al.: Learning by teaching: a new agent paradigm for educational software. J. Appl. Artif. Intell. 19(3 & 4), 363–392 (2005)CrossRef
25.
Bredeweg, B., et al.: DynaLearn - engaging and informed tools for learning conceptual system knowledge. In: Pirrone, R., Azevedo, R., Biswas, G. (eds.) Cognitive and Metacognitive Educational Systems (MCES 2009), AAAI Fall Symposium, pp. 46–51. AAAI Press, Arlington (2009)
26.
Ketamo, H., Kiili, K.: Conceptual change takes time: game based learning cannot be only supplementary amusement. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 19(4), 399–419 (2010)
27.
Nichols, D.M.: Intelligent Student Systems: an Application of Viewpoints to Intelligent Learning Environments. Lancaster University, Lancaster (1993)
28.
Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., Gulz, A.: A teachable-agent arithmetic game’s effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 247–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-642-21869-9_​33CrossRef
29.
Reif, F., Scott, L.A.: Teaching scientific thinking skills: students and computers coaching each other. Am. J. Phys. 67(9), 819–831 (1999)CrossRef
30.
Matsuda, N.: Applying machine learning to cognitive modeling for cognitive tutors. [Technical report]. Carnegie Mellon University. School of Computer Science. Machine Learning Dept. (2006). Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Machine Learning Dept., Pittsburgh [15] p.
31.
Chi, M.T.H., et al.: Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn. Sci. 18(3), 439–477 (1994)
32.
Kwon, K., Kumalasari, C.D., Howland, J.L.: Self-explanation prompts on problem-solving performance in an interactive learning environment. J. Interact. Online Learn. 10(2), 1–17 (2011)
33.
Rosé, C.P., Torrey, C.: Interactivity versus expectation: eliciting learning oriented behavior with tutorial dialogue systems. In: Proceedings of Interact 2005 (2005)
34.
DeCaro, M.S., Rittle-Johnson, B.: Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 113(4), 552–568 (2012)CrossRef
35.
Baker, R.S., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R.: Learning to distinguish between representations of data: a cognitive tutor that uses contrasting cases. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences (2004)
36.
Sidney, P.G., Hattikudur, S., Alibali, M.W.: How do contrasting cases and self-explanation promote learning? Evidence from fraction division. Learn. Instr. 40, 29–38 (2015)CrossRef
37.
Looi, C.K., Wu, L.: Design of agent tutee’s question prompts to engage student’s role-playing as tutor in a learning-by-teaching agent environment. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the Learning Sciences-Volume International Society of the Learning Sciences (2008)
38.
39.
Berghmans, I., et al.: A typology of approaches to peer tutoring. Unraveling peer tutors’ behavioural strategies. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 28(3), 703–723 (2013)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
“Can You Clarify What You Said?”: Studying the Impact of Tutee Agents’ Follow-Up Questions on Tutors’ Learning
verfasst von
Tasmia Shahriar
Noboru Matsuda
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Buch
Artificial Intelligence in Education

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78291-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-78292-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78292-4_32

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise