Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Group Discussion with Conversational Agents Using Epistemic Network Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Quantitative Ethnography (ICQE 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1522))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Conversational agents—dialogue systems that provide learning support to students in real time—have shown promise in facilitating science discussion. To enact conversation norms, the appearances, personalities, or tones of the agents often resemble personas that students are familiar with, such as peers or mentors. This study uses epistemic network analysis (ENA) to explore how students interacted with two personas agent (a peer and an expert) in collaborative settings. Data came from chat logs of three student groups with low, mixed, and high ability. The groups interacted with both prototypes. The chat logs received qualitative codes for discussion types, including claim-making, reasoning, building on prior ideas, and responsiveness to the agents. ENA visualized the differences in discussion between groups and between the agent conditions. Overall, the higher-ability groups engaged in more claim-making in tandem with building on prior ideas when interacting with the peer agent, compared to the expert agent. Meanwhile, the low-ability group showed more syntheses of previous ideas when responding to the expert agent. Findings illuminate the design space for adapting agent personas to group settings to facilitate productive exchange.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zacharia, Z., Barton, A.C.: Urban middle-school students’ attitudes toward a defined science. Sci. Educ. 88(2), 197–222 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoadley, C.M., Kilner, P.G.: Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bull. 25(1), 31–40 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C.: Technologies for knowledge-building discourse. Commun. ACM 36(5), 37–41 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stahl, G., Cress, U., Law, N., Ludvigsen, S.: Analyzing the multidimensional construction of knowledge in diverse contexts. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 9(1), 1–6. Springer, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9189-4

  5. Dyke, G., Howley, I., Adamson, D., Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P.: Towards Academically Productive Talk Supported by Conversational Agents. In Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions, pp. 459–476. Springer, US (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2_69

  6. Kumar, R., Beuth, J., Rose, C.: Conversational strategies that support idea generation productivity in groups. In: Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., Law, N. (eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings, pp. 398–405. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S.: Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20(1), 99–111 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: a review, progress, and recommendations. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(1), 160–169 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Seering, J., Luria, M., Kaufman, G., Hammer, J..: Beyond dyadic interactions: considering chatbots as community members. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Walker, E., Rummel, N., Koedinger, K.R.: Adaptive intelligent support to improve peer tutoring in algebra. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 24(1), 33–61 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moon, Y., Nass, C.I.: Adaptive agents and personality change. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems Common Ground - CHI 1996, pp. 287–288 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Tauber, E.R.: Computers are social actors. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 72–78 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Graesser, A.C.: Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(1), 124–132 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 54(6), 569–596 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liew, T.W., Tan, S.-M., Jayothisa, C.: The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners’ agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement. Educ. Technol. Soc. 16(4), 275–286 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oliveira, A.W., Sadler, T.D.: Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45(5), 634–658 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Saleh, M., Lazonder, A.W., De Jong, T.: Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation. Instr. Sci. 33(2), 105–119 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Webb, N.M., Farivar, S.: Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31(2), 369–395 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Muhonen, H., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A.M., Lerkkanen, M.K.: Knowledge-building patterns in educational dialogue. Int. J. Educ. Res. 81, 25–37 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gillies, R.M., Nichols, K., Burgh, G., Haynes, M.: Primary students’ scientific reasoning and discourse during cooperative inquiry-based science activities. Int. J. Educ. Res. 63, 127–140 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chi, M.T.H., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., Hausmann, R.G.: Learning from human tutoring. Cogn. Sci. 25(4), 471–533 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hewitt, J., Scardamalia, M.: Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10(1), 75–96 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Byrne, D., Nelson, D.: Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1(6), 659–663 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nass, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B.J., Reeves, B., Dryer, D.C.: Can computer personalities be human personalities? Int. J. Hum. – Comput. Stud. 43(2), 223–239 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim, Y.: Desirable characteristics of learning companions. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 17(4), 371–388 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Biswas, G., Segedy, J.R., Bunchongchit, K.: From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty’s brain. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(1), 350–364 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0057-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chaiken, S., Maheswaran, D.: Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66(3), 460–473 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heidig, S., Clarebout, G.: Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educ. Res. Rev. 6(1), 27–54. Elsevier (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenberg-Kima, R.B., Baylor, A.L., Plant, E.A., Doerr, C.E.: Interface agents as social models for female students: the effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24(6), 2741–2756 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim, S., Lee, J., Gweon, G.: Comparing data from chatbot and web surveys effects of platform and conversational style on survey response quality. In: Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chen, H., Park, H.W., Breazeal, C.: Teaching and learning with children: impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Comput. Educ. 150, 103836 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chin, C.: Classroom interaction in science: teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28(11), 1315–1346 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Agne, R.R., Muller, H.L.: Discourse strategies that co-construct relational identities in STEM peer tutoring. Commun. Educ. 68(3), 265–286 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. King, A., Staffieri, A., Adelgais, A.: Mutual peer tutoring: effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 90(1), 134–152 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Eagan, B.R., Shaffer, D.W.: SENS: network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 562–577 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Howley, I., Kumar, R., Mayfield, E., Dyke, G., Rosé, C.P.: Gaining insights from sociolinguistic style analysis for redesign of conversational agent based support for collaborative learning. In: Suthers, D.D., Lund, K., Rosé, C.P., Teplovs, C., Law, N. (eds.) Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions. CCLS, vol. 15, pp. 477–494. Springer, Boston, MA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8960-3_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Rosé, C.P., et al.: Analyzing collaborative learning processes automatically: exploiting the advances of computational linguistics in computer-supported collaborative learning. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 3(3), 237–271 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shaffer, D.W., Collier, W., Ruis, A.R.: A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. J. Learn. Anal. 3(3), 9–45 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nguyen, H., Santagata, R.: Impact of computer modeling on learning and teaching systems thinking. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 58(5), 661–688 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Honnibal, M.: Spacy: industrial-strength natural language processing (NLP) with python and cython (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kumpulainen, K., Wray, D.: Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: From Theory to Practice. Psychology Press, Hove (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Marquart, C.L., Zachar, S., Collier, W., Eagan, B., Woodward, R., Shaffer, D.W.: rENA: Epistemic Network Analysis (2018). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rENA/index.html

  44. Van Boxtel, C., Van der Linden, J., Kanselaar, G.: Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learn. Instr. 10(4), 311–330 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang, Y., van Aalst, J., Chan, C.K.K., Tian, W.: Reflective assessment in knowledge building by students with low academic achievement. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collaborative Learn. 11(3), 281–311 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9239-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Adamson, D., Rosé, C.P.: Coordinating multi-dimensional support in collaborative conversational agents. In: International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 346–351. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30950-2_45

  47. Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Jang, H., Rosé, C.P.: Towards an agile approach to adapting dynamic collaboration support to student needs. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 24(1), 92–124 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Ha Nguyen

Authors
  1. Ha Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ha Nguyen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Barbara Wasson

  2. Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

    Szilvia Zörgő

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Nguyen, H. (2022). Exploring Group Discussion with Conversational Agents Using Epistemic Network Analysis. In: Wasson, B., Zörgő, S. (eds) Advances in Quantitative Ethnography. ICQE 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1522. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93859-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93859-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-93858-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-93859-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation