Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Smart (but Also) Challenging Learning Environments: The Case of Conversational Agents That Foster Productive Peer Dialogue

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

Abstract

Smart learning environments (SLEs) are typically described as environments that offer rich learning interactions by making use of digital, context-aware, and adaptive technologies. This work introduces the concept of “smart challenging learning environments” (SCLEs), referring to SLEs that employ computational models of a “learner challenging” strategy. Such a strategy is conceptualized as a didactical model that enables the system to initiate learner-oriented interventions aiming to generate new challenges as opportunities for further learning. System interventions are expected to heighten students’ interest and direct their focus, thus resulting in productive cognitive activity and improved learning outcomes. To justify this approach, the learner “challenging” vs. “accommodating” approach is discussed contrasting research evidence from some widely adopted learning design paradigms, such as the “learning styles” and “scripted collaboration.” Next, the focus turns on the conversational agent domain analyzing the design and learning impact of “MentorChat,” an agent-based system that implements a learner challenging strategy, based on the discourse framework of academically productive talk (APT), to support and trigger student dialogue in web-based collaborative learning settings. Evidence from three studies is provided presenting the learning benefits and shortcomings that emerge when the MentorChat agent challenges peers to deeper discuss aspects of the learning domain. Finally, MentorChat-based conclusions are generalized toward providing system requirements for developing Smart and Challenging Learning Environments. The implementation of a learner challenging strategy is proposed as a key requirement in SCLEs while labor-efficient development is suggested through keeping system modeling at a minimum level. Teacher-friendliness is also emphasized through enabling system configuration by the teacher end-user.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adamson, D., Ashe, C., Jang, H., Yaron, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Intensification of group knowledge exchange with academically productive talk agents. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Madison Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adamson, D., Dyke, G., Jang, H., & Rosé, C. P. (2014). Towards an agile approach to adapting dynamic collaboration support to student needs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 92–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apple. (2009). Challenge-based learning cupertino. California: Apple, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning. Buckingham: SRHE Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Gómez-Sánchez, E., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., & Jorrín-Abellán, I. M. (2008). Gridcole: A tailorable grid service based system that supports scripted collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 51, 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P., & Peylo, C. (2003). Adaptive and intelligent web-based educational systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 156–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, D. J. (Ed.). (2002). Classics in the person-centered approach. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • challenge. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/challenge

  • Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé ef-fect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 334–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2009). Engaging collaborative learners with helping agents. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 365–372). Amsterdam: Ios Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R., Joshi, M., Terrell, E., Higgs, F., Aleven, V., & Rośe, C. P. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Supporting collaborative ‘green design’ learning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 807–809). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. (2009). Active–constructive–interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffield, F. J., Moseley, D. V., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Should we be using learning styles? What research has to say to practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cools, E., Evans, C., & Redmond, J. (2009). Using styles for more effective learning in multicultural and e-learning environments. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–37). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning. Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, 1, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 23(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyke, G., Adamson, D., Howley, I., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Enhancing scientific reasoning and explanation skills with conversational agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J., & Mandl, H. (2007). Introduction. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer–supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., & Graesser, A. (1997). Is it an agent, or just a program?: A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In Intelligent agents III agent theories, architectures, and languages (pp. 21–35). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a social conversational pedagogical agent–design challenges and methodological approaches. In D. Perez–Marin & I. Pascual–Nieto (Eds.), Conversational agents and natural language interaction: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 128–155). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., Ruiz-Requies, I., & Rubia-Avi, B. (2006). COLLAGE: A collaborative learning design editor based on patterns. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments – A context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 4. Retrieved from http://www.slejournal.com/content/1/1/4

  • Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerly, A., Ellis, R., & Bull, S. (2008). CALMsystem: a conversational agent for learner modelling. Knowledge-based systems, 21(3), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerly, A., Ellis, R., & Bull, S. (2009). Conversational agents in E-Learning. In T. Allen, R. Ellis, M. Petridis (Eds.), Applications and innovations in intelligent systems XVI (pp. 169–182). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinshuk, A. P. (2002). Does intelligent tutoring have future! In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education 2002. Los Alamitos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer F. (2007). Specifying computer–supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koper, R. (2014). Conditions for effective smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 5. Retrieved from http://www.slejournal.com/content/1/1/5

  • Kumar, R., & Rosé, C. (2011). Architecture for building conversational agents that support collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 4(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, R., Rosé, C. P., Wang, Y. C., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial dialogue as adaptive collaborative learning support. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 383–390). Amsterdam: Ios Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, A., Crockett, K., McLean, D., & Edmonds, B. (2012). Adaptive tutoring in an intelligent conversational agent system. In Transactions on computational collective intelligence VIII (pp. 148–167). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). An analysis of peer interaction patterns as discoursed by on–line small group problem–solving activity. Computers & Education, 50(3), 627–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuillan, J., & Conde, G. (1996). The conditions of flow in reading: Two studies of optimal experience. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 109–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2013). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. In Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable talk sourcebook: For classroom that works (v.3.1). University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning. Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://ifl.pitt.edu/index.php/download/index/ats

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers and Education, 61(2), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehl, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2009). Explicit references in chat–based CSCL: Do they facilitate global text processing? Evidence from eye movement analyses. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 138–140). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Rhodes, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., & Weinberger, A. (2013). ‘Make it explicit!’: Improving collaboration through increase of script coercion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • problem. (n.d.) American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved September 1, 2015, from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/problem

  • Roberts, T. S. (Ed.). (2004). Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice. IGI Global. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttkay, Z., & Pelachaud, C. (Eds.). (2004). From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/London, UK: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). The relationship between learning style and cognitive style. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 609–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L. (1998). The productive agency that drives collaborative learning. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 197–218). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sionti, M., Ai, H., Rosé, C. P., & Resnick, L. (2012). A framework for analyzing development of argumentation through classroom discussions. In N. Pinkwart & B. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 28–55). Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohmer, R., Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., & Resnick, L. (2009). Guided construction of knowledge in the classroom. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkowitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 105–129). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., & Rosé, C. P. (2011). Group cognition in online teams. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross–disciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G., Rosé, C. P., O’Hara, K., & Powell, A. B. (2010). Supporting group math cognition in virtual math teams with software conversational agents. In First North American GeoGebra Conference (pp. 196–204). Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S. N., & Karakostas, A. (2014). Conversational agent to promote students’ productive talk: The effect of solicited vs. unsolicited agent intervention. In IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 72–76). Athens, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Karakostas, A. (2015). Promoting academically productive talk with conversational agent interventions in collaborative learning settings. Computers & Education, 87, 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegos, S., Demetriadis, S., & Tsiatsos, T. (2014). A configurable conversational agent to trigger students’ productive dialogue: A Pilot Study in the CALL domain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(1), 62–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., & Demetriadis, S. (2003). The design and the formative evaluation of an adaptive educational system based on cognitive styles. Computers & Education, 41(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Graesser, A., Jackson, G. T., Jordan, P., Olney, A., & Rosé, C. P. (2007). Natural language tutoring: A comparison of human tutors, computer tutors, and text. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 3–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 759–769). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verdu, E., Regueras, L. M., Verdu, M. J., de Castro, J. P., & Perez, M. A. (2008). Is adaptive learning effective? A review of the research. In 7th WSEAS Int. Conf. on APPLIED COMPUTER & APPLIED COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE (ACACOS ’08), Hangzhou, China, April 6–8, pp. 710–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E., Rummel, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Designing automated adaptive support to improve student helping behaviors in a peer tutoring activity. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. C., Rosé, C. P., Cui, Y., Chang, C. Y., Huang, C. C., & Li, T. Y. (2007). Thinking hard together: The long and short of collaborative idea generation in scientific inquiry. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer–Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 754–763). International Society of the Learning Sciences. New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (2004). Artificial intelligence and tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 39–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wik, P., & Hjalmarsson, A. (2009). Embodied conversational agents in computer assisted language learning. Speech Communication, 51(10), 1024–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Biology Building, Aristotle University Campus (Kalamaria, Office 22), PO BOX 114, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Stavros N. Demetriadis & Stergios D. Tegos

Authors
  1. Stavros N. Demetriadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stergios D. Tegos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stavros N. Demetriadis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Info, Ste G150, Univ of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Michael J Spector

  2. School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Barbara B Lockee

  3. School of Education, Baker University, Overland Park, Kansas, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Demetriadis, S.N., Tegos, S.D. (2016). Smart (but Also) Challenging Learning Environments: The Case of Conversational Agents That Foster Productive Peer Dialogue. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_11-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_11-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation