Designing a Teachable Agent System for Mathematics Learning

Abstract

Learning-by-teaching has been identified as one of the more effective approaches to learning. Recently, educational researchers have investigated virtual environments in order to utilize the learning-by-teaching pedagogy. In a face-to-face learning-by-teaching situation, the role of the learners is to teach their peers or instructors. In virtual environments, learners take an active role by teaching a computer agent, which is referred to as Teachable Agent (TA). Although the current TA systems have shown their effectiveness on students’ learning, there are some challenges associated with learner-computer interaction methods. One of the most popular interaction methods between the learner and the system is a concept map approach. The learner teaches TA by creating information structures by drawing and editing their concept map. However, the learner can teach TA rather constrained topics, such as concept-related materials or causal effects. It is difficult for TA systems to be utilized in different types of learning along with concept-related areas. Therefore, new approaches or methods for communication between a human learner and TA systems are required. This project aims to suggest a virtual learning-by-teaching environment. A communication method (i.e., a symbol manipulation approach) was adopted in this system. The method facilitates the interaction between the learner and the computer agent, specifically for K-12 students’ mathematics learning. The design and development process is described, and future research areas are discussed.

Keywords

• learning by teaching,teachable agent,pedagogical agent,intelligent system

Kaynakça

1. Azaria, A., Krishnamurthy, J., & Mitchell, T. M. (2016, February). Instructable intelligent personal agent. Paper presented at the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
2. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Belynne, K., & Adebiyi, B. (2005, July). Case studies in learning by teaching behavioral differences in directed versus guided learning. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Stresa, Italy.
3. Blair, K., Schwartz, D., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2006). Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: teachable agents. Educational Technology and Society, 47 (Special Issue on Pedagogical Agents), 56-61.
4. Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5. Bringula, R. P., Basa, R. S., Dela Cruz, C., & Rodrigo, M. M. T. (2016). Effects of prior knowledge in mathematics on learner-interface interactions in a learning-by-teaching intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(4), 462-482.
6. Brophy, S., Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science. In S. P. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Open learning environments: New computational technologies to support learning, exploration, and collaboration. Amsterdam. The Netherlands: IOS Press.
7. Chan, T. W. & Baskin, A. B. (1988, June). Studying with the prince: The computer as a learning companion. Paper presented at the International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Montreal, Canada.
8. Chase, C. C., Chin, D. B., Oppezzo, M. A., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 334-352.

9. Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649-669.
10. Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40(3), 255-269.
11. Davis, J., Leelawong, K., Belynne, K., Bodenheimer, B., Biswas, G., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (2003, January). Intelligent user interface design for teachable agent systems. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. Miami, Florida.
12. Duran, D. (2016). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. Retrieved on 16 September 2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
13. Frager, S. & Stern, C. (1970). Learning by teaching. The Reading Teacher, 23(5), 403-417.
14. Haake, M., Axelsson, A., Clausen-Bruun, M., & Gulz, A. (2015). Scaffolding mentalizing via a play-&- learn game for preschoolers. Computers & Education, 90, 13-23.
15. Kim, S., Yun, S. H., Yoon, M., So, Y., Kim, W., Lee, M., Choi, D., & Lee, H. W. (2005). Design and implementation of the KORI: Intelligent teachable agent and its application to education. In O. Gervasi et al. (Eds.), Computational science and its applications (pp. 62-71). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
16. Kulik, J. A. & Fletcher, J. D. (2015). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems a meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42-78.
17. Leelawong, K., Viswanath, K., Davis, J., Biswas, G., Vye, N., Belynne, K., & Bransford, J. (2003, August). Teachable agents: Learning by teaching environments for science domains. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Acapulco, Mexico.
18. Leikin, R. (2006). Learning by teaching: The case of Sieve of Eratosthenes and one elementary school teacher. In R. Zazkis & S. Campbell (Eds.), Number theory in mathematics education: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Matsuda, N., Barbalios, N., Zhao, Z., Ramamurthy, A., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Tell me how to teach, I’ll learn how to solve problems. In A. Micarelli, J. Stamper, & K. Panourgia (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 111-121). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
20. Matsuda, N., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Tu, A., Stylianides, G., Cohen, W., & Koedinger, K. (2010, June). Learning by teaching SimStudent: technical accomplishments and an initial use with students. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Heidelberg, Berlin.
21. Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474-492.
22. Nacher, V., Jaen, J., Navarro, E., Catala, A., & González, P. (2015). Multi-touch gestures for prekindergarten children. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 73, 37-51.
23. Okita, S. Y., & Schwartz, D. L. (2006, June-July). When observation beats doing: Learning by teaching. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Mahwah, NJ.
24. Roscoe, R. D. Wagster, J., & Biswas, G. (2008, July). Using teachable agent feedback to support effective learning-by-teaching. Paper presented at the Cognitive Science Conference. Washington, DC.
25. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2006). Distributed learning and mutual adaptation. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 313-332.
26. Silvervarg, A., Kirkegaard, C., Nirme, J., Haake, M. & Gulz, A. (2014). Steps towards a challenging teachable agent. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 410-419). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
27. Tang, T. S., Hernandez, E. J., & Adams, B. S. (2004). “Learning by teaching”: A peer-teaching model for diversity training in medical school. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16(1), 60-63.
28. Yun, S. H., Choi, D. S., & Kim, S. I. (2008). Design and implementation of the adaptive teachable agent. In R. Wang, E. Shen, & F. Gu (Eds), Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics ICCN 2007 (pp799-803). Berlin, Germany: Springer.