Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12748))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
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. Annis, L.F.: The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Hum. Learn. 2(1), 39–47 (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bargh, J.A., Schul, Y.: On the cognitive benefits of teaching. J. Educ. Psychol. 72(5), 593–604 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chi, M.T.H., et al.: Learning from human tutoring. Cogn. Sci. 25, 471–533 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, E.G.: Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64(1), 1–35 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gartner, A., Kohler, M., Riessman, F.: Children Teach Children: Learning by Teaching. Harper & Row, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roscoe, R.D.: Opportunities and barriers for tutor learning: knowledge-building, metacognition, and motivation. University of Pittsburgh (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Roscoe, R.D., Chi, M.: Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instr. Sci. 36(4), 321–350 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Butler, D.L.: Structuring instruction to promote self-regulated learning by adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. Exceptionality 11(1), 39–60 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, J.: Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychol. Sch. 23(2), 175–186 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roscoe, R.D.: Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instr. Sci. 42(3), 327–351 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chin, C., Osborne, J.: Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Stud. Sci. Educ. 44(1), 1–39 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watts, M., et al.: Prompting teachers’ constructive reflection: pupils’ questions as critical incidents. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19(9), 1025–1037 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K.: Question asking during tutoring. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31(1), 104–137 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A.M.: Eliciting explanations: constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24(5), 1501–1510 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nichols, D.M.: Intelligent Student Systems: an Application of Viewpoints to Intelligent Learning Environments. Lancaster University, Lancaster (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  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_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Reif, F., Scott, L.A.: Teaching scientific thinking skills: students and computers coaching each other. Am. J. Phys. 67(9), 819–831 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chi, M.T.H., et al.: Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn. Sci. 18(3), 439–477 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rosé, C.P., Torrey, C.: Interactivity versus expectation: eliciting learning oriented behavior with tutorial dialogue systems. In: Proceedings of Interact 2005 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Matsuda, N., et al.: Learning by teaching SimStudent – an initial classroom baseline study comparing with cognitive tutor. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6738, pp. 213–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant No. R305A180319 and National Science Foundation Grant No. 1643185 to North Carolina State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Tasmia Shahriar & Noboru Matsuda

Authors
  1. Tasmia Shahriar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noboru Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tasmia Shahriar or Noboru Matsuda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Ido Roll

  2. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Danielle McNamara

  3. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Sergey Sosnovsky

  4. London Knowledge Lab, London, UK

    Rose Luckin

  5. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Vania Dimitrova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Shahriar, T., Matsuda, N. (2021). “Can You Clarify What You Said?”: Studying the Impact of Tutee Agents’ Follow-Up Questions on Tutors’ Learning. In: Roll, I., McNamara, D., Sosnovsky, S., Luckin, R., Dimitrova, V. (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12748. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78292-4_32

Download citation

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

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78291-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78292-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation