Impact of Conversational Formality on the Quality and Formality of Written Summaries

This study investigated the impact of conversational agent formality on the quality of summaries and formality of written summaries during the training session and on posttest in a trialog-based intelligent tutoring system (ITS). During training, participants learned summarization strategies with the guidance of conversational agents who spoke one of the following three styles of language: (1) a formal language for both the teacher agent and the student agent, (2) an informal language for both agents, and (3) a mixed language with a formal language for the teacher agent and the informal language for the student agent. Results showed that participants wrote better quality summaries during training than pretest and/or posttest in each condition. Results also showed that agent informal language caused participants to write more informal summaries during training than on pretest. Implications are discussed for the potential application of adaptive design of conversational agents in the ITS.

[1]  Haiying Li,et al.  Impact of Pedagogical Agents' Conversational Formality on Learning and Engagement , 2017, AIED.

[2]  R. Mayer,et al.  Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. , 2000 .

[3]  付伶俐.  打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[4]  Andrew J. Martin,et al.  Designing Instructional Text in a Conversational Style: A Meta-analysis , 2013 .

[5]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Coh-Metrix Measures Text Characteristics at Multiple Levels of Language and Discourse , 2014, The Elementary School Journal.

[6]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Role of Natural Language and Discourse Processing in Advanced Tutoring Systems , 2014 .

[7]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  The Challenge of Academic Language , 2009 .

[8]  Regina Jucks,et al.  "Address me personally!": On the role of language styles in a MOOC , 2018, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[9]  R. Mayer,et al.  Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments , 2004 .

[10]  Rosalie Friend.  Effects of Strategy Instruction on Summary Writing of College Students. , 2001, Contemporary educational psychology.

[11]  R. Mayer.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Principles of Multimedia Learning Based on Social Cues : Personalization, Voice, and Image Principles , 2005 .

[12]  Philip I. Pavlik,et al.  A New Measure of Text Formality: An Analysis of Discourse of Mao Zedong , 2016 .

[13]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  How Good Is Popularity? Summary Grading in Crowdsourcing , 2016, EDM.

[14]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  AutoTutor: an intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[15]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  The Role of Peer Agent's Learning Competency in Trialogue-Based Reading Intelligent Systems , 2015, AIED.

[16]  Joyce S. Choate.  Reading Assessment , 1990 .

[17]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Learning by Communicating in Natural Language With Conversational Agents , 2014 .

[18]  Lijia Lin,et al.  Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? , 2020, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Helmut M. Niegemann,et al.  Talk to me personally: Personalization of language style in computer-based learning , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks , 2008, EMNLP.

[21]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style. , 2004 .