Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort Towards Learning

Betty’s Brain is a computer-based learning environment that capitalizes on the social aspects of learning. In Betty’s Brain, students instruct a character called a Teachable Agent (TA) which can reason based on how it is taught. Two studies demonstrate the protégé effect: students make greater effort to learn for their TAs than they do for themselves. The first study involved 8th-grade students learning biology. Although all students worked with the same Betty’s Brain software, students in the TA condition believed they were teaching their TAs, while in another condition, they believed they were learning for themselves. TA students spent more time on learning activities (e.g., reading) and also learned more. These beneficial effects were most pronounced for lower achieving children. The second study used a verbal protocol with 5th-grade students to determine the possible causes of the protégé effect. As before, students learned either for their TAs or for themselves. Like study 1, students in the TA condition spent more time on learning activities. These children treated their TAs socially by attributing mental states and responsibility to them. They were also more likely to acknowledge errors by displaying negative affect and making attributions for the causes of failures. Perhaps having a TA invokes a sense of responsibility that motivates learning, provides an environment in which knowledge can be improved through revision, and protects students’ egos from the psychological ramifications of failure.

[1]  L. Ross,et al.  Attribution of education outcome by professional and nonprofessional instructors. , 1974, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  R. Ames Teachers' attributions of responsibility: Some unexpected nondefensive effects. , 1975 .

[3]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Computer power and human reason , 1976, SGAR.

[4]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[5]  C. Dweck,et al.  Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  C. Dweck,et al.  Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[8]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. , 1995 .

[9]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[10]  James C. Lester,et al.  The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents , 1997, CHI.

[11]  S. Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[12]  C.D. Martin,et al.  The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places [Book Review] , 1997, IEEE Spectrum.

[13]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Student goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors , 1999 .

[14]  C. Dweck Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Essays in Social Psychology. , 1999 .

[15]  James C. Lester,et al.  The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? , 2001 .

[16]  Crystal L. Hoyt,et al.  Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology , 2002 .

[17]  Erin Shaw,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents: An Opportunity to be Grasped? , 2002 .

[18]  P. Kuhl,et al.  Foreign-language experience in infancy: Effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Ricardo Imbert,et al.  The Bunny Dilemma: Stepping between Agents and Avatars , 2003 .

[20]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[21]  Jason P. Mitchell,et al.  Multiple routes to memory: Distinct medial temporal lobe processes build item and source memories , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Dave J. Hobbs,et al.  Embodiment and copresence in collaborative interfaces , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction , 2004 .

[24]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  LEARNING BY TEACHING: A NEW AGENT PARADIGM FOR EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE , 2005, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[25]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Simulating Instructional Roles through Pedagogical Agents , 2005, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[26]  C. Wieman,et al.  PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics , 2006 .

[27]  J. Bailenson,et al.  The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior , 2007 .

[28]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Do Learning by Teaching Environments with Metacognitive Support Help Students Develop Better Learning Behaviors , 2007 .

[29]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  The Mere Belief of Social Interaction Improves Learning , 2007 .

[30]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Pedagogical agents as a social interface , 2007 .

[31]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Observing Tutorial Dialogues Collaboratively: Insights About Human Tutoring Effectiveness From Vicarious Learning , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Interactive Metacognition: Monitoring and Regulating a Teachable Agent , 2009 .

[33]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Handbook of Metacognition in Education , 2009 .