Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI
Conversational agents in MOOCs:
What’s the point?
Stavros Demetriadis
Assoc. Professo...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki (AUTh...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
School of Informatics
Software and Interac...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Overview
 Peer interaction: productive di...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Peer interaction
 Peer interaction is the...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Free = suboptimal collaboration
 But no g...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Scripting collaborative learning
 Scaffol...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
When students discuss…
Teachers may interv...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
“Academically Productive Talk” (APT)
 Fra...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
APT Move Example
Link Contributions
Agree-...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
APT move efficacy
 The efficacy of each A...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
When you have too many students…
 MOOCs a...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
…but someone else can do it for you…
a con...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Agents are friendly creatures that live
on...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Conversational Agents (CAs):
Agents that t...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Can CAs successfully support
peer interact...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Emerging research direction:
 Agile form ...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
MentorChat
A configurable conversational a...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Configurable-1: can be setup to make
vario...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Configurable-2: The teacher enters the
dom...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
MentorChat: Key design decisions and
model...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Study 1: Linking Contributions
(Tegos, Dem...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Example: Agent LC intervention
User Studen...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Study 1: Key Results
 Learning: Treatment...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Explicitness as mediator variable
 (Tegos...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Study 2: Building on Prior Knowledge
(Tego...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Study 3: Solicited (A) vs. Unsolicited (B)...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Study 4: Undirected (A) vs. ‘Weak’ Directe...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Lessons from MentorChat
 Conversational A...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Limitations
 Controlled conditions: Parti...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Portrait of a Scholar
by Domenico Feti, It...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
The point is….
We expect….
 Learner engag...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
colMOOCs to test-bed the approach
 Develo...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Key design features:
1) Teacher configures...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Key design features:
2) The agent as an in...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Key design features:
3) Analytics componen...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Key design features:
4) Community building...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
 Educational Design  Software developmen...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Open design/research issues
 Teacher tool...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
Thank you! Questions?
sdemetri@csd.auth.gr...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
References 1/2
 Boyd, G. M. (2001). Refle...
ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018
References 2/2
 Michaels, S., O’Connor, C...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

«Conversational agents in MOOCs: what’s the point?» / Stavros Demetriadis, associate professor at the School of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), Greece.

214 views

Published on

11_05_2018 eMadrid seminar on «When digital meets physical in education», UC3M

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

«Conversational agents in MOOCs: what’s the point?» / Stavros Demetriadis, associate professor at the School of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), Greece.

  1. 1. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI Conversational agents in MOOCs: What’s the point? Stavros Demetriadis Assoc. Professor School of Informatics Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece
  2. 2. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh)  Est. 1926  42 Schools in 11 Faculties  Academic Staff: 2024  Students: ~ 75000
  3. 3. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 School of Informatics Software and Interactive Technologies Lab (SWITCH) SWITCH Lab  Software Technology  Learning Technologies  Music Informatics School of Informatics  Est. 1992  Academic Staff: 30  Students: ~ 900
  4. 4. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Overview  Peer interaction: productive dialogue for learning  Conversational Agents  MentorChat: Research Evidence  colMOOC project: Agents in MOOCs  Design, Expectations, Research  Erasmus+  Knowledge Alliances
  5. 5. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Peer interaction  Peer interaction is the key learning mechanism for knowledge building in collaborative learning settings  The real generative processes of the emergence of mind and the production of knowledge can be usefully modeled as multilevel conversations between conversants…  Conversation Theory (Boyd, 2001)
  6. 6. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Free = suboptimal collaboration  But no guarantee that these interactions will actually occur  Dillenbourg & Tchounikine (2007)  Various studies have identified patterns of suboptimal collaboration in free (non-supported) collaboration conditions  (e.g., Liu & Tsai, 2008).
  7. 7. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Scripting collaborative learning  Scaffolds are needed to increase the probability that productive peer interactions occur…  … such as consensus building, explicit explanation, mutual regulation, argumentation, conflict resolution, etc…  For example ‘Make it Explicit!’: …when asking students to proactively articulate their own positions explicitly, then improved peer interaction is triggered in a subsequent collaborative session  Papadopoulos, Demetriadis & Weinberger, 2013
  8. 8. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 When students discuss… Teachers may intervene…  This kind of intervention fosters productive dialogue and deeper learning: triggers students to elaborate, recall, make connections, argue, etc.  Do you agree…?  Do you think this relates also to…?  Do you think this also relates to… ?  ………………..
  9. 9. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 “Academically Productive Talk” (APT)  Framework originating from the teachers’ community emphasizing the orchestration of classroom discussions  (Michaels et al. 2010).  Addresses a set of teachers’ discussion practices (‘moves’) that can lead to participation of all learning partners.  Prioritizes reasoning over correctness  Highlights ‘sharing their reasoning out loud’ as an effective teaching strategy for the elicitation of learners’ perspectives  (Papadopoulos, Demetriadis, & Weinberger, 2013).
  10. 10. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 APT Move Example Link Contributions Agree-Disagree Add-On A. “Do you agree with what your partner said…?” B. “Would you like to add something to …?” Re-voice “So, are you saying that … Is that correct?” Ask for Accuracy Ask for Credibility Ask for Completeness A. “Could you identify that in a reference book?” B. “This is probably true, but how could we get more evidence on that?” Build on Prior Knowledge “How does this connect with what we know about …?” Ask for Reasoning “What are the arguments in favor of that?”, “Why do you think that?” Expand Reasoning Take your Time Say More A. “Please take your time before answering” B. “That's interesting! Can you elaborate on that?” APT Moves
  11. 11. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 APT move efficacy  The efficacy of each APT move depends on various factors like:  the teacher authority  the student background  the education level  the difficulty of the instructional domain  the students’ knowledge background.  Michaels et al. (2008)
  12. 12. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 When you have too many students…  MOOCs are popular today  Open Educational Resources  How can we advance peer interaction and productive dialogue in MOOCs?  Can the Teacher make APT interventions in MOOC chats? No! :-(
  13. 13. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 …but someone else can do it for you… a conversational agent
  14. 14. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Agents are friendly creatures that live onscreen…  A ‘pedagogical agent’ is considered an autonomous computer-generated virtual character aiming to fulfill specific pedagogical purposes in a learning environment  Gulz, Haake, Silvervarg, Sjödén, & Veletsianos (2011).
  15. 15. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Conversational Agents (CAs): Agents that talk to learners  Agents attempting to engage learners in a conversation through natural language
  16. 16. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Can CAs successfully support peer interaction? Yes!  Agent directed learners through prescribed lines of reasoning  substantially improved learning  Chaudhuri (2009)  Agent displayed reflective prompts while learners took turns tutoring each other  increased the conceptual content in students’ utterances  Walker et al. (2011)  Agent interacted with peers during collaborative brainstorming  significantly enhanced learners’ creativity (more ideas as compared to brainstorming with a human peer)  Wang et al. (2007)
  17. 17. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Emerging research direction:  Agile form of conversational agent to support social interaction by inducing constructive mental processes  Conversational agent to scaffold collaborative learning discussions through the approach of ‘Academically Productive Talk’ (APT)
  18. 18. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 MentorChat A configurable conversational agent  APT-based: Makes APT interventions during synchronous online student discussion (chatting)  Configurable: (1) various APT moves (2) teacher enters the domain
  19. 19. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Configurable-1: can be setup to make various moves Build on Prior Knowledge Link contributions 1. Agree/Disagree 2. Add on
  20. 20. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Configurable-2: The teacher enters the domain
  21. 21. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 MentorChat: Key design decisions and models  Moderate AI level  Agent does not enter into full fledged discussion  Models and triggers student dialogue by making APT moves  Development efficiency  Teacher configures the domain  Agent as a teacher- configured learning tool  NOT teacher substitute
  22. 22. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Study 1: Linking Contributions (Tegos, Demetriadis & Karakostas, 2015)  Participants: 43 undergraduate CS students  Randomly assigned to groups and 2 conditions:  Treatment (received agent LC interventions, 9 dyads and 1 triad)  Control condition (no Agent, 11 dyads)
  23. 23. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Example: Agent LC intervention User Student Dialogue with Agent Interventions George What is the most relevant design principle here? Anna That preferably the information should be displayed using different representation codes, such as images, diagrams, etc., in order to achieve a better understanding. I think this is the principle of spatial contiguity. George I see Agent George, do you agree or disagree with Anna’s statement regarding the spatial contiguity principle? Please, elaborate. George [Submitted Response to Agent] Well, I think the principle of spatial contiguity suggests that the text and the relevant image should be put close to each other Anna Ah yes! That’s true. I believe this design principle should be our number one priority because Mayer has shown that students tend to learn better when text and graphics are placed close to one another than when they are placed far from each other (avoid screen scrolling).
  24. 24. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Study 1: Key Results  Learning: Treatment outperformed control in both individual and group learning measures (conceptual knowledge)  Explicitness: Treatment significantly increased frequencies of explicitness (explicit positions and explicit arguments during discussions)  Agent intervention triggered on average 1.18 subsequent explicit contribution (Explicit Response Ratio, ERR = 1.18)  Treatment students used considerably more key domain concepts in their group discussions  Frequency of explicit arguments was identified as mediator variable
  25. 25. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Explicitness as mediator variable  (Tegos, Demetriadis & Karakostas, 2015)
  26. 26. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Study 2: Building on Prior Knowledge (Tegos & Demetriadis, 2015)  Participants: 72 undergraduate CS students  Randomly assigned to groups and 2 conditions:  Treatment (received agent BPK interventions, 19 dyads)  Control condition (no Agent, 17 dyads)  Confirmed all study-1 results  Improved Individual and Group learning  Increased explicitness  Frequency of explicit arguments was identified as mediator variable
  27. 27. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Study 3: Solicited (A) vs. Unsolicited (B) Interventions (Tegos, Demetriadis, & Karakostas, 2014) Unsolicited interventions:  Perceived by the students as more intrusive  But found to be more effective in stimulating explicit reasoning A B
  28. 28. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Study 4: Undirected (A) vs. ‘Weak’ Directed (B) Interventions (Tegos, Demetriadis, & Tsiatsos, 2014)  ‘Weak’ Directed interventions increase the transactive quality of a peer dialogue and, leads to improved learning  Transactivity: Reasoning on each others contributions
  29. 29. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Lessons from MentorChat  Conversational Agent interventions based on APT can improve learning outcomes in online student discussions  Interventions trigger students’ explicit reasoning  results in improved learning  Unsolicited interventions >> Solicited  ‘Weak’ Directed interventions >> Undirected
  30. 30. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Limitations  Controlled conditions: Participants were informed that discussions would be reviewed by the course instructor…  .. learning benefits though were observed without any feedback from the instructor  Moderate Agent AI: Not full-fledged discussion with students but only trigger peer interaction  Objective: easily constructed and deployed agents with a minimum required level of AI  Text-based communication (use of keyboard):  Easier for tech-savvy students  Can be extended to voice-based dialogue?
  31. 31. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Portrait of a Scholar by Domenico Feti, Italian painter Gemäldegalerie, Dresden What next?  The colMOOC project to integrate similar agent-based tools in MOOCs (Demetriadis et al. 2018)
  32. 32. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 The point is…. We expect….  Learner engagement and satisfaction through social interaction  Learning benefits at cognitive (domain) and metacognitive level  Developing a community of educators to further explore the impact of agents on learning  To engage MOOCs learners in academically productive dialogue triggered by agent interventions
  33. 33. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 colMOOCs to test-bed the approach  Develop pilot MOOCs in 3 domains  With agent-based chat integrated as learning activity
  34. 34. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Key design features: 1) Teacher configures the agent domain  The teacher as a creator-developer, the animator of the agent
  35. 35. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Key design features: 2) The agent as an interaction mediator  The agent operates as a TIM (“Teacher-configurable Interaction Mediator”) mediating teacher-group interactions
  36. 36. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Key design features: 3) Analytics component  Empowered also by learning analytics tools to visualize peer-agent interaction data
  37. 37. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Key design features: 4) Community building  Agent-based chat software freely available also independent of a MOOC platform  Developing their own agent…  Upload it to an agent service/repository…  Use agent they find useful…  Extend agent domain models or change ‘behavior’ (APT moves)  In the future: Integrate additional cognitive or metacognitive capabilities in the agent
  38. 38. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018  Educational Design  Software development, System integration, Pilot MOOCs development (M1-M18, June 2019)  Pilot MOOCs Deployment and Evaluation  Community building  Dissemination (M19-M36, December 2020 and beyond..)
  39. 39. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Open design/research issues  Teacher tools: How to setup the agent and model the domain?  Group formation: How to match peers? Group size?  Learners’ feedback: How to provide it? Peer assessment?  Gamification? Increase engagement?  Modalities of peer-agent communication? (verbal)  Support all forms of knowledge? (conceptual, procedural)  Synchronous vs. Asynchronous peer discussions?
  40. 40. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 Thank you! Questions? sdemetri@csd.auth.gr http://mlab.csd.auth.gr/sdemetri/
  41. 41. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 References 1/2  Boyd, G. M. (2001). Reflections on the conversation theory of Gordon Pask. In R. Glanville & B. Scott (Eds.), Festschrift in celebration of Gordon Pask. Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics 30(5–6), 560–570.  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.  Demetriadis, S., Karakostas, A., Tsiatsos, Th., Caballé, S., Dimitriadis, Y., Weinberger, A., Papadopoulos, P.M., Palaigeorgiou, G., Tsimpanis, C., & Hodges, M., (2018). Towards Integrating Conversational Agents and Learning Analytics in MOOCs. In L. Barolli et al. (Eds.): Proceedings of EIDWT 2018, Springer, LNDECT 17, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75928-9_98  Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007). Flexibility in macro-scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 23(1), 1–13.  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.  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.  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.  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
  42. 42. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKIStavros Demetriadis @ eMadrid, May 11, 2018 References 2/2  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.  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.  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.  Tegos, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2015). Promoting academically productive talk with conversational agent interventions in collaborative learning settings. Computers & Education, 87, 309–325.  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.  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.  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.

×