A teachable-agent-based game affording collaboration and competition: Evaluating math comprehension and motivation

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 723-751

  Pareto, Lena ^a   Haake, Magnus ^b   Lindström, Paulina ^c   Sjödén, Björn ^c   Gulz, Agneta ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY WEST   (Sweden)

^b LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c LUND UNIVERSITY COGNITIVE SCIENCE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Collaboration; Competition; Conceptual understanding; Educational games; Motivation; Teachable agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866755744     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-012-9246-5     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
2. Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., Schwartz, D. L., & TAG-V. (2001). Extending intelligent learning environments with teachable agents to enhance learning. In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 389-397). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
3. Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Virtual manipulatives: What they are and how teachers can use them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(3), 186-191.
4. Bowers, J., Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (1999). The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 25-64.
5. Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 55(2), 566-575.
6. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1993). Rational numbers: An integration of research. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (Eds.). (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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), 649-670.
10. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, S. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6, 38-46.
11. Davis, J., Leelawong, K., Belynne, K., Biswas, G., Vye, N., Bodenheimer, B., & Bransford, J. (2003). Intelligent user interface design for teachable agent systems. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. Miami: The Association for Computing Machinery.
12. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., & Yerasimou, T. (2008). Conversational agents and their longitudinal affordances on communication and interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 251-270.
13. Enz, S., Zoll, C., Vannini, N., Watson, S., Aylett, R., Hall, L., et al. (2008). Virtual role-play in the classroom-experiences with fearnot! In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds.), Collaboration and the knowledge economy: Issues, applications, case studies. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
14. Fu, F. L., Wu, Y. L., & Ho, H. C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(3), 550-562.
15. Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 179-193.
16. Green, V. A., & Rechis, R. (2006). Children's cooperative and competitive interactions in limited resource situations: A literature review. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 42-59.
17. Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313-334.
18. Hoskonen, K. (2007). Mathematics is-favourite subject, boring or compulsory. Proceedings of the Fifth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, (p. 248). Larnaca: European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.
19. Jarvela, S. (1995). The cognitive apprenticeship model in technologically rich learning environment: Interpreting the learning interaction. Learning and Instruction, 5, 231-259.
20. Jonassen, D. H., & Ionas, I. G. (2008). Designing effective supports for causal reasoning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 287-309.
21. Kamii, C., Lewis, B. A., & Kirkland, L. (2001). Manipulatives: When are they useful? Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 20, 21-31.
22. Ke, F. (2008). Alternative goal structures for computer game-based learning. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 429-445.
23. Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Gameplaying for maths learning: cooperative or not? British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 249-259.
24. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
25. Lafortune, L. & Pons, F. (2005). The role of anxiety in metacognition in mathematics. In F. Pons, D. R. Hancock, L. Lafortune, & P-A. Doudin (Eds.). Emotions in learning (pp. 139-161). Aalborg: Aalborgs Universitetsförlag.
26. Leelawong, K., & Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: The Bettys Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18(3), 181-208.
27. Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Sjödén, B. (2011). Matching and mismatching between the pedagogical design principles of a math game and the actual practices of play. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 90-102.
28. Mahmood, A. K., & Ferneley, E. (2006). Embodied agents in e-learning environments: An exploratory case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 143-162.
29. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
30. Michie, D., Paterson, A., & Hayes-Michie, J. (1989). Learning by teaching. Second Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 207-331). Tampere: IOS Press.
31. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117-128.
32. Pareto, L. (2009). Teachable agents that learn by observing game playing behavior. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Educational Games at the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), July 6-10, 2009, pp. 31-40.
33. Pareto, L., Arvemo, T., Dahl, Y., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2011). A teachable-agent arithmetic game's effects on mathematics understanding, attitude and self-efficacy. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2011, Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 6738, pp. 247-255.
34. Pareto, L., Schwartz, D. L., & Svensson, L. (2009). Learning by guiding a teachable agent to play an educational game. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, July 6-10, 2009. IOS Press, pp. 662-664.
35. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-143.
36. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C., Chin, D. B., Oppezo, M., Kwong, H., & Wagster, J. (2009). Interactive metacognition: monitoring and regulating a teachable agent. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 340-358). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
37. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129-184.
38. Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., et al. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 177-191.
39. Uresti, J., & du Boulay, B. (2004). Expertise, motivation, and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(2), 67-106.
40. Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969-986.
41. Vogel, J. F., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C. A., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006). Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(3), 229-243.
42. Wagster, J., Tan, J., Wu, Y., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. L. (2007). Do learning by teaching environments with metacognitive support help students develop better learning behaviors? In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceeding of the 29th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 695-700). Nashville: Cognitive Science Society.
43. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23.
44. Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual reasoning: an empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction, 9(5), 493-516.