Using Smart Personal Assistants for Online Learning Activities: What benefits can we expect?

Rainer Winkler; Pablo Weingart; Matthias Söllner

						@Select Types{,
							 
							 
							 
							 
							 
							Journal   = "Band-1",
							 Title= "Using Smart Personal Assistants for Online Learning Activities: What benefits can we expect?", 
							Author= "Rainer Winkler, Pablo Weingart, Matthias Söllner", 
							Doi= "https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_d7-winkler", 
							 Abstract= "With the increasing popularity of massive open online courses, universities are able to reach a wider audience without restriction and for comparably low costs. However, in these learning environments, educators are hardly able to offer individual support to their learners. According to learning theory, the lack of individual support in online learning environments can considerably limit learning success. In our paper, we argue that new emerging Smart Personal Assistants (SPAs) have the capabilities to address this problem by building up an interaction with the learner similar to a human tutor. Drawing on the concept of the Interactive, Constructive, Active and Passive (ICAP) Framework, we designed an experiment with 76 participants, where one group received text-based learning materials and the other group received additional scaffolds from an interactive, text-based smart personal assistant. Posttest-score comparisons revealed that learners interacting with the SPA were able to achieve higher learning outcomes.

", 
							 Keywords= "smart personal assistant, online learning, intelligent tutoring system, mechanical turk, experiment
", 
							}

Rainer Winkler, Pablo Weingart, Matthias Söllner: Using Smart Personal Assistants for Online Learning Activities: What benefits can we expect?. Online: https://doi.org/10.30844/wi_2020_d7-winkler (Abgerufen 27.11.24)

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of massive open online courses, universities are able to reach a wider audience without restriction and for comparably low costs. However, in these learning environments, educators are hardly able to offer individual support to their learners. According to learning theory, the lack of individual support in online learning environments can considerably limit learning success. In our paper, we argue that new emerging Smart Personal Assistants (SPAs) have the capabilities to address this problem by building up an interaction with the learner similar to a human tutor. Drawing on the concept of the Interactive, Constructive, Active and Passive (ICAP) Framework, we designed an experiment with 76 participants, where one group received text-based learning materials and the other group received additional scaffolds from an interactive, text-based smart personal assistant. Posttest-score comparisons revealed that learners interacting with the SPA were able to achieve higher learning outcomes.

Referenzen

1. Vardi, M.: Will MOOCs destroy academia? Communications of the ACM 55, 5 (2012)
2. Doherty, I., Harbutt, D., Sharma, N.: Designing and Developing a MOOC. Med.Sci.Educ. 25, 177–181 (2015)
3. North, S.M., Richardson, R., North, M.M.: To Adapt MOOCs, or Not? That Is No Longer the Question. Universal Journal of Educational Research 2, 69–72 (2014)
4. Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press (1980)
5. Kulik, J.A., Fletcher, J.D.: Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Review of educational research 86, 42–78 (2016)
6. Graesser, A.C., Hu, X., Sottilare, R.: Intelligent tutoring systems. In: International handbook of the learning sciences, pp. 246–255. Routledge (2018)
7. Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R.B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S.-J., Lim, H.: Applying an online game-based formative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills. Computers & Education 94, 18–36 (2016)
8. Wang, D., Han, H., Zhan, Z., Xu, J., Liu, Q., Ren, G.: A problem solving oriented intelligent tutoring system to improve students’ acquisition of basic computer skills. Computers & Education 81, 102–112 (2015)
9. Nye, B.D., Pavlik, P.I., Windsor, A., Olney, A.M., Hajeer, M., Hu, X.: SKOPEIT (Shareable Knowledge Objects as Portable Intelligent Tutors): overlaying natural language tutoring on an adaptive learning system for mathematics. International journal of STEM education 5, 12 (2018)
10. Elaine, K.: Design of a domain-independent, interactive, dialogue-based tutor for use within the GIFT framework. In: Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT) Users Symposium (GIFTSym3), p. 161 (2015)
11. Winkler, R., Söllner, M.: Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis. In:
12. Chung, H., Iorga, M., Voas, J., Lee, S.: Alexa, can I trust you? Computer 50, 100–104 (2017)
13. eMarketer: Alexa, Say What?! Voice-Enabled Speaker Usage to Grow Nearly 130% This Year, https://www.emarketer.com/Article/Alexa-Say-What-Voice- Enabled-Speaker-Usage-Grow-Nearly-130-This-Year/1015812
14. Statista: US Voice Technology Usage by Age, https://www.statista.com/statistics/879907/us-voice-technology-usage-age/
15. Song, D., Oh, E.Y., Rice, M.: Interacting with a conversational agent system for educational purposes in online courses. In: 2017 10th international conference on human system interactions (HSI), pp. 78–82 (2017)
16. Winkler, R., Söllner, M.: Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis. In:
17. Huang, J., Zhou, M., Yang, D.: Extracting Chatbot Knowledge from Online Discussion Forums. In: IJCAI, 7, pp. 423–428 (2007)
18. Jalaliniya, S., Pederson, T.: Designing wearable personal assistants for surgeons: An egocentric approach. IEEE Pervasive Computing 14, 22–31 (2015)
19. Chung, H., Iorga, M., Voas, J., Lee, S.: Alexa, Can I Trust You? Computer 50, 100–104 (2017)
20. Cheung, J.H., Burns, D.K., Sinclair, R.R., Sliter, M.: Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology 32, 347–361 (2017)
21. Chi, M.T.H., Wylie, R.: The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational psychologist 49, 219–243 (2014)
22. Bonwell, C.C., Eison, J.A.: Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. ERIC, Washington (1991)
23. King, A.: From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching 41, 30–35 (1993)
24. Gobert, J.D., Clement, J.J.: Effects of student‐generated diagrams versus studentgenerated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36, 39–53 (1999)
25. Otter, S.: Learning outcomes in higher education (1995)
26. Douglass, J.A., Thomson, G., Zhao, C.-M.: The learning outcomes race: The value of self-reported gains in large research universities. Higher education 64, 317–335 (2012)
27. Caspersen, J., Smeby, J.-C., Olaf Aamodt, P.: Measuring learning outcomes. European Journal of Education 52, 1–11 (2017)
28. Miller, A.H., Feng, W., Fisch, A., Lu, J., Batra, D., Bordes, A., Parikh, D., Weston, J.: Parlai: A dialog research software platform. CoRR (2017)
29. Knote, R., Janson, A., Söllner, M., Leimeister, J.M.: Classifying Smart Personal Assistants: An Empirical Cluster Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2024–2033 (2019)
30. Chandler, J., Mueller, P., Paolacci, G.: Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior research methods 46, 112–130 (2014)
31. Gupta, S., Bostrom, R.: Research note—An investigation of the appropriation of technology-mediated training methods incorporating enactive and collaborative learning. Information Systems Research 24, 454–469 (2013)
32. Ryan, G.W., Bernard, H.R.: Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods 15, 85–109 (2003)
33. Peña, E.A., Slate, E.H.: Global validation of linear model assumptions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101, 341–354 (2006)
34. Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychological bulletin 112, 155–159 (1992)
35. Evans, C., Gibbons, N.J.: The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education 49, 1147–1160 (2007)
36. Kulik, J.A., Fletcher, J.D.: Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: a metaanalytic review. Review of educational research 86, 42–78 (2016)
37. Winkler, R., Söllner, M., Neuweiler, M.L., Rossini, F.C., Leimeister, J.M.: Alexa, Can You Help Us Solve This Problem? How Conversations With Smart Personal Assistant Tutors Increase Task Group Outcomes. In: CHI’19 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6. SIGCHI, Glasgow (2019)
38. Difallah, D., Filatova, E., Ipeirotis, P.: Demographics and dynamics of mechanical turk workers. In: Proceedings of the eleventh acm international conference on web search and data mining, pp. 135–143 (2018)
39. Cheung, A.C.K., Slavin, R.E.: The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational research review 9, 88–113 (2013)
40. Chi, M.T.H., Wylie, R.: The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational psychologist 49, 219–243 (2014)

Search

Outline

Gliederung

Abstract

Abstract

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

References

Referenzen

Most viewed articles

Meist angesehene Beiträge

Search