Last Reading--Teaching Agents

Both of the articles were very interesting. I didn’t know anything about Conversational or Teaching Agents but they are a very interesting concept to employ in the classroom. Doering et al brought up some very good points in their research on students in college. There were some results in that article that I felt were a little biased because the students were in a university setting versus a high school setting as in the Veletsianos et al article.

It was interesting in the Doering et al article that the conversations that occurred were recorded to be analyzed at later date (Doering et al 255). It made me wonder if the students were aware that their thoughts/comments/conversations were being recorded and if they would have changed some of there interactions/conversations in any way. I think in a university setting, students are much more polite and tactful when discussing concerns. They didn’t swear at the CA or say derogatory comments like the adolescents did in the Veletsianos et al study.

The idea that the CAs provide a dual format “both text and audio” (Doering et al 258) I think would be very beneficial to both visual and auditory learners, especially if the viewer couldn’t understand what the CA was saying. The students said that one thing that they had troubles with was having to “rephrase the questions they posed to the CAs in order to elicit an answer that was appropriate and not confusing” (Doering et al 259). Since these students are going to be teachers, rephrasing questions is a good skill to practice, no matter how frustrating it could be with the CA. I understand the frustration but in the long run, it might help those students become better at questioning. I thought it was interesting that when students didn’t receive a correct answer “they would often switch to asking the CA unrelated, off-task questions” (Doering et al 260). I wonder if this happens with an actual student-teacher interaction in a classroom, if the teacher doesn’t know the answer. It would be an interesting thing to study/compare. Would students stop asking questions if an actual teacher provided incorrect answers? I think that teacher would lose their credibility or maybe respect from their students.

I also found it amusing that the students had such genuine relationships with Alex and Penelope. I wanted to ask if they remembered that they aren’t real people (although quite close to it). I guess it goes to show how much our technology has advanced. Their clothes change, how crazy is that?! The study also states that the “majority of the participants also mentioned that they would rather talk to opposite sex because they found them more attractive and approachable” (Doering et al 264). For me, I’m more comfortable talking to a teacher of the same gender just because it seems safer, for some reason. I guess I never really thought about that as something that students could/would consider. I wonder if this statement would also be true in a different subject field (other than Elementary Education) like Science or Math.

I found the Doering et al article very interesting and I see the benefits of having a CA but at the same time, I wonder if this technology is applicable or relevant at the high school level. The Veletsianos et al article made me question the value of having a CA working with adolescents.

The Veletsianos et al article stated that on Day 1 11 out of 25 students made sexually explicit comments and 10 out of 25 on Day 2 (Veletsianos et al 297). For a second, I thought that students were working with the agent after school or on their own time at home until the article reminded me that these comments were made in school while the student was working on as assignment. If these “types of comments are considered serious offenses in schools, punishable by detention, expulsion, and sexual harassment law suits” (Veletsianos et al297) how is it acceptable that students can do this with the agent? I guess that fact that the chats are anonymous complicates a few things but if there are only 25 students working with the agent, is it possible to press charges or to, at the very least, remind the students that these chats are taking place in school. Without a transcript, it is hard to follow what each individual student is saying. Is “harassing” the agent another way for students to push the envelope and see how far they can push things. Would the language be different if there was an instructor in the room while the students are interacting with the agent? Would these students risk saying these things to a human instructor is it just because of the anonymity of the agent that brings this out?

It still makes me worried that students are willing to express thoughts like this to anyone, especially something that is trying to help them academically. I would like to know if all students were granted access to the CPA? Were any of them deterred? Maybe students who struggle in a typical classroom setting would thrive on this power over the CPA because in a normal class, unless it’s super student centered, the teacher is in charge and the students listen/learn from the teacher. Veletsianos et al made an interesting comment that “humans treat media as if they were also human, in essence interacting with media in the same way that humans would interact with each other” (Veletsianos et al 293). If this is true, how can students say such vulgar and inappropriate things? According to this statement, the CPA is part of media and should be related to as a human, and humans (generally) treat each other with a certain level of respect and use correct discourse when discussing certain topics. Even if the “Internet lowers human inhibitions—especially when anonymity is involved” how can students be so rude?! (Veletsianos et al 294). I don’t think that this should be an environment for adolescents to “experiment with their sexuality and identity” (Veletsianos et al 295). It’s a interactive tool to help with an academic assignment, not a coming of age experience