Etiquette and Efficacy in Animated Pedagogical Agents: The Role of Stereotypes

1
Etiquette and Efficacy in Animated Pedagogical
Agents The Role of Stereotypes

• Kristen N. Moreno,1 Natalie K. Person,2 Amy B.
  Adcock,1 Richard N. Van Eck,1 G. Tanner Jackson,1
  Johanna C. Marineau1
• 1University of Memphis
• 2Rhodes College

2
Agents in Learning Technology

• Computerized tutoring systems are becoming more
  widely used in many settings
• Recent enhancements include the addition of
  animated agents as tutors
• Agents can be programmed to behave in accordance
  with social expectations
• How do agents affect learning?

3
Etiquette in ITSs

• Failure to conform to social expectations breach
  of etiquette
• Reeves Nass (1996) people apply rules of human
  interaction to computers
• Rules of etiquette facilitate social interactions
  among humans
• Could affect human-computer interactions

4
AutoTutor

• An intelligent tutoring system developed by
  Tutoring Research Group at University of Memphis
• Tutors college students in physics and computer
  literacy
• The agent is intended to facilitate
  human-computer interactions

5
(No Transcript)
6
Agents Effects on HCI

• Agents do not facilitate all types of learning
• Agents could potentially annoy or distract
  learners
• Important to understand the factors that
  determine the effects of agents on human-computer
  interaction

7
Agent Characteristics

• May vary in race, age, gender, or other
  demographics
• Expectations for their behavior may vary with
  these characteristics
• Expectations may be based on stereotypes

8
The Role of Stereotypes

• Mental device that simplifies social environment
• Stereotypes offer information about members of
  certain social groups
• But information is often wrong
• Still, people use them frequently (even if often
  unintentionally)

9
Stereotyping Agents?

• Do peoples stereotypic expectations about agents
  affect pedagogical efficacy?
• Failure to conform to stereotypic expectations
  could be a breach of etiquette
• Conforming too closely to stereotype could also
  constitute a breach of etiquette

10
Our Research Questions

• Do people stereotype agents?
• Do stereotypes of agents affect pedagogical
  efficacy?
• Participants formed impressions of agents who
  were apparently members of certain social groups
• Agent delivered tutorial on blood pressure
• Assessed stereotypic perceptions, learning

11
Participants and Design

• Participants 39 Introductory Psychology
  University of Memphis students (69 female)
• Design 2x2x2 between-subjects
• Agent ethnicity African-American or Caucasian
• Agent sex male or female
• Participant ethnicity

12
Agents

• 4 agents created using Poser 4
• Different agents to manipulate sex
• To manipulate ethnicity, changed several physical
  features across agents (within genders)
• Recorded live voices

13
(No Transcript)
14
Procedure

• All materials presented on computer by Macromedia
  Authorware
• Participants wore headphones (groups of 1 to 10
  people)
• Agent first gave navigation instructions
• Stereotype ratings

15
Procedure

• Blood pressure tutorial (self-paced)
• 18 multiple choice questions on blood pressure
• Demographics and manipulation checks

16
Excerpt from Tutorial

• Now that you know what blood pressure is, lets
  talk about what the numbers, such as 110 over 70,
  actually mean. The top number is the systolic
  pressure. This is the peak or maximum blood
  pressure that occurs as the left ventricle of the
  heart pumps blood into the aorta, leaving the
  heart. This contraction of the heart is called
  systole. The normal systolic pressure in a
  healthy adult is 100 to 140 millimeters of
  mercury. The bottom number is the diastolic
  pressure. This is the pressure exerted against
  the aorta when the left ventricle of the heart
  relaxes.

17
Stereotyping Indices

• Participants rated agents on traits that were
  relevant to stereotypes of their groups, as
  indicated by pilot test
• Scales for African-American males, Caucasian
  males, African-American females, Caucasian
  females
• Alphas ranged from .73 to .89

18
Results Stereotyping
19
Learning Index

• Proportion of correct answers on 18 item test
• Range was .44 to 1.00, M .81

20
Results Learning
21
Ancillary Indices

• Participants rated agents on pleasantness of
  voice, trustworthiness, likeability,
  interestingness, knowledgeability, and teaching
  skills
• Caucasians found male agent to be less
  interesting than others
• None of these factors correlated with learning

22
Stereotyping Agents

• Participants stereotyped animated agents based on
  sex
• Did not stereotype based on ethnicity
• Further evidence that people see computers as
  social actors and apply the human interaction
  rules to them

23
Pedagogical Efficacy

• Agents differed in pedagogical efficacy depending
  on sex
• TRG is interested in creating maximally effective
  and enjoyable agents
• Important to discover the factors that account
  for differences in pedagogical efficacy

24
Role of Etiquette

• Conformity or nonconformity to stereotypic
  expectations could constitute a breach of
  etiquette
• Some participants addressed this directly

25
Future Directions

• Although agents differ in pedagogical efficacy,
  the characteristics that contribute to these
  differences have yet to be clearly established
• Currently examining whether stereotypic
  expectations about domain knowledge interact with
  demographic characteristics of agents to affect
  learning

26
Conclusions

• Limited evidence that people stereotype agents as
  they do humans
• Sex of the agent appears to affect learning in at
  least some cases
• Rules of etiquette may determine an optimal level
  of conformity to stereotypes