یادگیری با عامل‌های هوشمند آموزشی: آیا می‌توان با ردیابی حرکات چشم عملکرد توجه را بهبود بخشید؟

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه تکنولوژی آموزشی، دانشکده روانشناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

هدف مطالعه حاضر بررسی نقش عامل هوشمند آموزشی بر توان حل مسائل پیچیده و مدت‌زمان درگیری با تکلیف در دانش‌­آموزان مبتلا به اختلال نارسایی توجه بوده که با روش آزمایشی انجام شده است. جامعه هدف از بین دانش‌­آموزان 7 تا 13 سال (5/10 M: ) که در مقطع ابتدایی و راهنمایی، در مدارس دولتی در سیسلی کشور ایتالیا[1] مشغول به تحصیل بودند، انتخاب شد. گروه نمونه (45:N)که از طریق سیاهه تشخیصی ADHD (فرم معلم) انتخاب شدند، به‌صورت تصادفی در سه گروه گمارش شدند: 1) بدون حضور عامل آموزشی 2) عامل آموزشی، تنها دستورالعمل‌­هایی را در حین حل­ مسئله ارائه می‌­کرد 3) عامل آموزشی دستورالعمل­‌هایی را در حین حل­ مسئله ارائه و در خصوص توجه افراد بازخوردهایی را ارائه می­داد. ابزار مورد استفاده در این پژوهش آزمون حل مسائل پیچیده و ثبت زمان حل مسائل بود. نتایج نشان داد که حضور عامل هوشمند آموزشی، عملکرد حل ­مسئله را بهبود می‌­بخشد، اما تأثیر عامل بر مدت‌زمان درگیری یادگیرندگان با تکلیف معنادار نیست. بر اساس نتایج، هدایت و بازخورد ارائه شده توسط عامل آموزشی باعث بهبود فرایند توجه شده و به‌تبع آن، عملکرد فرد را در حل­ مسئله ارتقا می‌بخشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Learning by the Intelligent Pedagogical Agents: Can Eye Tracking Improve Attention Performance?

نویسنده [English]

  • Nasrin Mohammadhasani
Educational Technology, psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a persistent condition associated with impairment in educational functioning, professional position, and social relationships (Fabio and Caprì, 2015). The disorder is determined by three basic symptoms: inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity (APA, 2013). The disorder is closely linked to a series of neuropsychological deficits such as executive functions, working memory, and cognitive processes.
 Problem-solving is one of the areas in which ADHD students experience problems as a result of deficits in attention and working memory. Although normal developing children may easily learn problem-solving skills; Children with ADHD need help to learn these skills, and instruction must be provided in a controlled manner for this purpose.
However, flexible learning environments in terms of content and presentation time can be helpfull to reduce the problems of these children. For example, the Attention of ADHD students can be improved when doing teacher-led homework, instead of independent tasks. However, due to the short range of attention, assignments should be presented in small pieces with just-in-time feedback on how to do it (Brock, Grove & Searls, 2010).
Although the presence of a teacher and the provision of guidance can be a positive aspect of face-to-face education, the need to spend special guidance, and personalized instruction according to the needs of these children, requires another solution.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of the intelligent pedagogical agent on complex problem-solving ability and duration of task engagement in students with attention deficit disorder in the e-learning environments.
Pedagogical agents are virtual characters used in online learning environments to serve various instructional goals (Veletsianos and Russell, 2014). They have human-like gestures, speech, gaze, and behaviors to address some roles, such as tutor, coach, actor (Kim and Baylor, 2007)
The manifestation of the pedagogical agent is supported by theories such as Computers as Social Actors-CASA (Nass and Brave, 2005), Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011) that emphasize on the social aspect in the learning process. As Mayer (2014) mentions in "Presence principle" the students learn more deeply when on-screen agents display human-like gesturing, movement, eye contact, and facial expression. In general, what is discussed in the social effects of the pedagogical agent is a concept called "persona effect"(Veletsianos and Russell, 2014); This concept means that the presence of a human-like agent in interactive learning environments have a positive effect on the learner's perception of their learning experiences. the presence of an educational agent causes the learner to interpret their learning experiences as a result of interaction with the computer in the role of a social actor (Choi and Clark, 2006).
Thanks to the support of the theories proposed in the pedagogical agent literature, researchers have examined their roles on learning, performance, and motivation of learners. The results of the meta-analysis of Martha, and Santoso (2019) indicate the positive and significant role of pedagogical agents on learning and learners' performance.
Kim and Baylor (2016) in a meta-analysis found that in agent-based situations 1) learners expect agents to show acceptable teaching ability and motivation 2) and they learn the meaning of the material better and have a higher motivation in learning
Lin et al. (2020) investigated the effect of conversational style instruction with the presence of pedagogical agents on learning outcomes, cognitive load, and intrinsic motivation. Their study also showed that learning with a pedagogical agent is more attractive than learning without pedagogical agents.
Daradoumis and Arguedas (2020) in a study entitled "To foster reflective learning during metacognitive activities through the pedagogical agent" concluded that the presence of the pedagogical agent could lead to better scores in the process of reflection in the experimental group.
One of the areas that has been less addressed in research is the effect of pedagogical agents on attention, visual attention, and their guidance to related issues. If we consider the role of agents as a teacher in face-to-face space, then we can expect similar performance from them in online environments. In line with this assumption, the present study aims to investigate the role of the intelligent pedagogical agent on complex problem-solving ability and duration of task engagement in students with attention deficit disorder.
The target population was selected from 7 to 13 years old students (M 10.5) who were attending elementary and secondary school in public schools in Sicily, Italy. The sample group (N: 45) who selected by the Italian version of the ADHD Rating Scale for Teachers was randomly assigned to three groups: 1) without the agent 2) the agent only provided instructions during the problem solving 3) the agent provided instructions during the problem solving and provided feedback on learner's attention. The tools used in this study were the web-based complex problem-solving test and problem-solving time recording.
The test and situation were the same for three groups except for agent presence in groups 2 and 3; and in the group 3 by the interactive intelligent agent version, instructions and recommendations were designed based on the user's choices, and in addition, through the process of face recognition and image processing, the direction and position of the face and tracking of the eye movements.
Finally, in order to analyze the data, descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, and Scheffe post hoc test was used.
The results showed that the presence of the intelligent pedagogical agent improves the performance of students with attention deficit disorder (F: 7/539, sig: 0.002) but the effect of agent on the time of learner’s engagement with the task was not significant. In general, based on the results, the guidance and feedback provided by the agent improves the attention process and consequently improves their performance in problem-solving.
According to the findings of the present study, although the effect of intelligent pedagogical agents has been proven in many studies, for specific groups same as students with attention deficit disorder it requires special instructional design. Accordingly, it is suggested to use technology such as image processing and eye-tracking as a visual element of attention in order to design intelligent environments.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • ADHD
  • Attention
  • Intelligent Pedagogical Agent
  • problem solving
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5t Ed.    Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, E. M., & Merill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
Barkley, R.A. (2005).ADHD and the nature of self-control .New York:  Guilford.
Baylor, A., & Ryu, J. (2003). The API (Agent Persona Instrument) for assessing pedagogical agent persona. EdMedia. Innovate Learning, 448–451.
Brock, S. E., Grove, B., & Searls, M. (2010). ADHD: Classroom Intervention. National Association of school psychologist Carlson, C. L., & Mann, M. (2000). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, predominantly inattentive subtype. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 499–510.
Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441–466.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer E.R. (2016). ELearning and the Science of Instruction (Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer
Cobb, c. (2013). The Use of an Animated Pedagogical Agent as a Mnemonic Device to Promote Learning and Motivation in Online Education (Ph.D. Thesis) Walden University.
Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., & Shukla, M. (2019). What Does the Pedagogical Agent say? 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2019.8900767
Daradoumis T., & Arguedas, M. (2020). Cultivating Students’ Reflective Learning in Metacognitive Activities through an Affective Pedagogical Agent. Educational Technology & Society, 23 (2), 19-31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26921131
Fabio RA. (2005). Dynamic assessment of intelligence is a better reply to adaptive behavior and cognitive plasticity. Journal of General Psychology. 132, 41–64.
Fabio, R. A., & Caprì, T. (2015). Autobiographical Memory in ADHD Subtypes. Journal of Developmental and Intellectual Disability, 6, 26–36.
Fabio, R.A., Capri, T, Lannizzotto, G., Nucita, A., & Mohammadhasani, N. (2019). Interactive Avatar Boosts the Performances of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Dynamic Measures of Intelligence. Cyber psychology, Behavior, and Networking, 22(9), 588-596.
Fogg, B. J. (2003). Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. Proceedings of CHI’03, Human Factors in Computing Systems, 722– 723.
Hechtman LH. (2007). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, editors. Kaplan & Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Güneş Kitabevi Ltd. Şti: Lippincott & Wilkins.
Hussein, A. Al., & Al-chlabi, H. M. (2020). Pedagogical Agents in an Adaptive E-learning System. Science and Research, 3(1), 24-30.
Johnson, A.M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97-115.
Keller, T., & Brucker-Kley, E. (2020). Design Hints for Smart Agents as Teachers in Virtual Learning Spaces. International Conference on e-Society. DOI: 10.33965/es2020_202005L014
Kim Y. (2015). Pedagogical agents. In M. Spector, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim Y., & Baylor AL. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47, 23–28.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. doi:10.1007/s40593- 015-0055-y.
Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction. ETR&D, 54(3), 223-243
Lambez B., Harwood-Gross A., Golumbic EZ., & Rassovsky Y. (2020). Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive difficulties in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Psychiatr Res, 120, 40-55.
Lane, H. C. (2016). Pedagogical Agents and Affect: Molding Positive Learning Interactions in Emotion, Technology and Learning. (Pages 47-62) Academic press.
Lee, J.-E. R., Nass, C., Brave, S., Morishima, Y., Nakajima, H., & Yamada, R. (2007). The case for caring co-learners: The effects of a computer-mediated co-learner agent on trust and learning. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 183–204.
Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? Computer & Education. 143, 1-11.
Martha, D., & Santoso, H. (2019). The Design and Impact of the Pedagogical Agent: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Educators Online, 1-15.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mohammadhasani, N. (2017). Investigating of the effect of the intelligent pedagogical agent on learning in ADHD students. (Ph.D. thesis) Tarbiat Modares University, Iran [persian].
Mohammadhasani, N., Fabio, R., Fardanesh, H., & Hatami, J., (2015). The link between visual attention and memory in ADHD student and normally developing student: seeing is remembering? Italian journal of cognitive science.1/2015 – pp. 89-102.
Nass, C., & Brave, S.  (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Noreika, V., Falter, C., & Rubia, K. (2013). Timing deficits in ADHD: evidence from neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia 51, 235–266.
Pievsky, M. A., & McGrath, R. E. (2018). The neurocognitive profile of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review of meta-analyses. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychology. 33, 143–157. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acx055.
Rezvani Amir, M.H. (2017). Brain Facts: the Book of the Alphabet of the Brain and the Nervous System (1st Ed) Human Publishing.86. [Persian].
Rommelse, N. N., Van der Stigchel, S., & Sergeant, J. A. (2008). A review on eye movement studies in childhood and adolescent psychiatry. Brain and cognition, 68, 391–414
Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2007). The importance of interface agent visual presence: Voice alone is less effective in impacting young women’s attitudes toward engineering. International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 214–222.
Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: the effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2741–2756.
Rubia, K., Halari, R., Taylor, E., & Brammer, M. (2011). Methylphenidate normalises fronto-cingulate underactivation during error processing in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Biol. Psychiatry, 70, 255–262.
Soliman, M. (2014). Intelligente Pädagogische Agenten in Immersiven Virtuellen 3D-Lernumgebungen. (Ph.D. thesis) TU Graze University, Austria.
Sweller, J. (2011). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. (2014). Pedagogical Agents. In Spector, M., Merrill, D., Elen, J., & Bishop, MJ (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 4th Edition (pp. 759-769). Springer Academic
Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
 79–89. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.049.
Wilson KE, Martinez M, Mills C, D'Mello S, Smilek D., & Risko EF. (2018). Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Computers & Education, 122, 205-20.