Digital People??

This week I will focus on the use of ‘digital conversation agents’ or ‘avatars’ or ‘talking heads’ or… you get the idea. There has been a lot of progress in this area since I last checked—ala the 80s’ Max Headroom. I had no idea that so much discussion and study had been focused on the use of this technology. Here are a few thoughts after doing the reading assignments for this week.

In the Veletsianos article, I was surprised by several things: “students converse with agents” was a statement that caught me off guard. They are able to CONVERSE with a digital agent, really? I’ve had minimal exposure to these “pedagogical agents” in online help tools. The idea that I would be able to freely interact with this ‘being’ is interesting and a bit scary. The way students interacted with this agent is shocking! Their language and lack of appropriate conversation does not seem within the realm of normal interactions. I believe Veletsianos is on the right track in acknowledging the lack of inhibitions that tend to happen when students are using digital platforms to communicate, but that isn’t enough. I believe there are also factors including the teen/student wish to push the limits to see what the ‘machine’ is capable of. That is not an excuse, however, for the behavior and conversations these students were trying to have with the avatars. It is a sad commentary on our culture---alas, that is for another post.

Another piece of the Velentsianos article that got me thinking was how the researchers mentioned how there MAY be a human/machine power differential. Really?! How couldn’t there be a difference in power? By pointing that out, I became aware of my own assumption ‘against’ computers. I am of the belief that machines will never have the complexity and master the unpredictability that is inherent in human-human interaction.

With that in mind, I read the Doering, et al, article. I have had Aaron as a professor, and I enjoyed his style. This article was much more ‘approachable’ and the study more useful because it was well developed and focused on a population that is likely to be patient and appropriate. I found it very interesting that this article used the term “Conversational Agent” as opposed to “Pedagogical Agent.” I think Conversational Agent is a more appropriate term than the dry ‘pedagogical’ approach taken by the Velentsianos research.

While reading Doering, I kept picturing my experience last week. I was on the phone trying to get help with an insurance question. There was a digital gatekeeper before I could get to my account information. The question was simple, what is your ID number? I answered it 8 times..EIGHT TIMES and it still didn’t understand me. My frustration level was palpable! With that in mind, I understand what the students were referring to when they tried rewording or restructuring their questions and the conversation agent still didn’t understand what they were talking about. That exemplifies the limitations of the ‘machine’ answering questions even with the best algorithm guiding the response. (then again, I’m still FLOORED that the agent in the Velentsianos article knew to respond to the inappropriate questions).

How would I apply this to my classroom? I don’t think I would. I played around with making a digital version of myself, and it was silly. I didn’t have much fun with that particular program, and I don’t see it being useful with my students. If I work with deaf/hard of hearing students, the inaccessibility would make it pretty useless. If I were working with hearing students, the interaction of a ‘moving’ person who seems to be active and knows what is going on could keep their interest, but I’m not certain they would learn that much more.

Another thought as it pertains to this class—I always felt that “pop culture” were those things that we shared (somehow) with another person (online, texting, in person, etc). Why would someone use an informational/glorified ‘tour guide’ as a chat buddy for popular topics? Isn’t the draw of these topics that you get a human response that is unique to that human? I’m not sure these ‘people’ have a place beyond an interactive FAQ approach. We shouldn’t be in a hurry to push humanity out of learning and living.