Exploring young children's engagement in joint reading with a conversational agent

Xu, Ying; Warschauer, Mark

doi:10.1145/3392063.3394417

Cited by 58 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This feature has, thus far, predominately been used in e‐books, targeting older children in kindergarten or above (e.g., Kao, Tsai, Liu, & Yang, 2016), but designers could adapt this feature for the needs of young children. In fact, one recent research has embedded questions in storybooks, targeting preschoolers and found that these children verbally responded to the questions, which translated to children's better understanding of the story (Xu & Warschauer, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Press, swipe and read: Do interactive features facilitate engagement and learning with e‐Books?

Yau

Reich

2020

Computer Assisted Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young children are introduced to mobile technology at an early age, with many using touchscreens daily. One appeal of touchscreen technology is that it seems to be intuitive for very young children. As a result, many children's e-books are designed for tablets rather than for e-readers or computers. E-books often contain hotspotsinteractive areas children can press to receive immediate auditory or visual feedback. This study assessed whether children's (N = 76, aged 3-5 years) interactions with hotspots increased their engagement with reading when using an e-book independently and how such interactions were related to their learning from the story. Our results suggested that interacting with hotspots enhanced children's emotional engagement and sustained visual attention but not verbal engagement. Interacting with hotspots also benefited children's recall of story elements relevant to the hotspot but not their overall comprehension of the story. These findings inform the design and use of touchscreen media in early childhood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Press, swipe and read: Do interactive features facilitate engagement and learning with e‐Books?

Yau

Reich

2020

Computer Assisted Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results showed that English was the dominant language in the use of chatbots for students' language learning. Among 23 studies involving chatbots used for English learning, three of them were for language literature for native English speakers (Lin & Chang, 2020;Xu et al, 2021;Xu & Warschauer, 2020); the other 20 studies involved the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) or second language (ESL). One study involved the teaching of Chinese as a second language.…”

Section: Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot‐supported language learning

Huang

Hew

Fryer

2021

Computer Assisted Learning

319

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The use of chatbots as learning assistants is receiving increasing attention in language learning due to their ability to converse with students using natural language. Previous reviews mainly focused on only one or two narrow aspects of chatbot use in language learning. This review goes beyond merely reporting the specific types of chatbot employed in past empirical studies and examines the usefulness of chatbots in language learning, including first language learning, second language learning, and foreign language learning. Aims: The primary purpose of this review is to discover the possible technological, pedagogical, and social affordances enabled by chatbots in language learning.Materials & Methods: We conducted a systematic search and identifies 25 empirical studies that examined the use of chatbots in language learning. We used the inductive grounded approach to identify the technological and pedagogical affordances, and the challenges of using chatbots for students' language learning. We used Garrison's social presence framework to analyze the social affordances of using chatbots in language learning Results: Our findings revealed three technological affordances: timeliness, ease of use, and personalization; and five pedagogical uses: as interlocutors, as simulations, for transmission, as helplines, and for recommendations. Chatbots appeared to encourage students' social presence by affective, open, and coherent communication. Several challenges in using chatbots were identified: technological limitations, the novelty effect, and cognitive load. Discussion and Conclusion:A set of rudimentary design principles for chatbots are proposed for meaningfully implementing educational chatbots in language learning, and detailed suggestions for future research are presented.

show abstract

“…When asked to draw the smart speaker, elementary school children tended to display anthropomorphic features in their paint-ings (e.g., eyes, limbs, and facial expressions; [17]). During communications, children showed nonverbal behaviors such as nodding, smiling, shrugging, and frowning, which the smart speaker actually could not actually recognize [18]. Hence, some researchers believed that children anthropomorphized smart speakers [19].…”

Section: How Children Conceptualize Smart Speakersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairies in the Box: Children’s Perception and Interaction towards Voice Assistants

Wang

2022

Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the growing popularity of smart speakers (e.g., Google Home and Alexa) has facilitated young children’s interaction with internet-based devices and provided them with more opportunities to obtain access to online information. This review summarizes the current state of the research by examining smart speakers’ core characteristics, children’s conceptualization and interaction with smart speakers, and the influences on children’s learning and habits. Our review shows that (a) the natural language processing technology and central computing system (Internet) contribute to the uniqueness of smart speakers; (b) although children tend to attribute human characteristics (e.g., smart and friendly) to smart speakers, they might judge these voice assistant devices as neither explicitly living nor nonliving in ontological perception; (c) children’s overattributing certain knowledge (e.g., questions about personal information) to smart speakers does not necessarily mean that this device is believed to be omniscient; and (d) in terms of promoting children’s learning, smart speakers might not be more effective than a real human, and the interaction with smart speakers may not be conducive to children’s maintenance of civilized social norms. Implications for children’s conceptualization and interaction of smart speakers and the design of children-oriented smart agents are also discussed.

show abstract

Exploring young children's engagement in joint reading with a conversational agent

Cited by 58 publications

References 56 publications

Press, swipe and read: Do interactive features facilitate engagement and learning with e‐Books?

Press, swipe and read: Do interactive features facilitate engagement and learning with e‐Books?

Chatbots for language learning—Are they really useful? A systematic review of chatbot‐supported language learning

Fairies in the Box: Children’s Perception and Interaction towards Voice Assistants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About