The Impact of Intelligent Pedagogical Agents’ Interventions on Student Behavior and Performance in Open-Ended Game Design Environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that free-form Game-Design (GD) environments can be very effective in fostering Computational Thinking (CT) skills at a young age. However, some students can still need some guidance during the learning process due to the highly open-ended nature of these environments. Intelligent Pedagogical Agents (IPAs) can be used to provide personalized assistance in real-time to alleviate this challenge. This paper presents our results in evaluating such an agent deployed in a real-word free-form GD learning environment to foster CT in the early K-12 education, Unity-CT. We focus on the effect of repetition by comparing student behaviors between no intervention, 1-shot, and repeated intervention groups for two different errors that are known to be challenging in the online lessons of Unity-CT. Our findings showed that the agent was perceived very positively by the students and the repeated intervention showed promising results in terms of helping students make fewer errors and more correct behaviors, albeit only for one of the two target errors. Building from these results, we provide insights on how to provide IPA interventions in free-form GD environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it