Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersRestore historical contextThe system will keep track of the sequence in which the user opens documents (Documents). For everydocument, a ‘list’ will be held of the documents that were selected immediately both before andafterwards (I will refer to each of these as a “contextual document” or “C-document”).When a user selects a document the system will look at the last time they opened the same document andoffer the user the n (number to be determined) C-documents which (s)he had previously selectedimmediately before and after the original document.To reduce the cost of interruption, the user will be offered the additional documents (C-documents) onlyimmediately upon selection of a document. While the user may select one of the proffered C-documents(which will each open in an additional new window), no action need be taken by the user if they sochoose.Figure 30 - Restore historical contextThe InvestigationThe investigation placed participants in situations where each of these two interventionsoccurred. Afterwards, they filled in a questionnaire and took part in a short interview, both toelicit their feelings and opinions about the interventions. The purpose of the investigation wasto look for potential user-related problems with these specific interventions, so that suchproblems can be circumvented or minimised as far as possible in any future agentimplementation.The investigation was conducted using low fidelity prototyping tools. The intention was toensure that any problems found by the “users” were not created by the software interfaceused by the investigation, rather than the task situation itself. Therefore participants weregiven a “pen and paper” task, during which they would be put in each of the two situationsunder investigation.The domain of herbs and their purported medicinal values was chosen, as this comprises alarge amount of well documented and inter-related information, and has been usedpreviously by one of the researchers. A paper-based task places participants in the situationsdescribed. The concern is to maximise the balance between helpfulness and annoyance.ConclusionIn both interventions trialled in this investigation, the source of negative feelings was similar.Where a participant’s viewpoint was in some way called into question, without thereappearing to be sufficient reason, the result was negative feelings, such as annoyance andfrustration.Results from “Support to limited time resources allocation” show that suggesting to a personthat they switch tasks, having just begun a task, will be difficult to achieve consistentlywithout a negative emotional response. Timing is critical in that the suggestion is much moreacceptable before the person feels they are committed to that task. However, this may bedifficult to achieve in practice. An alternative strategy would be to maximise the believabilityof the person/agent making the suggestion as this appears to influence the person (relatedfactors, such as trust and likeability may also be relevant).Results from “Restore historical context” show that timing was not a major issue (althoughthe sooner the information is given the more useful it is). What is important is the possibilitythat the person may have changed the manner in which they intend to approach the task,Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 30
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersthereby rendering the contextual information out of date. Offering this information maygenerate a negative emotional response, possibly based on the person not wanting to havethe new approach undermined, rather than the information simply being unhelpful.It is clear, then, that in any human-agent interaction the agent needs to take account of thehuman’s likely feelings towards any intervention. Simply giving information that “should” behelpful, in terms of task efficiency, speed, etc., is not sufficient. This study suggests that asoftware agent, at least in these situations, should be likable and offer advice that is timelyand believable. Above all, it needs to take into account the possibility that the user may knowbest and not make suggestions that may be to the contrary without backing them up.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 31
Page 1 and 2:
ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 88 and 89: DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91: Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 172 and 173: The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208:
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?