Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 25:2 (2024) ► pp.244–255
Research report
Explain with, rather than explain to
How explainees shape their own learning
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
This article was made Open Access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the authors.
Published online: 7 February 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.23019.fis
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.23019.fis
Abstract
Research about explanation processes is gaining relevance because of the increased popularity of artificial
systems required to explain their function or outcome. Following an interactive approach, not only explainers, but also explainees
contribute to successful interactions. However, little is known about how explainees actively guide explanation processes and how
their involvement relates to learning. We explored the occurrence and type of explainees’ questions in 20 adult — adult
explanation dialogues about unknown present and absent objects. Crucially, we related the question types to the explainees’
subsequent recall of the unknown object labels. We found that explainees asked different types of questions, especially about the
object’s label and facts. Questions about the object’s function were asked more when objects were present. In addition, requests
for labelling were linked to better recall. The results contribute to designing explainable AI that aims to provide relevant and
adaptive explanations and to further experimental approaches to study explanations.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Method
- ECOLANG Corpus
- Participants
- Stimuli
- Procedure
- Coding
- Results
- What type of questions do explainees ask?
- Do questions relate to learning measures?
- Discussion
- Notes
References
References (16)
Besold, T. R., & Uckelman, S. L. (2018). The
what, the why, and the how of artificial explanations in automated
decision-making. arXiv:1808.07074 [cs.AI].
Chi, M. T., Roy, M., & Hausmann, R. G. (2008). Observing
tutorial dialogues collaboratively: Insights about human tutoring effectiveness from vicarious
learning. Cognitive
science, 32(2), 301–341.
Chi, M. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive:
A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive
Science, 11, 73–105.
Derks, P. L., & Dunman, J. E. (1974). The
effect of repetition of objects and object names on free recall. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 3(4), 289–292.
ELAN (Version 6.2) [Computer
software]. (2021). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,
The Language Archive. Retrieved from [URL]
Gu, Y., Donnellan, E., Grzyb, B., Brekelmans, G., Murgiano, M., Brieke, R., Perniss, P. & Vigliocco, G. (2025). The ECOLANG Multimodal Corpus of adult-child and adult-adult Language. Scientific Data.
Klein, J. (2009). Erklären-Was,
Erklären-Wie, Erklären-Warum. Typologie und Komplexität zentraler Akte der
Welterschließung. In R. Vogt (Ed.), Erklären.
Gesprächsanalytische und fachdidaktische
Perspektiven. Stauffenburg.
Le Bigot, L., Bretier, P., & Terrier, P. (2008). Detecting
and exploiting user familiarity in natural language human-computer
dialogue. In K. Asai (Ed.), Human
computer interaction: New
developments (pp. 369–382). Intech Open Limited.
Miller, T. (2019). Explanation
in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial
Intelligence, 2671, 1–38.
Rohlfing, K. J., Cimiano, P., Scharlau, I., Matzner, T., Buhl, H. M., … (2021). Explanation
as a social practice: Toward a conceptual framework for the social design of AI systems. IEEE
Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental
Systems, 13(3), 717–728.
Ruggeri, A., & Lombrozo, T. (2015). Children
adapt their questions to achieve efficient
search. Cognition, 1431, 203–216.
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object
name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological
science, 13(1), 13–19.
Sokol, K., & Flach, P. (2020). One
explanation does not fit all. KI-Künstliche
Intelligenz, 34(2), 235–250.
Stukenbrock, A. (2014). Pointing
to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics, 741, 70–93.
Tare, M., French, J., Frazier, B. N., Diamond, J., & Evans, E. M. (2011). Explanatory
parent–child conversation predominates at an evolution exhibit. Science
Education, 95(4), 720–744.
Vigliocco, G., Motamedi, Y., Murgiano, M., Wonnacott, E., Marshall, C. R., Milan Maillo, I., et al. (2019). Onomatopoeias,
gestures, actions and words in the input to children: How do caregivers use multimodal cues in their communication to
children? Paper presented at the 41st Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, QB.
