Article 2023

Show or tell? Exploring when (and why) teaching with language outperforms demonstration

Cognition
Journal · Vol. 232 · Art. 105326
Abstract

People use a wide range of communicative acts across different modalities, from concrete demonstrations to abstract language. While these modalities are typically studied independently, we take a comparative approach and ask when and why one modality might outperform another. We present a series of real-time, multi-player experiments asking participants to teach concepts using either demonstrations or language. Our first experiment (N=416) asks when language might outperform demonstration. We manipulate the complexity of the concept being taught and find that language communicates complex concepts more effectively than demonstration. We then ask why language succeeds in this setting. We hypothesized that language allowed teachers to reference abstract object features (e.g., shapes and colors), while demonstration teachers could only provide concrete examples (specific positive or negative objects). To test this hypothesis, our second experiment (N=568) ablated object features from the teacher's interface. This manipulation severely impaired linguistic (but not demonstrative) teaching. Our findings suggest that language communicates complex concepts by directly transmitting abstract rules. In contrast, demonstrations transmit examples, requiring the learner to infer the rules. © 2022 Elsevier B.V.

Keywords

Author Keywords

communication pedagogy Language Demonstration abstraction

Index Keywords

Teaching human Humans Article interpersonal communication language human experiment major clinical study teacher Linguistics communication pedagogics
Author Affiliations
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton, NJ, United States
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States
School of Engineering and Applied Science, Princeton, NJ, United States, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States
Funding & Acknowledgements
National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate, NDSEG
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRS is supported by the NDSEG Fellowship Program and RDH is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #1911835). This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number #1544924) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant #61454). We thank M.H. Tessler and our anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive feedback.
National Science Foundation, NSF
Grant: 1911835, 1544924
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRS is supported by the NDSEG Fellowship Program and RDH is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #1911835). This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number #1544924) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant #61454). We thank M.H. Tessler and our anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive feedback.
National Science Foundation, NSF
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRS is supported by the NDSEG Fellowship Program and RDH is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #1911835). This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number #1544924) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant #61454). We thank M.H. Tessler and our anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive feedback.
John Templeton Foundation, JTF
Grant: 61454
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRS is supported by the NDSEG Fellowship Program and RDH is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #1911835). This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number #1544924) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant #61454). We thank M.H. Tessler and our anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive feedback.
John Templeton Foundation, JTF
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRS is supported by the NDSEG Fellowship Program and RDH is supported by the National Science Foundation (grant #1911835). This work was additionally supported by the National Science Foundation (grant number #1544924) and the John Templeton Foundation (grant #61454). We thank M.H. Tessler and our anonymous reviewers for insightful and constructive feedback.
References 10 References
1 Abbeel, Pieter, Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning, Proceedings, Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2004, pp. 1-8, (2004)
2 Argall, Brenna D., A survey of robot learning from demonstration, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 57, 5, pp. 469-483, (2009)
3 Asplund, Stig Börje, Learning How (and How Not) to Weld: Vocational Learning in Technical Vocational Education, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62, 1, pp. 1-16, (2018)
4 Baker, Chris L., Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing, Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 4, (2017)
5 Baldwin, Dare A., Infants' Ability to Draw Inferences about Nonobvious Object Properties: Evidence from Exploratory Play, Child Development, 64, 3, pp. 711-728, (1993)
6 Bandura, Albert, Vicarious Processes: A Case of No-Trial Learning, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, C, pp. 1-55, (1965)
7 Bridgers, Sophie, Young children consider the expected utility of others’ learning to decide what to teach, Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 2, pp. 144-152, (2020)
8 Buchsbaum, Daphna, Children's imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence, Cognition, 120, 3, pp. 331-340, (2011)
9 Butler, Lucas Payne, Preschoolers Use Intentional and Pedagogical Cues to Guide Inductive Inferences and Exploration, Child Development, 83, 4, pp. 1416-1428, (2012)
10 Butler, Lucas Payne, Navigating pedagogy: Children's developing capacities for learning from pedagogical interactions, Cognitive Development, 38, pp. 27-35, (2016)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
12
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers