Not quite an editorial: Educational agents and (e-)learning

Applied Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 19, Issue 3-4, 2005, Pages 199-213

  Payr, Sabine ^a,b  

^a AUSTRIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE   (Austria)

^b NONE   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMATION; COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; EDUCATION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; STUDENTS;

ANIMATED AGENTS; E-LEARNING; EDUCATIONAL AGENTS; TROUBLEMAKERS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 17044393859     PISSN: 08839514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08839510590910147     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Advanced Distributed Learning. 2004. SCORM 2004 Overview, http://www.adlnet.org.
2. Baumgartner, P. and S. Payr. 1999. Lernen mit Software, 2nd ed. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.
3. Biswas, G., T. Katzlberger, J. Bransford, D. Schwartz, and The Teachable Agent Group at Vanderbilt. 2001. Extending intelligent learning environments with teachable agents to enhance learning. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2001), eds. J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, and W. L. Johnson, pages 389-397, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
4. Boisot, M. H. 1995. Information Space: A Framework for Learning in Organizations, Institutions, and Culture. London: Routledge.
5. Bransford, J. D., A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. 2000. How People Learn. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
6. Brophy, S., G. Biswas, T. Katzlberger, J. Bransford, and D. Schwartz. 1999. Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 99), eds. S. P. Lajoie and M. Vivet, pages 21-28, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
7. Elliott, C., J. Rickel, and J. Lester. 1999. Lifelike pedagogical agents and affective computing: An exploratory synthesis. In Artificial Intelligence Today: Recent Trends and Developments, eds. M. J. Wooldridge and M. Veloso, pages 195-211, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
8. Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
9. Graesser, A. C., K. Wiemer-Hastings, P. Wiemer-Hastings, R. J. Kreuz, and Tutoring Research Group. 1999. AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research (1):35-51.
10. HEC. 2003. Overview of the current and emerging European Professional Training Market. Time2-Learn, Deliverable D2.1. http://www.time21earn.org.
11. Heise, D. R. 2002. Understanding social interaction with affect control theory. In New Directions in Sociological Theory, eds. J. Berger and M. Zelditch. Boulder, CO: Rowman and Littlefield.
12. Henderson, J. V. 1998. Comprehensive, technology-based clinical education: The virtual practicum. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine 28(1):41-79. Available from http://www.iml.dartmouth.edu/education/ pubs/vpract-intro.html.
13. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 2003. IMS Learning Design Information Model. http://www.imsglobal.org/learningdesign/ldv1p0/ imsld_infov1p0.html.
14. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 2004. IMS Shareable State Persistence Information Model. Version 1.0 Public Draft. http://www.imsglobal. org/develop/cfm.
15. Johnson, W. L., J. W. Rickel, and J. Lester. 2000. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-Face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11: 47-78.
16. Kaplan-Leiserson, E. 2003. We-learning: Social software and E-learning. Learning Circuits (Online journal of the American Society for Training and Development). Available from http://www.learningcircuits.org.
17. Kolb, D. 1976. The Learning Style Inventory. Technical Manual. Boston: McBer.
18. Koper, R. 2001. Modeling units of study from a pedagogical perspective. The pedagogical meta-model behind EML: Open University of the Netherlands, http://eml.ou.nl/introduction/articles.htm.
19. Krenn, B. 2003. The NECA project: Net environments for embodied emotional conversational agents. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Emotionally Rich Virtual Worlds with Emotion Synthesis, 8th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (3DWeb), March 2003, St. Malo, France. Available from http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/NECA/publications/publication.html.
20. Krenn, B. and B. Neumayr. 2003. Socialite in derSpittelberg: Incorporating animated conversation into a web-based community-building tool. In Proceedings of Intelligent Virtual Agents: 4th International Workshop (IVA 2003), eds. T. Rist, R. Aylett, D. Ballin and J. Rickel. LNAI 2792, pages 18-22, Heidelberg/New York: Springer.
21. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lester, J. C., S. G. Towns, C. B. Callaway, J. Voerman, and P. J. FitzGerald. 2000. Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In Embodied Conversational Agents, ed. J. E. A. Cassell, 123-154. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23. Payr, S. 2003. The virtual universiy's faculty: An overview of educational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 17(1):1-19.
24. Payr, S. and Robert Trappl, eds. 2004. Agent Culture: Designing Human-Agent Interaction in a Multicultural World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
25. Person, N. K., L. Bautista, A. C. Graesser, E. Mathews, and The Tutoring Research Group. 2001a. Evaluating student learning gains in two versions of AutoTutor. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 2001), eds. J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, and W. L. Johnson, pages 286-293, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
26. Person, N. K., L. Bautista, A. C. Graesser, R. J. Kreuz, V. Pomeroy, and Tutoring Research Group. 2001b. Simulating human tutor dialog moves in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 12: 23-39.
27. Rickel, J. and W. L. Johnson. 1998. Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13(4-5):343-382.
28. Rickel, J. and W. L. Johnson. 1999. Why Use an Animated Pedagogical Agent? Paper read at AI-ED '99 Workshop on Animated and Personified Pedagogical Agents.
29. Salmon, G. 2002a. e-Learning works: Learning from the past, present and future. Paper presented at WORLD DIDAC 2002, Zurich. Available from http://oubs.open.ac.uk/gilly.
30. Salmon, G. 2002b. Pedagogical requirements of virtual learning environments (VLEs): Pets and Planets. UCISA TLIG-SDG User Support Conference, Leeds, UK, Available from http://oubs.open.ac.uk/gilly.
31. Schön, D. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
32. Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Self, J. 1999. The defining characteristics of intelligent tutoring systems research: ITSs care, precisely. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 10:350-364.
34. Tattersall, C. and R. Koper. 2004. EML and IMS Learning Design: From LO to LA: Educational Technology Expertise Centre, The Open University of the Netherlands. Available from http://www.learningnetworks.org.