Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS)

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 195-217

  Adcock, Amy B ^a   Van Eck, Richard N ^b  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27544467186     PISSN: 1093023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abrami, P.C., d'Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R.P.S. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. New York: Agathon Press.
2. Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
3. Bardwell, R. (1984). The development and motivational function of expectations. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 461-472.
4. Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7),22-125.
5. Baylor, A. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36-40.
6. Baylor, A. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382.
7. Baylor, A., & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373-395.
8. Baylor, A.L., & Ryu, J. (June, 2004). The API (Agent Persona Instrument) for assessing pedagogical agent persona. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA conference, Honolulu, Hawaii
9. Bloom, B.S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher 13(6), 4-16.
10. Chappell, K.K., & Taylor, C.S. (1997). Evidence for the reliability and factorial validity of the "computer game attitude scale." Journal of Educational Computing Research, 71(1), 67-77.
11. Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
13. Darlington, R. (2004). Factor analysis. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm
14. Dempsey, J., Litchfield, B., & Van Eck, R. (2002, December). Use of pedagogical advisement in technology-assisted learning environments. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Conference on Computers in Education, Aukland, New Zealand. ICCE Society Press.
15. Genesereth, M.R. (1994). Software agents, Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 48-53.
16. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1974)
17. Graesser, A., Moreno, K.N., Marineau, J.C., Adcock, A.B., Olney, A.M., & Person, N.K. (2003). Auto Tutor Improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialog or the talking head? Paper presented at the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia.
18. Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
19. Graesser, A.C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, R, & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. Al Magazine, 22(4), 39-50.
20. Graesser, A.C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & Tutoring Research Group. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35-51.
21. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Focus on the CALIS procedure.
22. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30, 141-158.
23. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Johnson, W.L. (2004). Motivational effects of socially intelligent pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
25. Johnson, W., Rickel, J.W., and Lester, J.C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
26. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
27. Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R.W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. Proceedings of ICALT 2001, 43-48.
28. Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., & Latham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259-284.
29. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.E. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Practice, 31(3), 356-362.
30. Lepper, M.R., & Chabay, R.W. (1987). Socializing the intelligent tutor: Bringing empathy to computer tutors. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 242-257). New York: Springer Verlag.
31. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A. & Bhoga, R.S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Association of Computing Machinery. Retrieved, 2001, from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/ j1.htm
32. Lester, J.C. & Stone, B.A. (11997). Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Ray, CA.
33. Lloyd, B.H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-505.
34. Marsh, H.W., Cairns, L., Relich, J., Barnes, J., & Debus, R. L. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and dimension of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 3-32.
35. Moreno, R. (2004). Agent-based methods for multimedia learning environments: What works and why? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
36. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H.A., & Lester, J.C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
37. Norman, D. (1994). How people might interact with agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 68-71.
38. Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
39. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Sedighian, K., & Sedighian, A. S. (1996). Can educational computer games help educators learn about the psychology of learning mathematics in children? Paper presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education - the North American Chapter, Florida, USA. Retrieved September, 1998, from http://www.cs.ubc.ca/nest/egems/papers.html
41. Shaw, M.E., & Costanza, P.R. (1970). Theories of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
42. Smead, V.S., & Chase, C. I. (1981). Student expectations as they relate to achievement in eighth grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 115-120.
43. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J.V. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41.