Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 223-243

  Kim, Yanghee ^a,b   Baylor, Amy L ^c,d  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center for Research on Engaging Advanced Technology for Education (CREATE)   (United States)

^c FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Center for Research of Innovative Technologies for Learning (RITL)   (United States)

Author keywords

Human computer interaction; Learning companioins; Pedagogical agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744756330     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-006-8805-z     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Adolphs, R., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). The interaction of affect and cognition: A neurobiological perspective. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cogniton: Cambridge University Press.
2. Aimeur, E., & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education, 27(2), 115-127.
3. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? Paper presented at the The 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2000.
4. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, K. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Science, 4(2), 167-207.
5. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
6. Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
8. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
9. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 586-598.
10. Bates, J. (1992). The nature of characters in interactive worlds and the oz project (No. CMU-CS-92-200). Pittsburgh, PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
11. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5-22.
12. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil.
13. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15.
14. Bower, G. H., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Mood and social memory. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
15. Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7, 1-23.
16. Chan, T. W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems at the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education, (pp. 7-33): NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
17. Chan, T. W., & Chou, C. Y. (1997). Exploring the design of computer supports for reciprocal tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 1-29.
18. Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40, 255-269.
19. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286.
20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 237-248.
22. Dempsey, J. V., & van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 585-600.
23. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.
24. Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. (1992). People power: A human-computer collaborative learning system. In G. G. C. Frasson, & G. McCalla (Ed.), The 2nd international conference of intelligent tutoring systems, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 608, pp. 651-660). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
25. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26. Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 79-96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
27. Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
28. Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 225-227.
29. Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.
30. Goodman, B., Soller, A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection and articulartion using a learning companion. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan.
31. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., Harter, D., & Group, T. R. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in autotutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257-279.
32. Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 39-51.
33. Griffin, M. M., & Griffin, B. W. (1998). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 298-311.
34. Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998). The competence of learning companion agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178-192.
35. Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2003). Gender interactions in online debates: Look who's arguing with whom. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
36. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
37. Kapoor, A., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Multimodal affect recognition in learning environments. ACMMMOS, Nov. 6-11. Singapore.
38. Kim, Y. (2003a). An agent as a learning companion: What it matters. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.
39. Kim, Y. (2003b). Pedagogical agent as learning companion: Its constituents and implications. Paper presented at the E-Learn, the Annual Conference of Association for the Advancement of computing in Education, Phoenix, AZ.
40. Kim, Y. (2004). Learners' expectations on the desirable characteristics of learning companions. Paper presented at the the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
41. King, I. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 20(1), 57-74.
42. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
43. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Educational for Information, 14(2), 95-107.
44. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
46. Mclnerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds.). (2000). Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
47. McInerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds.). (2002). Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 2). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
48. Microsoft. (2001). Farewell clippy: What's happening to the infamous office assistant in office xp. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www. microsoft.com/presspass/features /2001/apr01/04-11clippy.asp
49. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., 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.
50. Mulken, S. V., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it ? Paper presented at the HCI-98, Berlin.
51. Nijholt, A. (2001). Agents, believability, and environment in advanced learning environments: Introduction to a panel discussion. Paper presented at the International Conference of Advanced Learning Technologies, Madison, Wisconsin.
52. Norman, D. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents? In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49-55). The MIT Press.
53. Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
54. Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
55. Picard, R., Cassell, J., Kort, B., Reilly, R., Bickmore, T. W., Kapoor, A., Mota, S., & Vaucelle, C. Affective learning companion. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from www.media.mit.edu/affect/AC_ressearch/lc/.
56. Powell, J. V., Aeby, V. G., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction. Computers & Education, 40, 183-191.
57. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructinal technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media reflections, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33.
59. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O'Dell, J. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of ontent and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29-39.
60. Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 1-22.
61. Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., & Cassell, J. (2003). Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(2), 195-208.
62. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 149-174.
63. Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
64. Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46.
65. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teachers' behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educantional Psychology, 85, 571-581.
66. Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16(4), 117-121.
67. Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers' emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15(4), 327-358.
68. Topping, K. (Ed.). (2001). Peer-assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Newton, MA: Brookline Books.
69. Topping, K., Hill, S., McKaig, A., Rogers, C., Rushi, N., & Young, D. (1997). Paired reciprocal peer tutoring in undergraduate economics. Innovations in Education and Training International, 34(2), 96-113.
70. Uresti, R. J. (2000). Should i teach my computer peer? Some issues in teaching a learning companion. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2000, Montreal, Canada.
71. Uresti, R. J., & Boulay, B. D. (2004). Expertise, motivation and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 193-231.
72. van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (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.
73. VanLehn, K., Freedman, R., Jordan, P., Murray, C., Osan, R., Ringenberg, M., et al. (2000). Fading and deepening: The next steps for andes and other model-tracing tutors. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.
74. Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75. Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. J. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem-solving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition (pp. 151-171). Bridgewater, NJ: Replica Books.
76. Wong, C. A., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Adolescent engagement in school and problem behaviors: The role of perceived teacher caring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
77. Woolf, B. (1990). 20 years in the trenches: What have we learned? In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education, (pp. 7-33). NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
78. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception. Paper presented at the Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), New York City.
79. Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261-282.