Embodied agents in E-learning environments: An exploratory case study

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 143-162

  Mahmood, A Kamil ^a   Ferneley, Elaine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845703565     PISSN: 1093023X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bell, F., & Heinze, A. (2004). With regard to respect - a framework for the governance of educational virtual communities. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 1(1), 19-34.
2. Blignauta, S., & Trollipa, S. R. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments - An exploratory investigation. Computers & Education, 41(2), 149-172.
3. Canole, G. (2002). The evolving landscape of learning technology. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 10(3), 4-18.
4. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
5. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
6. Dehn, D. M. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
7. Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996). Personality and learning preferences of learners in design and design-related disciplines. Paper presented at the International Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development Conference (IDATER 96), Loughborough University.
8. Flick, U. (1998). An Introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
9. Foreman, J. (2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st Century. Educause Review Quarterly, 39(5), 50-66.
10. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley. California: Sociology Press.
11. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). "Students" frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved December 18, 2005 from http://www.firstmonday. org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html
12. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. London: McGraw Hill.
13. Holscherl, C., & Strubel, G. (2000). Web search behaviour of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33(1), 337-346.
14. Jafari, A. (2002). Conceptualising intelligent agents for teaching and learning. Educause Quarterly, 25(3), 28-34.
15. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 24-49.
16. Johnson, W. L., Jeff W. Rickel, & 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.
17. Khalifa, M., & Lam, R. (2002). Web-based learning: Effects on learning process and outcome. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, 45(4).
18. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.
19. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243.
20. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of CHI'97 Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
21. Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, G. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9(1-2), 1-44).
22. Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & Fitzgerald, P. J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In E. Churchill (Ed.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123-154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23. Lisewski, B. (2004). Implementing a learning technology strategy: Top-down strategy meets bottom-up culture. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 12(2), 175-188.
24. Logan, B., Fraser, M., Fielding, D., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., & Herrero, P. (2002). Keeping in touch: Agents reporting from collaborative virtual environments in artificial intelligence and interactive entertainment. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence Conference (pp. 62-67). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
25. Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 31-40.
26. Markus, M. L. (1997). The qualitative difference in information systems research and practice. In J. L. Lee (Ed.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 11-27). London: Chapman and Hall.
27. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
28. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Moundridou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253-261.
30. Nejdl, E. (2001). Learning repositories - Technologies and context. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
31. Ng, M. H., Hall, W., Maier, P., & Armstrong, R. (2002). The application and evaluation of adaptive hypermedia techniques in web-based medical education. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 10(3), 19-40.
32. Norman, K. (1998). Collaborative interactions in support of learning: Models, metaphors and management. In S. Wilbur (Ed.), The digital university: Reinventing the academy (pp. 39-53). London: Springer.
33. Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual REality: perception, cognition and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 343-382.
34. Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: IDECC. Retrieved December 21, 2005 from http://www. nosignificantdifference.org/
35. Ruttkay, Z., & Pelachaud, C. (2004). From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents. Human-Computer Interaction Series. New York: Springer.
36. Sabry, K., & Baldwin, L. (2003). Web-based learning interaction and learning styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 443-454.
37. Shaw, E., Johnson, W. L., & Ganeshan, R. (1999). Pedagogical agents on the Web. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Seattle, WA. New York: ACM Press.
38. Songa, K-S., Hub, X., Olneyc, A., & Graesserb, A. C. (2004b). A framework of synthesizing tutoring conversation capability with web-based distance education courseware. Computers & Education, 42, 375-388.
39. Squires, D. (1999). Peripatetic electronic teachers in higher education. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 7(3), 52-63.
40. Stash, N., & Cristea, A. (2004). Authoring learning styles in adaptive hypermedia: Problems and solutions. Proceedings of WWW 2004 (pp. 114-123).
41. Stojanovic, L., Staab, S., & Studer, R. (2001). E-learning based on the semantic web. Paper presented at the World Conference on the WWW and the Internet, Orlando, Florida, USA.
42. Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394.
43. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design & methods (3rd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage