Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning english as a second language

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 441-466

  Choi, Sunhee ^a   Clark, Richard E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846555678     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/A064-U776-4208-N145     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. André, E., Rist, T., & Mueller, J. (1999). Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4), 415-448.
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
3. BellCraft Technologies (2004). Microsoft Agent Scripting Helper Version 6.5. Houston, TX.
4. Brunken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 109-119.
5. Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2001). Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort, and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 575-595.
6. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
7. Clark, R. E. (1994a). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 7-10.
8. Clark, R. E. (1994b). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
9. Clark, R. E. (1998). Cognitive efficiency research on media: A rejoinder to Cobb Unpublished manuscript.
10. Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
11. Clark, R. E. (2003). Research on web-based learning: A half-full glass. In R. Bruning, C. Horn, & L. PytikZillig (Eds.), Web-based learning: Where do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
12. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Research on Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
13. Cobb, T. (1997). Cognitive efficiency, toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 21-35.
14. Craig, S., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163-183.
15. 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.
16. Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
17. Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 79-96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
18. Gimino, A. E. (2000). Factors that influence students' investment of mental effort in academic tasks: A validation and exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
19. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage. A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
20. Izumi, S. (2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
21. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329-343.
22. 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.
23. Kimmel, H., & Deck, F. P. (1995). Instructional technology: A tool or a panacea? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 327-332.
24. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
25. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Refraining the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
26. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997, March). The persona effect. Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of Computer-Human Interaction '97 (pp. 359-366), Atlanta.
27. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Stone, B., Khaler, S., & Barlow, T. (1997). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness; A large-scale empirical evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 23-30), Kobe, Japan.
28. Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. M. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Lowe, J. (2002). Computer-based education: Is it a panacea? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 163-171.
30. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
31. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.
33. Microsoft Corporation (2003). Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003.
34. 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.
35. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
36. 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.
37. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is easy and print is tough: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658.
38. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
39. Sweller, J., Cooper, G. A., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 119, 176-192.
40. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-256.
41. Ullmer, E. J. (1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21-32.
42. van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is if? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI'98, pp. 53-66. Berlin: Springer