A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 309-321

  Kim, ChanMin ^a   Baylor, Amy L ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Change agent; Learning companions; Motivation; Pedagogical agent; Persuasive technologies; Social computing; Technology integration; Virtual change agent

Indexed keywords

EID: 54149098144     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 416-427.
2. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
3. Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of Control: Cognitive Considerations for Agent-Based Learning Environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12 (4), 403-425.
4. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 5-22.
5. Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. (2003). The Pedagogical Agent Split-Persona Effect: When Two Agents are Better than One. Paper presented at the Annual World conference of Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunication, June 23-28, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii.
6. Baylor, A. L., & Group, P. R. (2003). The Impact of Three Pedagogical Agent Roles. Paper presented at the Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems Conference, July 14-18, 2003, Melbourne, Australia.
7. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15 (1), 95-115.
8. Baylor, A. L., & Plant, E. A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice. Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference, July 18-22, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
9. Baylor, A. L., Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Interface Agents as Social Models: The Impact of Appearance on Females' Attitude Toward Engineering. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 22-27, 2006, Montreal, Canada.
10. Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003b). The Effects of Pedagogical Agent Voice and Animation on Learning, Motivation, and Perceived Persona. Paper presented at the Annual World conference of Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, & Telecommunication, June 23-28, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii.
11. Beavers, D. (2001). Professional development outside the workshop box. Principal Leadership, 1 (9), 43-46.
12. Bradshaw, L. K. (1997). Technology-supported change: a staff development opportunity. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81 (593), 86-92.
13. Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., & Berg, K. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training program: the PT3@ASU Project. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51 (1), 57-72.
14. Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 (4), 411-433.
15. Doering, A., Hughes, J., & Huffman, D. (2003). Preservice teachers: Are we thinking with technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 342-361.
16. Ellsworth, J. B. (2000). Surviving Change: A Survey of Educational Change Models, New York, NY: ERIC Clearing house on Information and Technology.
17. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (4), 25-39.
18. Ertmer, P. A., Conklin, D., Lewandowski, J., Osika, E., Selo, M., & Wignall, E. (2003). Increasing preservice teachers' capacity for technology integration through the use of electronic models. Teacher Education Quarterly, retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_qa3960/is_200301/ai_n9175016.
19. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change, New York: Teachers College Press.
20. nd Ed.), Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
21. Hope, W. C. (1998). The next step: integrating computers and related technologies into practice. Contemporary Education, 69(3), 137-140.
22. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23. Kim, Y. (2003). Pedagogical agent as learning companion: Its constituents and implications. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, November 7-11, 2003, Phoenix, Arizona.
24. Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical Agents As Learning Companions: The Effects of Agent Affect and Gender on Learning, Interest, Self-efficacy, and Agent Persona, PhD Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
25. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006a). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54 (3), 223-243.
26. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006b). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (6), 569-596.
27. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Reed, G. (2003). The Impact of Image and Voice with Pedagogical Agents. Paper presented at the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education, November 7-11, 2003, Phoenix, Arizona.
28. Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., & FitzGerald, P. J. (1999). Achieving Affective Impact: Visual Emotive Communication in Lifelike Pedagogical Agents. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10 (3-4), 278-291.
29. Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Grau, R. (2002). Training to technological change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 206-212.
30. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), 419-425
31. Mills, S. C., & Tincher, R. C. (2003). Be the technology: A developmental model for evaluating technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 382-401.
32. Moreno, K. N., Person, N. K., Adcock, A. B., van Eck, R. N., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and Efficacy in Animated Pedagogical Agents: The Role of Stereotypes. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium on Personalized Agents, November 15-17, 2002, Cape Cod, MA.
33. 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.
34. Nelms, B. F. (2004). On the front line: Preparing teachers with struggling schools in mind. English Education, 36 (2), 153-167.
35. th Ed.), New York, NY: Free Press.
36. Rovai, A. P., & Childress, M. D. (2002). Explaining and predicting resistance to computer anxiety reduction among teacher education students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (2), 226-235.
37. Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 2 (4), 291-319.
38. Silverman, B. G., Holmes, J., Kimmel, S., Branas, C., Ivins, D., & Weaver, R. (2001). Modeling emotion and behavior in animated persona to facilitate human behavior change: The case of the heart-sense game. Health Care Management, 4, 213-228.
39. Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains, Final report to the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
40. Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2003). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54 (1), 65-82.
41. Thompson, A. D., Schmidt, D. A., & Davis, N. E. (2003). Technology collaboratives for simultaneous renewal in teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51 (1), 73-89.
42. Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Collaboratively developing instructional activities of conceptual change through the Internet: Science teachers' perspectives. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (5), 619-622.
43. Ward, J. R., West, L. S., & Isaak, T. J. (2002). Mentoring: a strategy for change in teacher technology education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10 (4), 553-569.
44. Warren, D., Shen, E., Park, S., Baylor, A. L., & Perez, R. (2005). Adult learner perceptions of affective agents: Experimental data and phenomenological observations. Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education Conference, July 18-22, 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
45. Weidmann, W., & Humphrey, M. B. (2002). Building a network to empower teachers for school reform. School Science and Mathematics, 102 (2), 88-93.