Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 969-986

  Veletsianos, George ^a   Miller, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENTS; VIRTUAL REALITY;

CONVERSATIONAL AGENTS; DIGITAL ENTITIES; FUTURE DESIGNS; PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS;

EDUCATION;

EID: 54549116139     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00797.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Adcock, A. Van Eck, R. (2005). Reliability and factor structure of the attitude toward tutoring agent scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16, 2, 195 212.
2. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 2, 5 22.
3. Clark, R. Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 3, 209 225.
4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding flow: the psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York : Basic Books.
5. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G. Yerasimou, T. (2008). Conversational Agents and their Longitudinal Affordances on Communication and Interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 2.
6. Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 2, 235 260.
7. Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313 334.
8. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time [Translation San Francisco : Harper and Row.
9. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K. Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 3, 47 66.
10. Kurzweil, R. (2000). The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. New York : Penguin Books.
11. Mahmood, A. Ferneley, E. (2006). Embodied agents in e-learning environments: an exploratory case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 2, 143 162.
12. Moreno, R. Flowerday, T. (2006). Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: a test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 2, 186 207.
13. Norman, D. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed Software agents (pp. 49 56). Menlo Park, CA : MIT Press.
14. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York : Basic Books.
15. Polkinghorne, D. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle S. Halling (Eds Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41 60). New York : Plenum Press.
16. Reeves, B. Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
17. Reeves, T., Herrington, J. Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 4, 53 65.
18. Ryu, J. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2, 4, 291 319.
19. Stevik, E. L. (1971). An empirical investigation of the experience of anger. In A. Giorgi, W. F. Fisher R. Von Eckartsberg (Eds Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology Vol. I (pp. 132 148). Pittsburgh, PA : Duquesne University Press.
20. Van Manen, M. (2001). Researching lived experience (2nd ed Ontario, Canada : The Althouse Press.
21. Veletsianos, G. (2006). Contextual pedagogical agents: stereotypes and first impressions and their impact on student learning and perceptions of agent persona (Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN).
22. Vrasidas, C. (2001). Interpretivism and symbolic interactionism: 'making the familiar strange and interesting again' in educational technology research. In W. Heinecke J. Willis (Eds Research methods in educational technology (pp Greenwich, CT : Information Age Publishing.
23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
24. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA - a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9, 1, 36 45.
25. Willis, J. Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after 100 ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 7, 592 598.