Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more

Computers in Human Behavior

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 450-457

  Baylor, Amy L ^a   Kim, Soyoung ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Yonsei University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Agent nonverbal communication; Attitude change; Cognitive load theory; Gestures; Interface agents; Pedagogical agents; Persuasive technology; Procedural learning

Indexed keywords

AGENTS; COMMUNICATION; EDUCATION; PROGRAMMING THEORY; STUDENTS;

AGENT NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; ATTITUDE CHANGE; COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY; GESTURES; INTERFACE AGENTS; PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS; PERSUASIVE TECHNOLOGY; PROCEDURAL LEARNING;

SOFTWARE AGENTS;

EID: 59049101809     PISSN: 07475632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aimeur E., and Frasson C. Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education 27 2 (1996) 115-127
2. Allbeck J., and Badler N. Representing and parameterizing agent behaviors. In: Prendinger H., and Ishizuka M. (Eds). Life-like characters: Tools, affective functions and applications (2003), Springer, Germany
3. Anderson J.R., Corbett A.T., Koedinger K.R., and Pelletier K. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 2 (1995) 167-207
4. Atkinson R.K. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2002) 416-427
5. Atkinson R.K., Mayer R.E., and Merrill M.M. Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology 30 (2005) 117-139
6. Baylor A.L., and Kim Y. The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In: Richards G. (Ed). Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate government healthcare & higher education 2003 (2003), AACE, Chesapeake, VA 1503-1506
7. Baylor A.L. Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development 50 2 (2002) 5-22
8. Baylor A.L. The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Proceedings of workshop "Affective interactions: The computer in the affective loop" at the 10th International conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2005), ACM Press 1-6
9. Baylor A.L., and Kim Y. Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 15 1 (2005) 95-115
10. Baylor A.L., and Plant E.A. Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In: Looi C.-K., McCalla G., Bredeweg B., and Breuker J. (Eds). Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology Vol. 125 (2005), IOS Press 65-72
11. Baylor A.L., Ryu J., and Shen E. The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. Proceedings of World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (2003), AACE, Norfolk, VA 452-458
12. Baylor A.L., and Ryu J. The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research 28 4 (2003) 373-395
13. Baylor A.L., Shen E., and Huang X. Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? The effects of gender and ethnicity. In: Richards G. (Ed). Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate government healthcare & higher education 2003 (2003), AACE, Chesapeake, VA 1507-1510
14. Baylor A.L., Shen E., and Warren D. Supporting learners with math anxiety: The impact of pedagogical agent emotional and motivational support. Proceedings of workshop on social and emotional intelligence in learning environments at the International conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) (2004), Springer, Maceio, Brazil 6-12
15. Baylor A.L., Warren D., Park C.H., Shen E., and Perez R. The impact of frustration-mitigating messages delivered by an interface agent. In: Looi C.-K., McCalla G., Bredeweg B., and Breuker J. (Eds). Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology Vol. 125 (2005), IOS Press 73-79
16. Bodens K., and Horowitz I. Social psychology (2002), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
17. Breckler S., and Wiggins E. Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (1989) 25
18. In: Cassell J., Sullivan J., Prevost S., and Churchill E. (Eds). Embodied conversational agents (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
19. Clark R., Nguyen F., and Sweller J. Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load (2006), Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA
20. Driscoll M.P., and Burner K.J. The cognitive revolution and instrucitonal design. In: Royer J.M. (Ed). The impact of the cognitive revolution on educational psychology (2005), Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT 199-229
21. Driscoll M. Psychology of learning for instruction (2000), Allyn & Bacon, MA
22. Fogg B. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do (2002), Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CA
23. Gagné R. The conditions of learning (1985), Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York
24. Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.
25. Graesser, A., Moreno, K. N., & Marineau, J. C. (2003). AutoTutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialogue or the talking head? Paper presented at the the international conference of artificial intelligence in education, Sydney, Australia.
26. Graesser A., VanLehn K., Rose C., Jordan P., and Harter D. Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine 22 (2001) 39-51
27. Gunawardena C. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1 2 (1995) 147-166
28. Heeter C. Communication research on consumer VR. In: Biocca F., and Levy M. (Eds). Communication in the age of virtual reality (1995), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ
29. Homer B., Plass J., and Blake L. The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior (2008) 24
30. Johnson W.L., Rickel J.W., and Lester J.C. Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11 (2000) 47-78
31. Kim Y., and Baylor A.L. A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development 54 6 (2006) 569-590
32. Kim Y., and Baylor A.L. Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology 47 1 (2007) 23-28
33. Kim Y., Baylor A.L., and Reed G. The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. In: Richards G. (Ed). Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education 2003 (2003), Chesapeake, VA, AACE 2237-2240
34. Kitsantas A., and Baylor A.L. The impact of the IPSRT (instructional planning self-reflective tool) on preservice teachers' performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Educational Technology Research & Development 49 4 (2001) 101-110
35. Lee, K. M., & Nass, C. (2003). Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
36. Lester J., Towns S., Callaway C., Voerman J., and Fitzgerald P. Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In: Cassell J., Sullivan J., Prevost S., and Churchill E. (Eds). Embodied conversational agents (2001), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
37. Martin-Michiellot S., and Mendelsohn P. Cognitive load while learning with a graphical computer interface. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 16 (2000)
38. Mayer R., Moreno R., Boire M., and Vagge S. Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 4 (1999) 638-643
39. Mclssac M., and Gunawardena C. Distance education. In: Jonassen D. (Ed). Handbook for research on educational communication and technology (1996), Scholastic Press, New York, NY
40. Moreno R., Mayer R.E., Spires H.A., and Lester J.C. 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 (2001) 177-213
41. Mousavi S., Low R., and Sweller J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology 87 2 (1995) 319-334
42. Mykota D., and Duncan R. Learner characteristics as predictors of online social presence. Canadian Journal of Education 30 1 (2007) 157-170
43. Nam C., Shu J., and Chung D. The roles of sensory modalities in collaborative virtual environment (CVEs). Computers in Human Behavior 24 4 (2008) 1404-1417
44. Newberry, B. (2001). Raising student social presence in online classes. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 466 611.
45. Reeves B., and Nass C. The media equation (1996), CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA
46. Romiszowski A., and Mason R. Computer-mediated communication. In: Jonassen D. (Ed). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2004), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
47. Rosenberg-Kima R., Baylor A.L., Plant E.A., and Doerr C. Interface agents as social models for female students: the effects of agent visual presence and appearance on women's attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior 24 6 (2008) 2741-2756
48. Ryu J., and Baylor A.L. The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology Instruction Cognition & Learning (TICL) 2 4 (2005) 291-315
49. Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42 (1992) 73-93
50. van Merriënboer J., and Ayres P. Reseach on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development 53 3 (2005) 5-13