Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?

Educational Research Review

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 27-54

  Heidig, Steffi ^a   Clarebout, Geraldine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Animated agents; Learning; Motivation; Multimedia learning environments; Pedagogical agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951949973     PISSN: 1747938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. André E., Rist T., Müller J. Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 1999, 13:415-448.
2. Atkinson R.K. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94:416-427.
3. Atkinson R.K., Mayer R.E., Merril M.M. Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2005, 30:117-139.
4. Ayres P., Sweller J. The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 135-146. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
5. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agents image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. San Diego, CA.
6. Baylor A.L., Kim S. Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25:450-457.
7. Baylor A.L., Kim Y. Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 2005, 15(1).
8. Baylor A.L., Ryu J. The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2003, 28(4):373-395.
9. Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003). The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA. Honolulu, Hawaii.
10. Bendel, O. (2003). Pädagogische Agenten im Corporate E-Learning. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, from http://beat.doebe.li/bibliothek/b01472.html.
11. Bercht, M., & Viccardi, R. M. (2000). Pedagogical agents with affective and cognitive dimensions. Retrieved 22.01, 2006, from http://www.c5.cl/ieinvestiga/actas/ribie2000/papers/173/index.htm.
12. Biswas G., Leelawong K., Schwartz D., Vye N. Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence 2005, 19:363-392.
13. Bradshaw J.M. Software agents 1997, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA.
14. Brna, P., Cooper, B., & Razmerita, L. (2001). Marching to the wrong distant drum: Pedagogic agents, emotion and student modelling. Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on attitude, personality and emotions in user-adapted interaction. Sonthofen, Germany.
15. Cassell J., Thórisson K.R. The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 1999, 13:519-538.
16. Choi S., Clark R.E. Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2006, 34(4):441-466.
17. Clarebout G., Elen J. Open learning environments and the impact of pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2006, 35:211-226.
18. Clarebout G., Elen J., Johnson W.L., Shaw E. Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped?. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2002, 11(3):267-286.
19. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). E-learning and the science of instruction. Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
20. Clark R.E., Choi S. Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2005, 32(3):209-225.
21. Craig S.D., Gholson B., Driscoll D.M. Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94(2):428-434.
22. Dehn D.M., van Mulken S. The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2000, 52:1-22.
23. Dirkin K.H., Mishra P., Altermatt E. All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2005, 14(2):113-127.
24. Domagk, S. (2008). Pädagogische Agenten in multimedialen Lernumgebungen. Empirische Studien zum Einfluss der Sympathie auf Motivation und Lernerfolg. (Band 9 der Reihe Wissensprozesse und digitale Medien). Berlin: Logos.
25. Domagk S. Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? The role of the appeal of agent's appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology 2010, 22(2):82-95.
26. Domagk S., Poepperling P., Niegemann H.M. Do people prefer the opposite sex? Characteristics of pedagogical agents. Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity 2006, 187-192. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. G. Clarebout, J. Elen (Eds.).
27. Dunsworth Q., Atkinson R.K. Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers & Education 2007, 49(3):677-690.
28. Eccles J.S., Wigfield A. Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology 2002, 53:109-132.
29. Ekman P., Friesen W. Facial action coding system 1978, Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto.
30. Ekman P., Rosenberg E.L. What the face reveals: Basic and applied studies of spontaneous expression using the facial action coding system (Facs) 2005, Oxford University Press, New York.
31. Elliot C., Rickel J., Lester J.C. Lifelike pedagogical agents and affective computing: An exploratory synthesis. Artificial Intelligence today 1999, 195-212. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. M. Wooldridge, M. Veloso (Eds.).
32. Erickson T. Designing agents as if people mattered. Software agents 1997, 79-96. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA. J.M. Bradshaw (Ed.).
33. Götz, T., Zirngibl, A., Hall, N., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Emotions, learning and achievement from an educational-psychological perspective. In P. Mayring, & C. v. Rhoeneck (Eds.). Learning emotions. Berlin: Peter Lang.
34. Graesser A., Chipman P., Haynes B., Olney A. AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education 2005, 48(4):612-618.
35. Graesser A., Lu S., Jackson G.T., Mitchell H., Ventura M., Olney A., et al. AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 2004, 36:180-192.
36. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & T. R. G. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35-51.
37. Gulz A., Haake M. Design of animated pedagogical agents-A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2006, 64:322-339.
38. Guray C., Celebi N., Atalay V., Pasamehmetoglu A.G. Ore-Age: A hybrid system for assisting and teaching mining method selection. Expert Systems with Applications 2003, 24:261-271.
39. Holmes J. Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computer & Education 2007, 48:523-547.
40. Johnson W.L., Rickel J., Stiles R., Munro A. Integrating pedagogical agents into virtual environments. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1998, 7(6):523-546.
41. Johnson W.L., Rickel J.W., Lester J.C. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 2000, 11:47-78.
42. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38(1):32-132.
43. Keller, J. M., & Litchfield, B. C. (2002). Motivation and performance. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 83-98). Upper Saddle River, NJ/Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
44. Kim Y. Desirable characteristics of learning companions. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence 2007, 17(4):371-377.
45. Kim Y., Baylor A.L., Shen E. Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007, 23:220-234.
46. King, W. J., & Ohya, J. (1996). The representation of agents: Anthropomorphism, agency, and intelligence. Paper presented at the human factors in computing systems: CHI'96 Electronic Conference Proceedings.
47. Klauer K.J. Framework for a theory of teaching. Teaching & Teacher Education 1985, 1(1):5-17.
48. Klauer, K. J., & Leutner, D. (2007). Lehren und Lernen. Einführung in die Instruktionspsychologie. Weinheim: Beltz.
49. Krämer, N. (2006). Soziale Wirkungen virtueller Helfer. Gestaltung und Evaluation von Mensch-Computer-Interaktionen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
50. Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation. The dynamics of personality systems interaction. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111-169). San Diego, San Francisco, New York: Academic Press.
51. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In CHI'97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 359-366). New York: ACM Press.
52. Lester J.C., Towns S.G., FitzGerald P.J. Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 1999, 10:278-291.
53. Lester J.C., Voerman J.L., Towns S.G., Callaway C.B. Deictic believability: Coordinating gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence 1999, 13:383-414.
54. Low R., Sweller J. The modality principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 147-158. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
55. Lusk M.M., Atkinson R.K. Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21:747-764.
56. Mayer R.E. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
57. Mayer, R. E., (2005b) Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201-214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Mayer R.E., Dow G.T., Mayer S. Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds. Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 4:806-813.
59. Morch A.I., Dolonen J.A., Naevdal J.E.B. An evolutionary approach to prototyping pedagogical agents: From simulation to integrated system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 2004, 29:177-199.
60. Moreno R. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science 2004, 32:99-113.
61. Moreno R., Flowerday T. Student's choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2006, 31:186-207.
62. Moreno R., Mayer R.E. Learning science in virtual reality multimedia learning environments: Role of method and media. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94(3):598-610.
63. Moreno R., Mayer R.E. Personalized messages that promote learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 96(1):165-173.
64. Moreno R., Mayer R.E. Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology 2005, 97(1):117-128.
65. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2000). Montreal, Canada.
66. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case of social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Journal of Educational Psychology, (87), 177-214.
67. Moundridou M., Virvou M. Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning 2002, 18(3):253-261.
68. Mousavi S.Y., Low R., Sweller J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology 1995, 87:319-334.
69. Niegemann H.M., Domagk S., Hessel S., Hein A., Hupfer M., Zobel A. Kompendium multimediales Lernen 2008, Springer, Berlin.
70. Pekrun R., Elliot A.J., Maier M.A. Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology 2006, 98:583-597.
71. Pekrun R., Goetz T., Titz W., Perry R.P. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist 2002, 37(2):91-105.
72. Penney C.G. Modality effects and the structure of short-term memory. Memory and Cognition 1989, 17:389-442.
73. Perez R., Solomon H. Effect of a socratic animated agent on student performance in a computer-simulated disassembly process. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 2005, 14(1):47-59.
74. Plant E.A., Baylor A.L., Doerr C.E., Rosenberg-Kima R.B. Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers & Education 2009, 53:209-215.
75. Predinger H., Ma C., Ishizuka M. Eye movements as indices for the utility of life-like interface agents: A pilot study. Interacting with Computers 2007, 19:281-292.
76. Prendinger M., Mori J., Ishizuk M. Using human physiology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a mathematical game. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2005, 62(2):231-245.
77. Renninger K.A., Hidi S., Krapp A. The role of interest in learning and development 1992, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
78. Rheinberg F., Vollmeyer R., Rollett W. Motivation and action in self-regulated learning. Handbook of self-regulation 2000, 503-529. Academic Press, San Diego, San Francisco, New York. M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.).
79. Roda C., Angehrn A., Nabeth T., Razmerita L. Using conversational agents to support the adoption of knowledge sharing practices. Interacting with Computers 2003, 15(1):57-89.
80. Ruttkay Z., Pelachaud C. From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents 2004, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
81. Shaw, E., Ganeshan, R., Johnson, W. L., & Millar, D. (1999). Building a case for agent-assisted learning as a catalyst for curriculum reform in medical education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Marina del Rey, USA.
82. Sweller J. The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 159-168. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
83. Takeuchi, A., & Naito, T. (1995). Situated facial displays: Towards social interaction. In I. Katz, R. Mack, L. Marks, M. B. Rosson, & J. Nielsen (Eds.). Human factors in computing systems: CHI'95 conference proceedings (pp. 450-455). New York: ACM Press.
84. Um, E., Song, H., & Plass, J. L. (2007). The effect of positive emotions on multimedia learning. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2007). Vancouver, Canada.
85. Veletsianos G. The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2009, 25:345-357.
86. Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., & Subramani, R. (1994). Using a human face in an interface. In B. Adelson, S. Dumais, & J. Olson (Eds.). Human factors in computing systems: CHI'94 conference proceedings (pp. 85-91). New York: ACM Press.
87. Wang N., Johnson W.L., Mayer R.E., Rizzo P., Shaw E., Collins H. The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2008, 66:98-112.
88. Zimmerman B.J. Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. Handbook of self-regulation 2000, 13-39. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.).