The design of motivational agents and avatars

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 291-300

  Baylor, Amy L ^a  

^a Amy Baylor Consulting LLC   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitudes; Avatars; Interface agents; Motivation; Pedagogical agents; Persuasion; Self efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952817384     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Arroyo, I., Cooper, D. G., Burleson, W., Woolf, B. P., Muldner, K., & Christopherson, R. (2009). Emotion sensors go to school. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. DuBoulay & A. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education-Building learning systems that care: From knowledge representation to affective modelling (Vol. 200, pp. 17-24). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
3. 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, 117-139.
4. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). Self-representations in immersive virtual environments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(11), 2673-2690.
5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
6. Baylor, A. L. (2007). Pedagogical agents as a social interface. Educational Technology, 47(1), 11-14.
7. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3559-3565.
8. Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. J. (2003). Evidence that multiple agents facilitate greater learning. In U. Hoppe, M. F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Shaping the future of learning through intelligent technologies (pp. 377-379). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
9. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of world conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education 2003 (pp. 1503-1506). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
10. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In J. Lester et al. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 3220, pp. 592-603). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
11. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95-115.
12. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
13. Baylor, A. L., & Plant, E. A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of appearance on female choice. In C.-K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology (Vol. 125, pp. 65-72). Bristol: IOS Press.
14. Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003). The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, Honolulu, Hawaii (pp. 452-458). Norfolk, VA: AACE.
15. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.
16. Bickmore, T., Schulman, D., & Yin, L. X. (2009). Engagement vs. deceit: Virtual humans with human autobiographies. In Z. Ruttkay, M. Kipp, A. Nijholt & H. H. Vilhjalmsson (Eds.), Proceedings of intelligent virtual agents (Vol. 5773, pp. 6-19). Amsterdam: Springer.
17. Ebbers, S. J. (2007). The impact of social model agent type (coping, mastery) and social interaction type (vicarious, direct) on learner motivation, attitudes, social comparisons, affect and learning performance (Vol. Ph. D). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
18. Ersner-Hershfield, H., Bailenson, J., & Carstensen, L. L. (2008). A vivid future self: Immersive virtual reality enhances retirement saving. Paper presented at the Association for Psychological Science. Annual Convention. Chicago, IL.
19. Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009). Virtual self-modeling: The effects of vicarious reinforcement and identification on exercise behaviors. Media Psychology, 12(1), 1-25.
20. Gratch, J., Wang, N., Gerten, J., Fast, E., & Duffy, R. (2007). Creating rapport with virtual agents. In Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent virtual agents. Paris: Springer.
21. Guadagno, R. E., Blascovich, J., Bailenson, J. N., & McCall, C. (2007). Virtual humans and persuasion: The effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychology, 10(1), 1-22.
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. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. ETR& D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223-243.
24. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47(1), 23-28.
25. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 220-234.
26. Lee, J.-E. R., Nass, C., Brave, S., Morishima, Y., Nakajima, H., & Yamada, R. (2007). The case for caring co-learners: The effects of a computer-mediated co-learner agent on trust and learning. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 183-204.
27. Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & FitzGerald, P. J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In J. Sullivant (Ed.), Embodied conversational agents. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
28. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
29. 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.
30. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
31. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Nass, C., & Steuer, J. (1993). Anthropomorphism, agency, and thopoeia: Computers as social actors. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 504-527.
33. Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002-1005.
34. Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers and Education, 53(2), 209-215.
35. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
36. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2007). The importance of interface agent visual presence: Voice alone is less effective in impacting young women's attitudes toward engineering. Paper presented at the Persuasive 2007, Stanford, CA.
37. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741-2756.
38. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Plant, E. A., Doerr, C. E., & Baylor, A. L. (2010). The influence of computer-based model's race and gender on female students' attitudes and beliefs towards engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 35-44.
39. Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning (TICL), 2(4), 291-315.
40. Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
41. Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children's achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
42. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
43. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271-290.
44. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus effect implications of transformed digital self-representation on online and offline behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285-312.