An empathic avatar in a computer-aided learning program to encourage and persuade learners

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 62-72

  Chen, Gwo Dong ^a   Lee, Jih Hsien ^a   Wang, Chin Yeh ^a   Chao, Po Yao ^b   Li, Liang Yi ^a   Lee, Tzung Yi ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b YUAN ZE UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Animated pedagogical agent; Computer aided learning; Empathy; Encourage; Persuade

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871544623     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. 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.
2. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
3. Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
4. D'Mello, S., Jackson, T., Craig, S., Morgan, B., Chipman, P., White, H., Person, N., Kort, B., el Kaliouby, R., Picard, R.W., & Graesser, A. (2008). AutoTutor detects and responds to learners affective and cognitive states. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Emotional and Cognitive issues in ITS in conjunction with the 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Montreal, CA, 23-27 June 2008 (pp. 31-43). Berlin: Springer.
5. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the measurement of facial movement, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
6. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Givens, D. B. (2002). The nonverbal dictionary of gestures, signs & body language cues. Spokane, Washington: Center for Nonverbal Studies Press.
8. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
9. Jaques, P. A., Lehmann, M., & Pesty, S. (2009). Evaluating the affective tactics of an emotional pedagogical agent. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9-12 March 2009 (pp. 104-109). New York: ACM Press.
10. Johnson, W., Rickel, J., & Lester, J. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 47-78.
11. 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.
12. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997a). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, United States, 18-23, April 1997 (pp. 359-366). New York: ACM Press.
13. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Stone, B. A., Kahler, S. E., & Barlow, S. T. (1997b). Animated pedagogical agents and problemsolving effectiveness: A large-scale empirical evaluation. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), In Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan, 18-22 August 1997 (pp. 23-30). Washington, DC: IOS Press.
14. Lester, J. C., Towns, S., & FitzGerald, P. (1999). Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(3-4), 278-291.
15. 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.
16. McQuiggan, S. W., Rowe, J. P., Lee, S., & Lester, J. (2008). Story-based learning: The impact of narrative on learning experiences and outcomes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5091, 530-539.
17. McQuiggan, S. W., & Lester, J. C. (2007). Modeling and evaluating empathy in embodied companion agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 348-360.
18. 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.
19. Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA, 24-28 April 1994 (pp. 72-78). New York: ACM Press.
20. Nguyen, D. T., & Canny, J. (2009). More than face-to-face: Empathy effects of video framing. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA, 4-9 April 2009 (pp. 423-432). New York: ACM Press.
21. Okonkwo, C., & Vassileva, J. (2001). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion. In Stephanidis C. (Eds.) Universal Access in HCI: Towards an information society for all, Volume 3, pp. 397-401, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
22. Ortony, A., Clore G. L., & Collins, A. (1990). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge university press.
23. Picard, R. W. (2000). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Tzvetanova, S., & Tang M-X (2005). Affect assessment in educational system using outsite factors. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Motivation and Affect in Educational Software at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, Dutch, 18-22 July 2005 (pp. 32-38). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
25. Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98-112.