A systematic review of pedagogical agents' persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 229-251

  Schroeder, Noah L ^a   Adesope, Olusola O ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Motivation; Pedagogical agent; Persona

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905640144     PISSN: 15391523     EISSN: 19450818     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2014.888265     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. An asterisk next to a reference indicates a study that was included in the review.
2. Adcock, A. B., Duggan, M. H., Nelson, E. K., & Nickel, C. (2006). Teaching effective helping skills at a distance: The development of project CATHIE. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 349-360
3. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427
4. 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
5. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78
6. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' m etacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (2), 5-22
7. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Comprehensive metaanalysis (version 2.2.048). Englewood, NJ: Biostat
8. Bratfisch, O., Borg, G., & Dornic, S. (1972). Perceived item-difficulty in three tests of intellectual performance capac ity (Rep. No. 29). Stockholm, Sweden: Institute of Applied Psychology
9. Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L. (2000). Interactivity in human-comp uter interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 552-574
10. Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4), 441-466
11. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Lewis Johnson, W., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286
12. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animate d pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225
13. Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379-381
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
15. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 3-16). N ew York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation
16. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redu ndancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434
17. Culley, K. E., & Madhavan, P. (2013). A note of caution regarding anthropomorphism in HCI agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 577-579
18. DaPra, C. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2011, April). Effects of gesture and voice on online learning with animated pedagogical agents. Poster session presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Educational Researc h Association, New Orleans, LA
19. Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? The role of the appeal of agent's appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2 ), 84-97
20. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers and Education, 49, 677-690
21. Fre chette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents' presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61-72
22. Ginns, P. (20 05). Meta-Analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313-331.
23. Graesser, A., Jackson, G. T., Ventura, M., Mueller, J., Hu, X., & Person, N. (2003). The impact of conversational navigational guides on the learning, use, and perceptions of users of a Web site. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Agent-Mediated Knowledge Management (pp. 9-14). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
24. 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.
25. Heidig S. Clarebout G. 2011, Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning,Educational Research Review,6,27-54.
26. Hershey-Dirkin, K., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All of or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learn ing. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113-127
27. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1-19.
28. Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2003). Meta-Analysis of the effectiveness of pedagogical agent. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunicatio ns 2003 (pp. 479-486). Chesapeake, VA: AACE
29. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596
30. 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 Proceedings of CHI '97 (pp. 359-366). New York, NY: ACM Press
31. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
32. Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 747-764
33. Mayer, R. E. (2005a ). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
34. Mayer, R. E. (2005 b ). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multime dia learning (pp. 183-200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
35. Mayer, R. E. (2005 c ). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. Maye r (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169-182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
36. Mayer, R. E, Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining env ironment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806-813
37. Mayer, R. E., Sabko, K., & Mautone, P. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425
38. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507-523). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
39. 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
40. Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261
41. Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Ed ucational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434
42. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71
43. Park, S. (2006). The effects of seductive augmentation and agent role on learning interest, achievement, and attitude. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 67(4), 1303A
44. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686
45. Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Barouch Gilbert, R. (2012, April). A meta-Analysis of the effects of pedagogical agents on learning. American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, C anada.
46. Schunk D.H, 1991, Self-efficacy and academic motivation, Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
47. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
48. van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantia l is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI '98 (pp. 53-66). Berlin, Germany: Springer
49. Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pe dagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373-377
50. Veletsianos, G. (2012). How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver socia l-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 275-283
51. Veletsianos, G., Miller, C., & Doering, A. (2009). Enali: A research design f ramework for virtual characters and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 171-194