An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 219-235

  Kim, Yanghee ^a   Thayne, Jeffrey ^a   Wei, Quan ^b  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Advanced learning technologies; Embodied agents; Interactive learning environments; Mathematics anxiety; Pedagogical agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 84982296373     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9476-z     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Adams, C. (2001). Overcoming math anxiety. Mathematical Intelligencer, 23(1), 49–50.
2. Akin, A., & Kurbanoglu, I. N. (2011). The relationships between mathe anxiety, math attitudes, and self-efficacy: A structural equation model. Studia Psychologica, 53(3), 263–273.
3. Aksu, M., & Saygi, M. (1988). The effects of feedback treatment on math-anxiety levels of sixth grade Turkish students. School Science and Mathematics, 88(5), 390–396.
4. Arroyo, I., Burleson, W., Tai, M., Muldner, K., & Woolf, B. P. (2013). Gender differences in the use and benefit of advanced learning technologies for mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 957–969.
5. Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Math anxiety: personal, educational, and cognitive consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 181–185.
6. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.
7. Baker, D. (2002). Good intentions: An experiment in middle school single-sex science and mathematics classrooms with high minority enrollment. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8(1), 1–23.
8. Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 291–300.
9. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil.
10. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 95–115.
11. Brownlow, S., Jacobi, T., & Rogers, M. (2000). Science anxiety as a function of gender and experience. Sex Roles, 42, 119–131.
12. Cates, G. L., & Rhymer, K. N. (2003). Examining the relationship between mathmatics anxiety and mathematics performance: An instructional hierarchy perspective. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(1), 34.
13. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045–1060.
14. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriëboer, J. J. G. (2009). Dynamic task selection: Effects of feedback and learner control on efficiency and motivation. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 455–465.
15. Devine, A., Fawcett, K., Szucs, D., & Dowker, A. (2012). Gender differences in mathematics anxiety and the relation to mathematics performance while controlling for test anxiety. Behavioral and Brain Functions. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-8-33.
16. Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004). Provision of feedback during preparation for academic testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. Psychological Record, 54(2), 207–232.
17. Dugas, M. J., & Robichaud, M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: From science to practice. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
18. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49, 677–690.
19. Fisher, P. H., Dobbs-Oates, J., Doctoroff, G. L., & Arnold, D. H. (2012). Early math interest and the development of math skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 673–681. doi:10.1037/a0027756.
20. Foss, D. H., & Hadfield, O. D. (1993). A successful clinic for the reduction of mathematics anxiety among college students. College Student Journal, 27(2), 157–166.
21. Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless” issue? A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497–514.
22. Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Gender differences in mathematics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23. Geist, E. (2010). The anti-anxiety curriculum: Combating math anxiety in the classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(1), 24–31.
24. Goetz, T., Bieg, M., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience more anxiety in mathematics. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087.
25. Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Sullins, J., McDaniel, B., et al. (2008). The relationship between affective states and dialog patterns during interactions with AutoTutor. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 293–312.
26. Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer-based learning environments: Claims and evidences. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.
27. Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332, 1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820.
28. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
29. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54.
30. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21(1), 33–46.
31. 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.
32. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. J., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.
33. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., & Dalgarno, B. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: Exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 26(5), 332–343.
34. Kim, Y. (2009). The role of learner attributes and affect determining the impact of agent presence. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3), 234–249.
35. Kim, Y. (2013). Digital peers to help children’s text comprehension and perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 59–70.
36. Kim, Y., & Lim, J. (2013). Gendered socialization with an embodied agent: Creating a social and affable mathematics learning environment for middle-grade females. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1164–1174.
37. Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of user attributes and user choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56, 505–514.
38. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
39. Krämer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010). Personalizing e-Learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–87.
40. Krämer, N. C., Kopp, S., Becker-Asano, C., & Sommer, N. (2013). Smile and the world will smile with you—The effects of a virtual agent‘s smile on users’ evaluation and behavior. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 71, 335–349.
41. Leppavirta, J. (2011). The Impact of mathematics anxiety on the performance of students of electromagnetics. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 424–443.
42. Lester, J. C., Callaway, C. B., Gregoire, J., Stelling, G., Towns, S. G., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2001). Animated pedagogical agents in knowledge-based learning environments. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 71–97). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
43. Liebert, R., & Morris, L. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975–978.
44. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135.
45. Ma, X. (1999). A meta-analysis of the relationship between anxiety toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(5), 520–540.
46. Ma, X., & Xu, J. (2004). The causal ordering of mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement: A longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 27(2), 165–179.
47. McKendree, J. (1990). Effective feedback content for tutoring complex skills. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(4), 381–413.
48. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–125.
49. 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.
50. Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541–555.
51. Morsanyi, K., Busdraghi, C., & Primi, C. (2014). Mathematical anxiety is linked to reduced cognitive reflection: A potential road from discomfort in the mathematics classroom to susceptibility to biases. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(31), http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/10/11/31.
52. 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.
53. Mulken, S. V., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? Paper presented at the International Conference of Computer Human Interaction (CHI), Berlin, Germany.
54. Nass, C., Roles, E., & Wang, Q. (2005). “User as assessor” approach to embodied conversational agents: The case of apparent attention in ECAs. In Z. Ruttkay & C. Pelachaud (Eds.), From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents. Berlin: Springer.
55. Norwood, K. S. (1994). The effect of instructional’ approach on mathematics anxiety and achievement. School Science and Mathematics, 94(5), 248–254.
56. Osborne, J. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain race and sex differences in achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 291–310.
57. Plake, B. S., & Parker, C. S. (1982). The development and validation of a revised version of the Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 551–557.
58. Preis, C., & Biggs, B. T. (2001). Can instructors help learners overcome math anxiety? American Technical Education Association Journal, 28(4), 6–10.
59. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
60. Ravaja, N., & Kätsyri, J. (2014). Suboptimal facial expression primes in textual media messages: Evidence for the affective congruency effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 64–77.
61. Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. doi:10.1037/a0027268.
62. Robertson, J., Cross, B., Macleod, H., & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2004). Children’s interactions with animated agents in an Intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 335–357.
63. Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., & Cassell, J. (2003). Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(2), 195–208.
64. Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education.
65. Steele, D. E., & Arth, A. A. (1998). Lowering anxiety in the math curriculum. Education Digests, 63(7), 18–23.
66. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
67. Wadlington, E., Austin, S., & Bitner, J. (1992). The treatment of math anxiety and negative math self-concept in college students. College Student Journal, 26(1), 61–65.
68. 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, 98–112.