Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents

International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 95-115

  Baylor, Amy L ^a   Kim, Yanghee ^b  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Instructional design; Interface design; Pedagogical agents

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013612142     PISSN: 15604292     EISSN: 15604306     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Aimeur, E., & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education, 27(2), 115-127.
2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.
5. Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586-598.
6. Baylor, A. L. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36-40.
7. Baylor, A. L. (1999). Multiple intelligent mentors instructing collaboratively (MIMIC): Developing a theoretical framework. In Proceedings of International Cognitive Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA.
8. Baylor, A. L. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373-382.
9. Baylor, A. L. (2001). Investigating multiple pedagogical perspectives through MIMIC (Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively). In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education: AI-ED in the Wired and Wireless Future, Proceedings of AI-ED 2001. Amsterdam: IOS.
10. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Agent-based learning environments for investigating teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249-270.
11. Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5-22.
12. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Proceedings of Workshop on Affective Interactions, Intelligent User Interface International Conference, San Diego, CA.
13. Baylor, A. L., & Chang, S. (2002). Pedagogical agents as scaffolds: The role of feedback timing, number of agents, and adaptive feedback. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.
14. Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. J. (2003). Evidence that multiple agents facilitate greater learning. In U. Hoppe, F. Verdejo, & J. Kay (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
15. Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. J. (2003). The pedagogical agent split-persona effect: When two agents are better than one. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA, Honululu, Hawaii.
16. Baylor, A. L., Kim, S., Son, C., & Lee, M. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent emotive expression and deictic gestures on attitudinal and procedural learning outcomes. To appear in Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED) International Conference, Amsterdam. Manuscript available from the authors.
17. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In Proceedings of E-Learn (World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education), Phoenix, Arizona.
18. Baylor, A. L., & Plant, E. A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice. To appear in Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) International Conference, Amsterdam. Manuscript available from the authors.
19. Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373-395.
20. Baylor, A. L., Ryu, J., & Shen, E. (2003). The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA, Honululu, Hawaii.
21. Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Huang, X. (2003). Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? The effects of gender and ethnicity. In Proceedings of E-Learn (World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education), Phoenix, Arizona.
22. Beishuizen, J. J., Hof, E., Van Putten, C. M., Bouwmeester, S., & Asscher, J. J. (2001). Students’ and teachers’ cognitions about good teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 185-201.
23. Bickmore, T. (2003). Relational Agents: Effecting Change through Human-Computer Relationships. PhD Thesis, Media Arts & Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
24. Bickmore, T. and Picard, R. (In Press) Establishing and Maintaining Long-Term Human-Computer Relationships. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI).
25. Bull, S., Greer, J., & Gord, M. (2003). The caring personal agent. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13(1), 21-34.
26. Cassell, J. (1998). A framework for gesture generation and interpretation. In R. Cipolla & A. Pentland (Eds.) Computer vision in human-machine interaction (pp. 191-215). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Chan, T. W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.) Intelligent tutoring systems at the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education (pp. 7-33): NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
28. Chan, T. W., & Chou, C. Y. (1997). Exploring the design of computer supports for reciprocal tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 1-29.
29. Cooper, B. (2003). Care-making the affective leap: More than a concerned interest in a learner’s cognitive abilities. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 3-9.
30. Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. (1992). People power: A human-computer collaborative learning system. In G. G. C. Frasson, &G. McCalla (Eds.) The 2nd international conference of intelligent tutoring systems, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 608, pp. 651-660): Springer-Verlag.
31. Driscoll, D., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialogue and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 431-450.
32. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33. Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.) Software agents (pp. 79-96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
34. Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericksson (Ed.) The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts, sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
36. Gonzales, M., Burdenski, T. K., Jr., Stough, L. M., & Palmer, D. J. (2001). Identifying teacher expertise: An examination of researchers’ decision-making. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
37. Goodman, B., Soller, A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1997). Encouraging student reflection and articulation using a learning companion. In B. du Boulay, & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 151-158). Amsterdam: IOS.
38. Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., Harter, D., & Group, T. T. R. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in Autotutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257-279.
39. Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998). The Competence of Learning Companion Agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178-192.
40. Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2003). Gender interactions in online debates: Look who’s arguing with whom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
41. Johnson, W. L. (2001). Pedagogical agent research at carte. AI Magazine, Winter, 85-94.
42. 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.
43. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. ETR&D, 45(1), 65-95.
44. Kearsley, G. (1993). Intelligent agents and instructional systems: Implications of a new paradigm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 4(4), 295-304.
45. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (To appear). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D). Manuscript available from the authors.
46. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (Submitted). A social-cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D). Manuscript available from the authors.
47. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Reed, G. (2003). The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of E-Learn (World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education), Phoenix, Arizona.
48. Kitsantas, A., & Baylor, A. L. (2001). The impact of the ipsrt (instructional planning self-reflective tool) on preservice teachers’ performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(4), 101-110.
49. Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent Tutoring Goes to School in the Big City. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30-43.
50. Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. In Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 43-46.
51. Link, K. E., Kreuz, R. J., Graesser, A. C., & Tutoring Research Group. (2001). Factors that influence the perception of feedback delivered by a pedagogical agent. International Journal of Speech Technology, 4, 145-153.
52. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. 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.
54. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (In Press). Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Nass, C., & Steuer, J. S. (1993). Computers, voices, and sources of messages: Computers are social actors. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 504-527.
56. Norman, D. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.) Software agents (pp. 49-56). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
57. Odell, J., Parunak, H. V. D., & Fleischer, M. (2003). The role of roles. Journal of Object Technology, 1, 39-51.
58. Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehensionmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
59. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2001). Carrying the role-playing metaphor to interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI). Santa Fe, New Mexico.
61. Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2001). Social role awareness in animated agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 270-277). Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
62. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
63. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365-392.
64. Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (In Press). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning (TICL).
65. Saarni, C. (2001). Emotion communication and relationship context. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 354-356.
66. Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 83-110). New York: Springer-Verlag.
67. Soller, A. (2001). Supporting Social Interaction in an Intelligent Collaborative Learning System. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40-62.
68. Ur, S., & VanLehn, K. (1995). Steps: A simulated, tutorable physics student. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 405-435.
69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.