The Impact of Pedagogical Agent on Learners’ Motivation and Academic Success1

• Authors: Serkan Dincer , Ahmet Doganay
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Pedagogical agent is generally described as educational programs that guide, motivate learners while encouraging them during learning by providing feedback. The tasks (informative, guiding, or friend, etc.) and types (human-like, cartoon character, audio, text, etc.) of these modules can be classified based on various variables. Although computer-assisted instruction software is commonly used as a teaching material, research on modules integrated on such programs is scarce. Studies in the field have revealed that such computer-assisted instruction programs increase motivation of learners. In order to keep motivation levels high, these programs need to be adopted depending on the individual needs. Therefore, it can be beneficial to integrate software designed that can be personalized. In this respect, the present study was conducted with secondary school students to identify the impact of pedagogical agent on learners’ academic success and motivation. For the purpose of the study, four groups were formed. The first group received education via fixed pedagogical agent, the second group had the option to choose among several pedagogical agents, the third group received the education without pedagogical agent and finally the last group received the same education through traditional (non-computer) way. This four-week program was introduced to students via MS Excel program and the data was gathered as pre- and post-test method. The findings have revealed that interfaces impacted motivation and accordingly academic success in a positive way. As a result of the study, it is suggested that learners should be provided programs that can be personalized depending on learners’ needs and preferences.

Keywords

EN

pedagogical agent; computer-assisted instruction

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Practice and Theory in Systems of Education
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 10
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 329-348

Dates

published

2015-12-01

received

2015-06-04

accepted

2015-10-30

online

2016-03-14

Contributors

author

Serkan Dincer

• Cukurova University Faculty of Education, Adana, Turkey

author

Ahmet Doganay

• Cukurova University Faculty of Education, Adana, Turkey

References

• Akyuz, H. İ. (2012). Çevrimiçi görev temelli öğrenme ortamında eğitsel ajanın rolünün ve biçim özelliklerinin öğrencilerin motivasyonuna, bilişsel yüklenmesine ve problem çözme becerisi algısına etkisi. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi.
• Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3. Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Allbeck, J., & Badler, N. (2003). Representing and parameterizing agent behaviors. In Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (Eds.), Life-like characters: Tools, affective functions and applications (pp. 19-38). Germany: Springer.
• Arslan, A. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutum ölçeği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3 (2), 24-33.
• Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 416-427.
• Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Meril, 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.
• Baylor, A. L. & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 450-457.
• Baylor, A. L. & Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. In Richards, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate Government Healthcare & Higher Education 2003 (pp. 1503-1506). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Baylor, A. L. & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15 (1), 95-115.
• Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50 (2), 5-22.
• Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Huang, X. (2003). Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? The effects of gender and ethnicity. In Richards, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate government healthcare & higher education 2003 (pp. 1507-1510). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Beale, I., Kato, P., Marin-Bowling, V., Guthrie, N., & Cole, S. (2007). Improvement in cancer-related knowledge following use of a psychoeducational video game for adolescents and young adults with cancer. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41 (3), 263-270.
• Bickmore, T. W., Pfeifer, L. M., & Orlow, M. K. (2009). Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 75 (3), 315-320.
• Bozkurt, E., & Sarıkoç, A. (2008). Fizik eğitiminde sanal laboratuvar, geleneksel laboratuvarın yerini tutabilir mi? Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 89-100.
• Brave, S., Nass, C., & Hutchinson, K., (2005). Computers that are care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62 (2), 161-178.
• Brenner, W., Zarnekow, R., & Wittig, H. (1998). Intelligent software agents. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Buisine, S. & J. C. Martin (2007). The effects of speech-gesture cooperation in animated agents' behavior in multimedia presentations. Interacting with Computers, 19 (4), 484-493.
• Chan, T. W. (1995). Artificial agents in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (2-3), 263-282.
• Chen, Z. H. (2012). We care about you: Incorporating pet characteristics with educational agents through reciprocal caring approach. Computers & Education, 59 (4), 1081-1088.
• Choi, S. (2005). Cognitive efficiency of animated pedagogical agents for learning English as a second language. [PhD Thesis.] Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
• Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of animated pedagogical agents for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33 (2), 455-480.
• Clark, R. & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807-840). New York: Macmillan.
• Dehn, D. M.m & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52 (1), 1-22.
• Dincer. S. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim ve uzaktan eğitime genel bir bakış. In Akademik Bilişim 2006 Bildiri Kitapçığı (pp. 65-76). Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
• Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49 (3), 677-690.
• 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. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Tallahassee: Florida State University.
• Esgin, E. (2010). Sanal eğitsel ajanlara ait özelliklerin akademik başarı, teknik kullanışlılık ve duygusal tutumlara olan etkilerinin incelenmesi. [Ph.D. Thesis.] İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi.
• Gilbert, J., Wilson, D. M., & Gupta, P. (2005). Learning C with Adam. International Journal on E-Learning, 4 (3), 337-350.
• Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14 (3), 313-334.
• Hong, Z. W., Chen, Y. L., & Lan, C. H. (2014). A courseware to script animated pedagogical agents in instructional material for elementary students in English education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27 (5), 379-394.
• Hubal, R. C., Fishbein, D. H., Sheppard, M. S., Paschall, M. J., Eldreth, D. L., & Hyde, C. T. (2008). How do varied populations interact with embodied conversational agents? Findings from inner-city adolescents and prisoners. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (3), 1104-1138.
• Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1807-1815.
• Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13 (1), 351-371.
• Kerly, A., Ellis, R., & Bull, S. (2008). CALMsystem: A conversational agent for learner modelling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21 (3), 238-246.
• Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. A. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56 (2), 505-514.
• Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Reed, G. (2003). The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. In Richards, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of World conference on elearning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education 2003 (pp. 2237-2240). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Kizilkaya, G., & Askar, P. (2006). Eğitim yazılımlarında eğitsel yardımcı kullanımı: Eğitsel ara yüz ajanı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 25-31.
• Kocasarac, H. (2003). Bilgisayarların öğretim alanında kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen yeterlilikleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2 (3), 77-85.
• Lester, J., Converse, S., Stone, B., Kahler, S., & Barlow, T. (1997). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness: a large-scale empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 23-30). Kobe, Japan, 1997.
• Lester, J., Towns, S., Callaway, C., Voerman, J., & Fitzgerald, P. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123-155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Lim, M. Y., Leichtenstern, K., Kriegel, M., Enz, S., Aylett, R., Vannini, N., Hall, L., & Rizaao, P. (2011). Technology-enhanced role-play for social and emotional learning context – Intercultural empathy. Entertainment Computing, 2 (4), 223-231.
• Lim, S., & Reeves, B., (2010). Computer agents versus avatars: Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68 (1), 57-68.
• Lin, L., Atkinson, R., Christopherson, R., Joseph, S., & Harrison, C. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67 (1), 239-249.
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (1988). Teaching and learning computer programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Mayer, R. E., Johnson, W. L., Shaw, E., & Sandhu, S. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (1), 36-42.
• Mayer, R. E., Schustack, M., & Blanton, E. (1999). What do children learn from using computers in an informal collaborative setting? Educational Technology, 39 (2), 27-31.
• 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.
• Meij, H. van der (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 845-857.
• Moreno, R. (1999). Introducing social cues in multimedia learning: The role of pedagogic agents‟ image and language in a scientific lesson. [Ph.D. Thesis.], Santa Barbara: University of California.
• 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.
• 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.
• Mumm, J., & Mutlu, B. (2011). Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (5), 1643-1650.
• Osman, K., & Lee, T. T. (2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students ‘understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12 (2), 395-421.
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie, 45 (3), 255.
• Perez-Marin, D., & Pascual-Nieto, I. (2013). An exploratory study on how children interact with pedagogic conversational agents. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32 (9), 955-964.
• 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 & Education, 53 (2), 209-215.
• Prendinger, H., Ma, C. L., & Ishizuka, M. (2007). Eye movements as indices for the utility of life-like interface agents: A pilot study. Interacting with Computers, 19 (2), 281-292.
• Reategui, E., Polonia, E., & Roland, L. (2007). The role of animated pedagogical agents in scenario-based language e-learning: A case-study. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Interactive computer aided learning ICL 2007. Villach, Austria, 26-28 September 2007.
• Rodicio, H. G.m & Sánchez, E. (2012). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning: A comparison of human tutoring and computer support. Interactive Learning Environments, 20 (5), 423-439.
• Ropero, J., Gómez, A., Carrasco, A., & Leon, C. (2012). A Fuzzy Logic intelligent agent for Information Extraction: Introducing a new Fuzzy Logic-based term weighting scheme. Expert Systems with Applications 39 (4), 4567-4581.
• Sahin, E. (2011). Açıklayıcı ve kuralcı öğretim kuramları ve model örnekleri. In Fer, S. (Ed.), Öğrenme öğretme kuram ve yaklaşımları (pp. 83-107). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Salim, S.S., Marzuki, N., & Kasirun, Z. (2007). Modelling the requirements of an animated pedagogical agent for a web-based learning environment through inputprocess-output relationships. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Interactive computer aided learning ICL 2007. Villach, Austria, 26-28 September 2007.
• Schrader, C. & Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2), 648-658.
• Serenko, A. (2007). The development of an instrument to measure the degree of animation predisposition of agent users. Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (1), 478-495.
• Sibuma, B. E. (2007). Studying the effects of the visual design of agent faces on engagement and memory in online learning interactions: A neurocognitive approach. [Ph.D. Thesis.] New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Simsek, A. (1999) Yeni öğrenme modeli ve eğitimde bilişim teknolojileri. In Bilgisayar destekli eğitim raporu (pp. 1-19). İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi.
• Unal-Colak, F. & Ozan, Ö. (2012). The effects of animated agents on students’ achievement and attitudes. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13 (2), 96-111.
• Veletsianos, G. (2012). How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (1), 275-283.
• Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. R., 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.
• Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review. 10 (2), 115-152.
• Xu, D. M., & Wang, H. Q. (2006). Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decision Support Systems, 42 (2), 825-843.
• Yenice, N., Sümer, Ş., Oktaylar, H. C., & Erbil, E. (2003). Fen bilgisi derslerinde bilgisayar destekli öğretimin ders hedeflerine ulaşma düzeyine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 152-158.
• Yılmaz, R., & Kılıc-Cakmak, E. (2011). Sanal öğrenme ortamlarında sosyal model olarak eğitsel arayüz ajanları. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12 (4), 243-264.
• Yılmaz, R.m & Kılıc-Cakmak, E. (2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education, 59 (2), 828-838,

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/ptse-2015-0032