Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter?

The current study was conducted to investigate the effects of an animated agent's presence and different types of feedback on learning, motivation and cognitive load in a multimedia-learning environment designed to teach science content. Participants were 135 college students randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions formed by a 2 x 2 factorial design with agent presence as one factor (agent vs. no-agent) and type of verbal feedback it provided as the other factor (simple feedback vs. elaborate feedback). Results revealed that participants who learned with the animated agent that delivered elaborate feedback had significantly higher scores on a learning measure compared to participants who learned with an agent that provided simple feedback. The results are interpreted from both social agency and cognitive load theoretical perspectives.

[1]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research , 2010 .

[2]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Cognitive and Affective Benefits of an Animated Pedagogical Agent for Learning English as a Second Language , 2006 .

[3]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Does the Type and Degree of Animation Present in a Visual Representation Accompanying Narration in a Multimedia Environment Impact Learning , 2009 .

[4]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[5]  R. Moreno.  Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia , 2004 .

[6]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events , 1991 .

[7]  James C. Lester,et al.  The Case for Social Agency in Computer-Based Teaching: Do Students Learn More Deeply When They Interact With Animated Pedagogical Agents? , 2001 .

[8]  Susanne Narciss,et al.  Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. , 2006 .

[9]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Designing Instructional Examples to Reduce Intrinsic Cognitive Load: Molar versus Modular Presentation of Solution Procedures , 2004 .

[10]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Feedback in Computer-Based Instruction , 1995 .

[11]  R. Moreno.  Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods , 2007 .

[12]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  R. Mayer,et al.  Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice ☆ , 2005 .

[14]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[15]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[16]  R. Moreno.  Cognitive load theory: more food for thought , 2010 .

[17]  Scotty D. Craig,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents in Multimedia Educational Environments: Effects of Agent Properties, Picture Features, and Redundancy , 2002 .

[18]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[19]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[20]  Fergus I. M. Craik,et al.  An Elaborative Processing Explanation of Depth of Processing , 2014 .

[21]  P. Winne,et al.  Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1995 .

[22]  A. Baddeley.  Working Memory, Thought, and Action , 2007 .

[23]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? , 2007 .

[24]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[25]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent , 2003 .

[26]  Marvin L. Schroth,et al.  The effects of delay of feedback on a delayed concept formation transfer task , 1992 .

[27]  R. Ryan,et al.  Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. , 1982 .

[28]  M. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self‐Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994 .

[29]  V. Shute.  Focus on Formative Feedback , 2007 .

[30]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[31]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[32]  J. Sweller.  COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[33]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[34]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[35]  Patricia D. Mautone,et al.  Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. , 2003 .

[36]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[37]  Hans van der Meij,et al.  Motivating agents in software tutorials , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[38]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[39]  James C. Lester,et al.  The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents , 1997, CHI.

[40]  Thomas Andre,et al.  Level of Adjunct Question, Type of Feedback, and Learning Concepts by Reading. , 1988 .

[41]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. , 1989, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[42]  G. Clarebout,et al.  Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning , 2011 .

[43]  R. Atkinson.  Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. , 2002 .

[44]  G. Weiler,et al.  Thought and Action. , 1961 .

[45]  James D. Klein,et al.  Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction , 1991 .

[46]  Angela D Friederici,et al.  � Human Brain Mapping 24:11–20(2005) � Voice Perception: Sex, Pitch, and the Right Hemisphere , 2022 .

[47]  鈴木 聡.  Media Equation 研究の背景と動向 , 2011 .

[48]  M. Malbrán.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , 2007 .

[49]  J. Sweller.  Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[50]  Minjeong Kim,et al.  Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Pedagogical Agent , 2003 .

[51]  R. Mayer,et al.  Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game , 2005 .

[52]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[53]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[54]  R. Mayer,et al.  Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments , 2007 .

[55]  Soyoung Kim,et al.  Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[57]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[58]  Ramazan Yılmaz,et al.  Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[59]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the impact of agent emotion and gender , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[60]  Caroline J. Harrison.  Narration in Multimedia Learning Environments: Exploring the Impact of Voice Origin, Gender, and Presentation mode , 2009 .

[61]  Susanne van Mulken,et al.  The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[62]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Simulating Instructional Roles through Pedagogical Agents , 2005, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[63]  A. L. Baylor,et al.  A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions , 2006 .

[64]  Zhi-Hong Chen,et al.  We care about you: Incorporating pet characteristics with educational agents through reciprocal caring approach , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[65]  W. Schnotz,et al.  A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory , 2007 .

[66]  James C. Lester,et al.  Life-Like Pedagogical Agents in Constructivist Multimedia Environments: Cognitive Consequences of their Interaction , 2000 .

[67]  Clifford Nass,et al.  The media equation - how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places , 1996 .

[68]  Howard J. Sullivan,et al.  Teaching for Competence , 1983 .

[69]  Margaret-Ellen Pipe,et al.  Enhancing children's event recall after long delays , 2007 .

[70]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2021, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.