Digital Peers to Help Children's Text Comprehension and Perceptions

Affable Reading Tutor (ART) is an online reading lesson designed for children who are starting to comprehend reading. A digital, human-like character (virtual peer) in ART serves as a peer model that demonstrates the use of the reading comprehension strategy called questioning to help improve the learners’ comprehension of expository texts. This study, with 141 boys and girls in the fourth and fifth grades in the United States, examined the effects of virtual-peer presence (presence, absence, and control) on learners’ text comprehension and also the effects of learner gender and virtual-peer attributes (human-like male, human-like female, robot still image) on learners’ perceptions of their peer and on their text comprehension. The results revealed that the virtual-peer presence group outperformed both the absence group and the control group in the immediate and delayed posttests text comprehension. There were mixed results in the impacts of learner gender and virtual-peer attributes on text comprehension. The learners’ perceptions of their agent were not differentiated by neither learner gender nor virtual-peer attributes. The findings are discussed with virtual-peer design implications.

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

[2]  Bruce Edmonds,et al.  Socially Intelligent Agents: Creating Relationships With Computers And Robots , 2013 .

[3]  Adriana G. Bus,et al.  Online Tutoring as a Pivotal Quality of Web-Based Early Literacy Programs , 2012 .

[4]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice , 2005, AIED.

[5]  Kristen N. Moreno,et al.  AutoTutor Improves Deep Learning of Computer Literacy : Is it the Dialog or the Talking Head ? , 2004 .

[6]  Ivar Bråten,et al.  Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms , 2011 .

[7]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities , 1984 .

[8]  Rinat B. Rosenberg-Kima,et al.  Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Kathleen C. Perencevich,et al.  Increasing Reading Comprehension and Engagement Through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction , 2004 .

[10]  Penelope H. Dunham.  Procedures To Increase the Entry of Women in Mathematics-Related Careers. ERIC/SMEAC Mathematics Education Digest No. 3. , 1990 .

[11]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Teaching Reading Comprehension Strategies to Students With Learning Disabilities: A Review of Research , 2001 .

[12]  H. Van Keer,et al.  Effects of Explicit Reading Strategies Instruction and Peer Tutoring on Second and Fifth Graders' Reading Comprehension and Self-Efficacy Perceptions , 2005 .

[13]  Cathy Collins Block,et al.  Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. , 2003 .

[14]  A. Bandura.  Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[15]  Agneta Gulz,et al.  Social enrichment by virtual characters - differential benefits , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[16]  Yanghee Kim.  Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions , 2004 .

[17]  E MayerRichard,et al.  Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive , 2006 .

[18]  M. E. Otter,et al.  Computer-Assisted Instruction in Support of Beginning Reading Instruction: A Review , 2002 .

[19]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agents as Social Models to Influence Learner Attitudes , 2007 .

[20]  P. David Pearson,et al.  Explicit Comprehension Instruction: A Review of Research and a New Conceptualization of Instruction , 1987, The Elementary School Journal.

[21]  James C. Lester,et al.  Affective Transitions in Narrative-Centered Learning Environments , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

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

[23]  Michelle Commeyras,et al.  Promoting Critical Thinking through Dialogical-Thinking Reading Lessons. , 1993 .

[24]  Susan R. Goldman,et al.  Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation , 1998 .

[25]  E. Lynne Weisenbach.  Teaching Reading Comprehension: Strategies for Success. , 1987 .

[26]  Yanghee Kim.  Learners’ expectations of the desirable characteristics of virtual learning companions , 2005 .

[27]  Youngkyun Baek,et al.  Improving Recall and Transfer Skills Through Vocabulary Building in Web-Based Second Language Learning: An Examination by Item and Feedback Type , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[28]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Metacognition and Self-Regulated Comprehension , 2004 .

[29]  Barak Rosenshine,et al.  Synthesis of Research on Explicit Teaching , 1986 .

[30]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  MathGirls: Virtual peers as change agents to improve girls?math self-efficacy and math attitudes , 2007 .

[31]  Kai Hakkarainen,et al.  Patterns of female and male students' participation in peer interaction in computer-supported learning , 2003, Comput. Educ..

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

[33]  Eduardo Vidal-Abarca,et al.  Impact of Question-Answering Tasks on Search Processes and Reading Comprehension. , 2009 .

[34]  R. Mayer,et al.  Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. , 2000 .

[35]  D. Langenberg.  Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction , 2000 .

[36]  Kathleen C. Perencevich,et al.  Influences of Stimulating Tasks on Reading Motivation and Comprehension , 2006 .

[37]  Justine Cassell,et al.  Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[38]  Linda B. Gambrell.  What we know about motivation to read. , 2001 .

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

[40]  Agneta Gulz,et al.  Benefits of Virtual Characters in Computer Based Learning Environments: Claims and Evidence , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[41]  Rodney L. Custer,et al.  Gender-Based Preferences toward Technology Education Content, Activities, and Instructional Methods. , 2005 .

[42]  Nian-Shing Chen,et al.  Testing Principles of Language Learning in a Cyber Face-to-Face Environment , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[43]  John V. Dempsey,et al.  Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[44]  Linda L. Carli.  Gender and Social Influence , 2001 .

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

[46]  Michael Pressley,et al.  Literacy Instruction in Nine First-Grade Classrooms: Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement , 1998, The Elementary School Journal.

[47]  D. Leutner,et al.  Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies , 2012 .

[48]  J. Brunstein,et al.  Improving students' reading comprehension skills : effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching , 2009 .

[49]  Dale H. Schunk,et al.  Influence of Peer-Model Attributes on Children’s Beliefs and Learning , 1989 .

[50]  David Passig,et al.  Gender preferences for multimedia interfaces , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[51]  Francisco Iacobelli,et al.  Ethnic Identity and Engagement in Embodied Conversational Agents , 2007, IVA.

[52]  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 .

[53]  Linda L. Carli.  Gender, Interpersonal Power, and Social Influence , 1999 .

[54]  Janice F. Almasi,et al.  Qualitative Research on Text Comprehension and the Report of the National Reading Panel , 2006, The Elementary School Journal.

[55]  Glenn Stockwell.  A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature , 2007, ReCALL.

[56]  J. Cooper,et al.  Gender and computers : understanding the digital divide , 2003 .

[57]  Magnus Haake,et al.  Visual Stereotypes and Virtual Pedagogical Agents , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

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

[59]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence , 1996 .

[60]  James C. Lester,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments , 2000 .

[61]  Cathy Collins Block,et al.  Comprehension Instruction: Research-Based Best Practices , 2001 .

[62]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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