How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences

In this paper, I investigate the impact of non-task pedagogical agent behavior on learning outcomes, perceptions of agents' interaction ability, and learner experiences. Quasi-experimental results indicate that while the addition of non-task comments to an on-task tutorial may increase learning and perceptions of the agent's ability to interact with learners, this increase is not statistically significant. Further addition of non-task comments however, harms learning and perceptions of the agent's ability to interact with learners in statistically significant ways. Qualitative results reveal that on-task interactions are efficient but impersonal, while non-task interactions were memorable, but distracting. Implications include the potential for non-task interactions to create an uncanny valley effect for agent behavior.

[1]  G. Veletsianos,et al.  Long-term student experiences in a hybrid, open-ended and problem based Adventure Learning program , 2010 .

[2]  Edythe Johnson Holubec,et al.  Cooperation in the Classroom , 1993 .

[3]  Aaron Doering,et al.  Conversational Agents and Their Longitudinal Affordances on Communication and Interaction , 2008 .

[4]  Aaron Doering,et al.  Enali: A Research and Design Framework for Virtual Characters and Pedagogical Agents , 2009 .

[5]  Christopher G. Lewis.  The media equation: How people treat computers, televisions, and new media as real people and places , 1997 .

[6]  van Gerardus Noord,et al.  Special issue: finite state methods in natural language processing , 2003 .

[7]  Timothy W. Bickmore,et al.  Engagement vs. Deceit: Virtual Humans with Human Autobiographies , 2009, IVA.

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

[9]  Jeeheon Ryu,et al.  The Effects of Image and Animation in Enhancing Pedagogical Agent Persona , 2003 .

[10]  John D'Ambra,et al.  Do nontask interactions matter? The relationship between nontask sociability of computer supported collaborative learning and learning outcomes , 2012, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[11]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[13]  F. Binkofski,et al.  Can Machines Think? Interaction and Perspective Taking with Robots Investigated via fMRI , 2008, PloS one.

[14]  M. Argyle.  Bodily communication, 2nd ed. , 1988 .

[15]  Paul A. Kirschner,et al.  Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[17]  Ann C. Jones,et al.  Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computer-supported collaborative learning , 2005, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Heather H. Mitchell,et al.  Social Cues in Animated Conversational Agents , 2005 .

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

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

[21]  George Veletsianos,et al.  Pedagogical Agents , 2013 .

[22]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[23]  Steven R. Aragon.  Creating Social Presence in Online Environments , 2003 .

[24]  Annika Silvervarg,et al.  Pedagogical Agents: Pedagogical Interventions via Integration of Task-oriented and Socially Oriented Conversation , 2010 .

[25]  David R. Traum,et al.  What would you Ask a conversational Agent? Observations of Human-Agent Dialogues in a Museum Setting , 2008, LREC.

[26]  George Veletsianos,et al.  The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-learner interactions , 2009, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[27]  Hansel Burley,et al.  The benefits of being off-task , 2003 .

[28]  Aaron Doering,et al.  When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent , 2008, Interact. Comput..

[29]  M. Deutsch.  The Resolution of ConflictConstructive and Destructive Processes , 1974 .

[30]  Z. Berge,et al.  Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study , 2005 .

[31]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Five Design Principles for Experiments on the Effects of Animated Pedagogical Agents , 2005 .

[32]  Joakim Gustafson,et al.  Speech technology on trial: Experiences from the August system , 2000, Natural Language Engineering.

[33]  A. Giorgi,et al.  The Theory, Practice, and Evaluation of the Phenomenological Method as a Qualitative Research Procedure , 1997 .

[34]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents , 2009, PsychNology J..

[35]  Paullette Patterson Dilworth.  Competing Conceptions of Citizenship Education: Thomas Jesse Jones and Carter G. Woodson. , 2003 .

[36]  E. Berscheid.  Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills , 1976 .

[37]  Hunter Gehlbach,et al.  The Social Side of School: Why Teachers Need Social Psychology , 2010 .

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

[39]  J. Cassell,et al.  Social Dialongue with Embodied Conversational Agents , 2005 .

[40]  J. Cassell,et al.  SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITH EMBODIED CONVERSATIONAL AGENTS , 2005 .