The Effects of Agent Nonverbal Communication on Procedural and Attitudinal Learning Outcomes

This experimental study investigated the differential effects of pedagogical agent nonverbal communication on attitudinal and procedural learning. A 2x2x2 factorial design was employed with 237 participants to investigate the effect of type of instruction (procedural, attitudinal), deictic gesture (presence, absence), and facial expression (presence, absence) on learner attitudes, agent perception (agent persona, gesture, facial expression), and learning. Results indicated that facial expressions were particularly valuable for attitudinal learning, and were actually detrimental for procedural learning. Similarly, gestures were perceived as more valuable for students in the procedural module, even though they did not directly enhance recall.

[1]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

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

[3]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[4]  Norman I. Badler,et al.  Representing and parameterizing agent behaviors , 2002, Proceedings of Computer Animation 2002 (CA 2002).

[5]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, Motivator, and Mentor , 2003 .

[6]  Norman I. Badler,et al.  Representing and parameterizing agent behaviors , 2002 .

[7]  A. L. Baylor.  Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents , 2002 .

[8]  J. Cassell,et al.  Embodied conversational agents , 2000 .

[9]  R. Gagne.  Conditions of Learning , 1965 .

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

[11]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction , 2003, CHI '03.

[12]  Claude Frasson,et al.  Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels , 1996, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue , 2001, AI Mag..

[14]  Kurt VanLehn,et al.  Andes: A Coached Problem Solving Environment for Physics , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[15]  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 .

[16]  Sanghoon Park,et al.  The impact of frustration-mitigating messages delivered by an interface agent , 2005, AIED.

[17]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  The Impact of Image and Voice with Pedagogical Agents , 2003 .

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

[19]  A. L. Baylor,et al.  The Effects of Pedagogical Agent Voice and Animation on Learning, Motivation and Perceived Persona , 2003 .

[20]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  Life-like characters - tools, affective functions, and applications , 2004, Life-like characters.

[21]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Which Pedagogical Agent do Learners Choose? The Effects of Gender and Ethnicity , 2003 .

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

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

[24]  James C. Lester,et al.  Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents , 2001 .