The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment

This study examined the impact of learners' attributes (gender and ethnicity) on their choice of a pedagogical agent and the impact of the attributes and choice on their perceptions of agent affability, task-specific attitudes, task-specific self-efficacy, and learning gains. Participants were 210 high-school male and female, Caucasian and Hispanic students who worked at computer-based algebra integrated with pedagogical agents. The results indicated, first, that students preferentially chose a same-gender agent and a same-ethnicity agent. Second, males who chose an agent showed more positive attitudes toward working at the learning environment than did males who were assigned to an agent whereas females who were assigned to an agent showed more positive attitudes than did females who chose an agent. Third, Hispanic students showed more positive attitudes toward working at the learning environment than Caucasians. Fourth, females perceived the agent as significantly more affable than did males; Hispanics perceived the agent as significantly more affable than did Caucasians. Last, learner attributes and choice did not affect learning gains in the agent-based environment; rather, the participants overall significantly increased their performances after the intervention.

[1]  K. M. Lee,et al.  Children’s Responses to Computer-Synthesized Speech in Educational Media: Gender Consistency and Gender Similarity Effects , 2007 .

[2]  E. Deci,et al.  On the Importance of Self-Determination for Intrinsically-Motivated Behavior , 1978 .

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

[4]  Yvonne Thies-Brandner.  Digital Health - Meeting patient and professional needs online , 2007, Z. für Medienpsychologie.

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

[6]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  MathGirls: Toward Developing Girls' Positive Attitude and Self-Efficacy through Pedagogical Agents , 2007, AIED.

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

[8]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Effect of Choice on Cognitive and Affective Engagement , 2003 .

[9]  Jorge Adolfo Ramírez Uresti,et al.  Should I Teach My Computer Peer? Some Issues in Teaching a Learning Companion , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[10]  F. Thomas,et al.  The illusion of life : Disney animation , 1981 .

[11]  Alfie Kohn,et al.  What To Look for in a Classroom...and Other Essays. , 1998 .

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

[13]  Douglas A. Grouws,et al.  Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning , 1992 .

[14]  J. Forgas.  Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition , 2001 .

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

[16]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computer personalities be human personalities? , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[17]  Alexandra Petrakou,et al.  Interacting through avatars: Virtual worlds as a context for online education , 2010, Comput. Educ..

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

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

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

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

[22]  Chi-Jen Lin,et al.  Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents , 2003, Comput. Educ..

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

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

[25]  Brenda Laurel,et al.  Interface agents: metaphors with character , 1997 .

[26]  E. Deci,et al.  Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[27]  Gilah C. Leder,et al.  Mathematics and Gender , 2021, The Joy of Mathematics.

[28]  H. Sullivan,et al.  Preferences and learner control over amount of instruction. , 1996 .

[29]  Winslow Burleson,et al.  Affective learning companions , 2004 .

[30]  Derek D. Rucker,et al.  The Role of Affect in Attitude Change , 2000 .

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

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

[33]  C. Ethington,et al.  Women’s Selection of Quantitative Undergraduate Fields of Study: Direct and Indirect Influences , 1988 .

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

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

[36]  D. Byrne,et al.  ATTRACTION AS A LINEAR FUNCTION OF PROPORTION OF POSITIVE REINFORCEMENTS. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[38]  Catherine E. Ross,et al.  Age and the gender gap in the sense of personal control , 2002 .

[39]  R. Moreno,et al.  Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity , 2006 .

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

[41]  George E. Marsh,et al.  An Instrument to Measure Mathematics Attitudes , 2004 .

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

[43]  Arthur Baskin,et al.  Learning companion systems , 1989 .

[44]  J. Dwyer,et al.  Effect of perceived choice of music on exercise intrinsic motivation. , 1995 .

[45]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agent Design: The Impact of Agent Realism, Gender, Ethnicity, and Instructional Role , 2004, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[46]  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 .

[47]  D. Stipek,et al.  The Emergence of Gender Differences in Children's Perceptions of Their Academic Competence. , 2005 .

[48]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  Experience as a moderator of the media equation: the impact of flattery and praise , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[49]  Maria Virvou,et al.  Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system , 2002, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[50]  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..

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

[52]  Bernice R. Sandler,et al.  The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. , 1996 .

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

[54]  Thane S. Pittman,et al.  Initiating Play Activity of Children: The Moderating Influence of Verbal Cues on Intrinsic Motivation. , 1977 .

[55]  Schmukler Ag,et al.  In a different voice: psychological theory and women's development. Essay review. , 1983, Transactions & studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia.

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

[57]  Crystal L. Hoyt,et al.  Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology , 2002 .

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

[59]  Jaekyung Lee,et al.  Multiple Facets of Inequity in Racial and Ethnic Achievement Gaps , 2004 .

[60]  Ellen Lunts,et al.  What does the Literature Say about the Effectiveness of Learner Control in Computer-Assisted Instruction ? , 2002 .

[61]  Elisa Boff,et al.  Personalization in an interactive learning environment through a virtual character , 2008, Comput. Educ..

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

[63]  Tak-Wai Chan,et al.  Exploring the Design of Computer Supports for Reciprocal Tutoring , 1997 .

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

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

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

[67]  Ning Wang,et al.  The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[68]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[69]  J. Wertsch,et al.  The creation of context in joint problem-solving. , 1984 .

[70]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

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

[72]  P. Hietala,et al.  The Competence of Learning Companion Agents , 1997 .

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

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

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

[76]  Jeffrey Holmes,et al.  Designing agents to support learning by explaining , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[77]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Teaching Tactics and Dialog in AutoTutor , 2001 .

[78]  Jun Ye,et al.  Exploring the social competence of students with autism spectrum conditions in a collaborative virtual learning environment - The pilot study , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[79]  A. Bandura.  GUIDE FOR CONSTRUCTING SELF-EFFICACY SCALES , 2006 .

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

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

[82]  Claude Frasson,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education , 1990 .

[83]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Consistency of personality in interactive characters: verbal cues, non-verbal cues, and user characteristics , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[85]  Judy Robertson,et al.  Children's Interactions with Animated Agents in an Intelligent Tutoring System , 2004, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[86]  D. Schunk,et al.  Peer-Model Attributes and Children's Achievement Behaviors , 1987 .

[87]  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 .

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

[89]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Desirable Characteristics of Learning Companions , 2007, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

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

[91]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Software agents , 1994, CACM.

[92]  C. Nass,et al.  Truth is beauty: researching embodied conversational agents , 2001 .

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

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

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

[96]  Lev Vygotsky.  Mind in society , 1978 .

[97]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[98]  Reginald S. Lee,et al.  Student Engagement in U.S. Urban High School Mathematics and Science Classrooms: Findings on Social Organization, Race, and Ethnicity , 2007 .

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

[100]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Teacher beliefs about instructional choice : A phenomenological study , 2000 .

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

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

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

[104]  Walter G. Secada.  Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in mathematics. , 1992 .

[105]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  The Role of Choice in Reader Engagement , 1998 .

[106]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? an experimental test of similarity-attraction , 2000, CHI.

[107]  Magnus Haake,et al.  Design of animated pedagogical agents - A look at their look , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[109]  Greg Kearsley,et al.  Intelligent Agents and Instructional Systems: Implications of a New Paradigm. , 1993 .

[110]  Andreas Holzinger,et al.  Learning performance with interactive simulations in medical education: Lessons learned from results of learning complex physiological models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[111]  J. Rodin,et al.  Is bad news always bad? Cue and feedback effects on intrinsic motivation. , 1989 .

[112]  Robert G. Rainey.  The effects of directed versus non‐directed laboratory work on high school chemistry achievement , 1965 .

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

[114]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  People Power: A Human-Computer Collaborative Learning System , 1992, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[115]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Designing Learning by Teaching Agents: The Betty's Brain System , 2008, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[116]  Jack V. Powell,et al.  A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction , 2003, Comput. Educ..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[125]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Are computers scapegoats? Attributions of responsibility in human-computer interaction , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[126]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  The Role of Gender and Ethnicity in Pedagogical Agent Perception , 2003 .

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