Pedagogical Agents and the Efficiency of Instructional Conditions in Educational Applications

This chapter discusses how the use of pedagogical agents in educational applications may influence the relative efficiency of instructional conditions, a concept proposed by Paas & Merriënboer (1993), which combines the measures of mental effort and task performance to determine, for example, how efficient certain settings are regarding their potential to promote learning. The authors describe an experiment carried out with 179 students who were enrolled in a distance learning course about educational software. The results of the study demonstrated that the conversational agent contributed to the improvement of the efficiency of instructional conditions. Such results make a relevant contribution to interactive learning research as they demonstrate that the use of pedagogical agents may improve the efficiency of learning material. Furthermore, by simulating social interaction, these agents may expand the boundaries of educational applications, which have been often designed mainly for individualized learning.

[1]  Sanghoon Park,et al.  Designing Effective On-line learning Environments Using Emerging Educational Technologies , 2007 .

[2]  Stephen R. Gulliver,et al.  Multiple Sensorial Media Advances and Applications: New Developments in MulSeMedia , 2011 .

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

[4]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  Evaluating the interaction with synthetic agents using attention and affect tracking , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[5]  Thomas Rist,et al.  From adaptive hypertext to personalized web companions , 2002, CACM.

[6]  Margherita Pagani,et al.  Multimedia and Interactive Digital TV: Managing the Opportunities Created by Digital Convergence , 2003 .

[7]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

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

[9]  G. Bente,et al.  Personalizing e-Learning. The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents , 2010 .

[10]  Simon Hayhoe.  Non-visual programming, perceptual culture and mulsemedia: case studies of five blind computer programmers , 2011 .

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

[12]  W. Lewis Johnson,et al.  Pedagogical agents on the Web , 1999, AGENTS '99.

[13]  R. Clark,et al.  The Questionable Benefits of Pedagogical Agents: Response to Veletsianos , 2007 .

[14]  Magnus Haake,et al.  Virtual pedagogical agents - design guidelines regarding visual appearance and pedagogical roles , 2006 .

[15]  Thomas Rist,et al.  Employing AI Methods to Control the Behavior of Animated Interface Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

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

[17]  Diomidis Spinellis,et al.  Affective usability evaluation for an interactive music television channel , 2004, CIE.

[18]  George Veletsianos.  Cognitive and Affective Benefits of an Animated Pedagogical Agent: Considering Contextual Relevance and Aesthetics , 2007 .

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

[20]  Margherita Pagani,et al.  The Digital Metamarket , 2003 .

[21]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

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

[23]  Syed M Rahman,et al.  Interactive Multimedia Systems , 2002 .

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

[25]  Tom Cobb,et al.  Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media , 1997 .

[26]  Maarten van Dantzich,et al.  Lifelike computer characters: the persona project at Microsoft , 1997 .

[27]  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 .

[28]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[29]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[30]  Rafael H. Bordini,et al.  Using pedagogical agents to support collaborative distance learning , 2002, CSCL.

[31]  Noam Tractinsky,et al.  Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues , 1997, CHI.

[32]  N. Flann,et al.  MathGirls: Motivating Girls to Learn Math through Pedagogical Agents , 2006 .

[33]  Chunyan Miao,et al.  Pedagogical Agents for Personalized Multi-user Virtual Environments* , 2009 .

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

[35]  Fred G. W. C. Paas,et al.  The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures , 1992 .

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

[37]  Chee Kheong Siew,et al.  A New Encryption Algorithm for High Throughput Multimedia , 2002 .

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

[39]  Cathy Marie Quast Sowa,et al.  Did U Get My Txt Msg?: Graduate Students' Text Messaging Uses and Gratifications , 2012, Int. J. Interact. Commun. Syst. Technol..