Desirable Characteristics of Learning Companions

This study investigated the desirable characteristics of anthropomorphized learning-companion agents for college students. First, interviews with six undergraduates explored their concepts of desirable learning companions. The interviews yielded agent competency, agent personality, and interaction control. Next, a controlled experiment examined whether learner competency (strong vs. weak) would relate directly to agent competency (high vs. low) and to interaction control (agent-control vs. learner-control). The dependent measures included learners' perceptions of agent functionality, their self-efficacy beliefs in the task, and their learning. The results indicated that academically strong students perceived the high-competent agent higher than the lowcompetent agent and showed higher self-efficacy beliefs in the task and recalled more after working with the high-competent agent. Academically weak students, by contrast, showed higher self-efficacy and recalled more after working with the low-competent agent. Also, academically strong students valued agent-control highly, but academically weak students valued learner-control. The strong students showed higher self-efficacy in agentcontrol but lower self-efficacy in learner-control than did the weak students. In general, the results indicated that the similarities of characteristics between an agent and a learner have positive impacts on learners' cognitive and affective attainments.

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

[2]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: Building Social Relations with Learners , 2005, AIED.

[3]  D. Schunk,et al.  Peer Models : Influence on Children's Self-Efficacy and Achievement , 1985 .

[4]  Jonathan Klein,et al.  This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results , 2002, Interact. Comput..

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

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

[7]  S. Joy Mountford,et al.  The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design , 1990 .

[8]  Jarmo Laaksolahti,et al.  Understanding Social Intelligence , 2002 .

[9]  Andrew Large,et al.  Hypertext Instructional Programs and Learner Control: A Research Review. , 1996 .

[10]  Griffin.  An Investigation of the Effects of Reciprocal Peer Tutoring on Achievement, Self-Efficacy, and Test Anxiety. , 1998, Contemporary educational psychology.

[11]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

[12]  Renée Hayes,et al.  Sociocultural critique of Piaget and Vygotsky , 2000 .

[13]  Wilhelmina C. Savenye,et al.  Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment , 1994 .

[14]  John T. Stasko,et al.  An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[15]  K. Topping,et al.  Collaborative writing: the effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[16]  PLW HGX.  Social Dialogue Is Serious Business , .

[17]  W. Lewis Johnson.  Pedagogical Agent Research at CARTE , 2001, AI Mag..

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

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

[20]  Gary R. Morrison,et al.  Uses and effects of learner control of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction , 1989 .

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

[22]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Limitations of Student Control: Do Students Know When They Need Help? , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[23]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Teachable Agents: Combining Insights from Learning Theory and Computer Science , 1999 .

[24]  Winslow Burleson,et al.  Affective agents: Sustaining motivation to learn through failure and state of "stuck" , 2004 .

[25]  E. R. Steinberg.  Cognition and learner control: a literature review, 1977–1988 , 1989 .

[26]  D. Schunk.  reflecting positive , 2022 .

[27]  M. Driscoll.  Psychology of Learning for Instruction , 1993 .

[28]  A. King.  Transactive Peer Tutoring: Distributing Cognition and Metacognition , 1998 .

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

[30]  A. Bandura,et al.  Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. , 1981 .

[31]  Sociological Studies , 1934, Nature.

[32]  Allan Jeong,et al.  Gender interactions in online debates: Look who's arguing with whom , 2003 .

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

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

[35]  Richard N. Van Eck,et al.  The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills a computer-based instructional simulation game , 2002 .

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

[37]  Ted Selker,et al.  COACH: a teaching agent that learns , 1994, CACM.

[38]  M. Patton.  Qualitative research and evaluation methods , 1980 .

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

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

[41]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Can computers be teammates? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  Patricia M. Rowell.  Peer Interactions in Shared Technological Activity: A Study of Participation , 2002 .

[43]  J. Beishuizen,et al.  Students' and teachers' cognitions about good teachers. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[44]  Ken Perlin,et al.  A platform for affective agent research , 2004 .

[45]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[46]  T. Bickmore.  Relational agents : effecting change through human-computer relationships , 2003 .

[47]  Elisabeth André,et al.  The Persona Effect: How Substantial Is It? , 1998, BCS HCI.

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

[49]  Gerda Siann,et al.  Motivation and Attribution at Secondary School: the role of gender , 1996 .

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

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

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

[53]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  Subtle Expressivity by Relational Agents , 2003 .

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

[55]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Technology support for complex problem solving: from SAD environments to AI , 2001 .

[56]  Keith Topping,et al.  Paired Reciprocal Peer Tutoring in Undergraduate Economics , 1997 .

[57]  Rosemary E. Sutton,et al.  Teachers' Emotions and Teaching: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research , 2003 .

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

[59]  Karen Littleton,et al.  Gender, Task Scenarios and Children's Computer‐based Problem Solving , 1998 .

[60]  A Social-Cognitive Framework for PALs , 2006 .