The Effects of a Pedagogical Agent for Informal Science Education on Learner Behaviors and Self-efficacy

We describe Coach Mike, an animated pedagogical agent for informal computer science education, and report findings from two experiments that provide initial evidence for the efficacy of the system. In the first study, we found that Coach Mike’s presence led to 20% longer holding times, increased acceptance of programming challenges, and reduced misuse of the exhibit, but had limited cumulative impact on attitudes, awareness, and knowledge beyond what the host exhibit already achieved. In the second study, we compared two different versions of Coach Mike and found that the use of enthusiasm and self-regulatory feedback led to greater self-efficacy for programming.

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

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

[3]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[4]  H. Chad Lane,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Goes to the Museum in the Big City: A Pedagogical Agent for Informal Science Education , 2011, AIED.

[5]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  A Conversational Agent as Museum Guide - Design and Evaluation of a Real-World Application , 2005, IVA.

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

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

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

[9]  M. Lepper,et al.  Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. , 1993 .

[10]  Timothy W. Bickmore,et al.  Relational Agents Improve Engagement and Learning in Science Museum Visitors , 2011, IVA.

[11]  Sriram Subramanian,et al.  Talking about tactile experiences , 2013, CHI.

[12]  Anton Leuski,et al.  Ada and Grace: Toward Realistic and Engaging Virtual Museum Guides , 2010, IVA.

[13]  Yanghee Kim,et al.  Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction , 2006 .

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

[15]  J. Falk,et al.  Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning , 2000 .

[16]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship? Intelligent Tutoring Systems and MOOCs , 2015, AIED.

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

[18]  J. Heckman.  Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children , 2006, Science.

[19]  Beverly Park Woolf,et al.  Affective Gendered Learning Companions , 2009, AIED.

[20]  Michael S. Horn,et al.  Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education , 2009, CHI.

[21]  R. Bollet,et al.  Personalizing E-Learning , 2002 .

[22]  R. Calvo,et al.  New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies , 2011 .

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

[24]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Computers As Cognitive Tools , 2020 .