You are here

Home » Content

THE EFFECTS OF ANIMATED AGENTS ON STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDES

Journal Name:

  • The Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Animated agents are electronic agents that interact with learners through voice, visuals or text and that carry human-like characteristics such as gestures and facial expressions with the purpose of creating a social learning environment, and provide information and guidance and when required feedback and motivation to students during their learning experience. The aim of this study is to analyze the effect of the use of pedagogical agents in learning materials designed in multimedia on the achievement and attitudes of students. A general evaluation of the research findings indicate that the use of multimedia software developed by using pedagogical agents positively affects student achievement and attitude. The achievement of the students who worked with the software significantly increased, but no significant difference in terms of different pedagogical agents was observed. The comparison of the student’s attitudes revealed no significant difference in terms of different pedagogical agents, yet the attitudes regarding “bearing human features” showed positively significant difference for the software with body shot of a real person. As it is seen in the unstructured interviews with the participants conducted during and after the experimental process, it should be stated that the students had positive attitudes towards the software and the use of pedagogical agent and expressed their liking.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-effects-animated-agents-students-achievement-and-attitudes.pdf
  • 2
96-111
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Bickmore, T. (2003). Relational Agents: Effecting Change through Human-Computer
Relationships. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA.
Blair,K., Schwartz, D., Biswas, G & Leelawong, K. (2006). Pedagogical agents for learning
by teaching: teachable agents. Educational Technology & Society, Special Issue on
Pedagogical Agents, pp. 62-66.
Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instructionas
effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.
Cassell, J. & Thórisson, K. (1999). The power of a nod and a glance: envelope vs.
emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13,
pp. 519-538.
Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments:
claims and evidence. Int. J. of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, pp. 313-334
111
Haake, M. (2009). Embodied Pedagogical Agents From Visual Impact to Pedagogical Implications. Doctoral Thesis Department of Design Sciences Faculty of Engineering Lund University Sweden. Retrieved 12 23, 2011, from 72Hhttp://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1389720&f...
Heller, B., & Procter, M. (2010). Animated Pedagogical Agents and Immersive Worlds: Two Worlds Colliding. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 301-316). Edmonton: Athabasca University.
Jaques, P., Adja , A., Jung, J., Bordini, R., & Vicari, R. (2002). Using Pedagogical Agents to Support Collaborative Distance Learning. Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Retrieved 08 10, 2011, from 73Hhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1658713
Johnson, W., Shaw, E., Marshall, A. & LaBore, C. (2003). Evaluation of user interaction: the case of agent Adele. In: Proc. 2003 Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfases (IUI 2003), pp. 93-100. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Lester, J., Converse, S., Kahler, S., Barlow, T., Stone, B., & Bhogal, R. (1997). The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. CHI '97 Conference, (pp. 359-366). Atlanta, GA. Retrieved 05 25, 2011, from 74Hhttp://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/jl.htm
Massaro, D., Cohen, M., Beskow J. & Cole, R. (2000). Developing and evaluating conversational agents. In: J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents, pp. 287-318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Moreno, R. (2004). Immersive agent-based multimedia environments: Identifying social features for enhanced learning. In H. Niegemann, F. Leutner & R. Brünken (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning, pp. 9-18. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Moundridou, M. & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. J. of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 253-261.
Shaw, E., Johnson, W., & Ganeshan, R. (2010, 12 11). Pedagogical Agents on the Web. Retrieved from Pedagogical Agents on the Web: 75Hhttp://www.isi.edu/isd/ADE/papers/its98/ITS98-WW.htm
Slater, D. (2012, 02 03). What is an Interactive Animated Pedagogical Agent? Retrieved from Interactive Animated Pedagogical Agents: An Introduction to an Emerging Field: 76Hhttp://ldt.stanford.edu/~slater/pages/agents/
Unal Colak, F., & Ozan, O. (2011). Pedagogical Agents in E-Learning:Examples and Applications in TURKEY. ICEM-SIIE Joint Conference 2011. Aveiro, Portugal.
Van Mulken, S., André, E. & Müller, J. (1998). The persona effect: how substantial is it? In: H. Johnson, L. Nigay, L. & C. Roast (Eds.), People and Computers XIII: Proc. of HCI’98, pp. 53-66. Berlin: Springer.
Veletsianos, G. & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: a phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British J. of Educational Technology, .39(6), pp. 969-986

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com