Pedagogical agent: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


==Definitions and background==
==Definitions and background==
Pedagogical agents are animated life-like characters used in electronic learning environments with which learners can interact and have meaningful conversations (Veletsianos and Miller, 2008; Bowman, 2012; Theodoidou, 2011). They have human-like characteristics including emotions, reactivity and speech (Velesianos, 2010; Theodoidou, 2011) and coordinate speech and narration with gaze and gestures (Dunsworth and Atkinson, 2007). 
Pedagogical agents are found in educational programs from preschool to university as well as used as in roles such as virtual health coaches and information guides (Clarebout, Elen, and Johnson, 2002; Haake and Gulz, 2008). They can be used for many purposes including advising, tutoring, coaching, demonstrating, and modelling (Scroeder and Adesope, 2012; Mahmood and Ferneley, 2006) as well as acting as a learning companion or peer who encourages and motivates learners to put more effort into learning (Kim and Baylor, 2006; Yanghee and Baylor, 2006 ).
Pedagogical agents are designed with the goal of supporting learning and instruction in the electronic learning environment, (Veletsianos and Miller, 2008; Schroeder and Adesope, 2012) and they can adapt their level of support to the individual needs of the learner (Clarebout et. al., 2002). They can be used to guide learners to engage in learning activities (Lin, Chen, Wu, and Yeh, 2008).
==Affordances==
Human-like social interactions are typically missing from electronic learning environments (Phan, 2011) however, a pedagogical agent allows for the creation of an environment that mimics the classroom environment including the existence of social interaction and collaboration (Kim and Baylor, 2006; Theodoidou, 2011; Phan, 2011). “Using an animated pedagogical agent with verbal and non-verbal features fosters information processing because students naturally perceive the learning process as social and respond more engagingly” (Dunsworth and Atkinsons, 2007, p. 688). This  interaction helps to create a positive learning environment (Bodenheimer  et. al., 2009) and enhances learner engagement (Veletsianos and Miller, 2008). The learning environment and support created by the presence of the pedagogical agent has been found, specifically in mathematics education, to reduce student anxiety (Van Eck, 2006).
In addition to creating a positive learning environment, pedagogical agents allow teachers to provide individualized instruction to learners that is tailored to the learners’ learning abilities, rate of learning, and needs (Mao and Li, 2010; Bowman, 2012; Morozov, Tanakov, and Bystrov, 2004). Pedagogical agents can scaffold learning and determine learning paths for students (Miao, Engler, Giemza, Weinbrenner, and Hoppe, 2012), explain content in an alternative manner, rephrase content, and provide diagrams, animations and text to support a student’s individual learning style (Mahmood and Ferneley, 2006).Unlike an internet search where you have to sift through information to locate exactly what you are looking for, with pedagogical agents, learners can pose questions and receive targeted answers similar to what they would receive from their classroom teacher (Bowman, 2012). Some learners report being more comfortable talking to a pedagogical agent than a teacher, which may prompt students to ask questions of the agent that they may not otherwise pose in the traditional classroom (Hong, Chen, and Lan, 2012).
Pedagogical agents are always available, reducing the limitation presented by large class sizes which can restrict the amount of time a teacher has available to assist individual students (Sahimi et. al., 2010) and allow students the opportunity to access his or her own “teacher” at any time (Bowman, 2012). Feedback and coaching provided by pedagogical agents can be timely and instantaneous allowing students to obtain support on an as needed, where needed basis allowing students to work more effectively in an asynchronous environment and outside of the classroom (Sahimi et. al., 2010). When combined with speech recognition software, pedagogical agents can tutor second language learners providing them with an opportunity to practice their skills and receive feedback (Morton and Jack, 2005). Pedagogical agents, unlike humans, do not tire or become frustrated with repeated prompting or reteaching, and can provide unlimited corrections and feedback to learners (Morton and Jack, 2005).


==Constraints==
==Constraints==
Not all learners benefit from or find pedagogical agents appealing in an electronic learning environment (Theodoidou , 2011). Just as some teachers and some learners do not relate well to each other, some learners do not relate well to, and may stereotype some pedagogical agents depending on the agent’s given visible characteristics and the student’s learning style (Theodooidou, 2011; Veletsianos, 2010; Haake and Gulz, 2008). Some learners may find the presence of the pedagogical agent to be distracting (Sahimi et. al., 2010; Theodoidou, 2011; Dirken, Mishra, and Altermatt, 2005; Mahmood and Ferneley, 2006).  Other learners may find that their learning style and needs are not met by the pedagogical agent, preferring instead to have the information provided in a different format (Yu, Brown, and Billett, 2007). This preference increases design challenges and reduces the effectiveness of some agents for some learners (Yu, Brown, and Billett, 2007).
Pedagogical agents are constrained by programming and cannot replace a real teacher or a mentor (Bowman 2012). While attempts can be made to program non-verbal behaviours into pedagogical agents, typically these behaviours are simple or inappropriate for the situation (Mahmood and Ferneley, 2006).  Unlike a real teacher who can judge how much feedback and guidance is appropriate for a given student, pedagogical agents point out to students their mistakes, reducing individual student reflection on a topic (Baylor, 2002).
Rapid development of pedagogical agents  is not possible due to the complexity of pedagogical agents, instead requiring significant expense, time and skill to develop (Choi and Clark, 2006). Typically, classroom teachers do not have the skills to develop their own animated pedagogical agents to meet the needs of the individual students in their classroom (Hong et. al., 2012) therefore limiting the ability of teachers to utilize pedagogical agents for interventions. Choi and Clark (2006) argu ed that the same benefits obtained from using pedagogical agents may be gained from an alternative multimedia system which is less expensive and less time consuming to develop.


==Links==
==Links==
Line 32: Line 15:


==Works Cited==
==Works Cited==
Baylor, A. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacogntive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 5-22.
Bowman, C. D. (2012). Student use of animated pedagogical agents in a middle school science inquiry program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 359-375. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01198.x
Bodenheimer, B., Williams, B., Kramer, M. R., Viswanath, K., Balachandran, R., Belynne, K., & Biswas, G. (2009). Construction and evaluation of animated teachable agents. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 191–205. http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_3/17.pdf
Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441-466.
Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Johnson, W. (2002). Animated Pedagogical Agents: An Opportunity to be Grasped?. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286.
Dirkin, K., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 14(2), 113-127.
Dunsworth, Q. and Atkinsons, R. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers and Education, 49(3), 677-690.
Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2008) Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 11(4), 1-15.
Hong, Z., Chen, Y., & Lan, C. (2012). A courseware to script animated pedagogical agents in instructional material for elementary students in English education. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2012.733712
Kim, Y & Baylor, A. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.
Lin, Y., Chen, M., Wu, T, & Yeh, Y. (2008). The effectiveness of a pedagogical agent-based learning system for teaching word recognition to children with moderate mental retardation. British Journal of Education Technology, 39(4), 715-720. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00747.x
Mahmood, K. & Ferneley, E. (2006). The use of animated agents in e-learning environments: An exploratory, interpretive case study. Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 153-168.
Mao, X. and Li, Z. (2010). Agent based affective tutoring systems: A pilot study. Computers and Education, 55, 202-208.
Miao, Y., Engler, J., Giemza, A., Weinbrenner, S., & Hoppe, U. (2012). Development of a process-oriented scaffolding agent in an open-ended inquiry learning environment. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 105-128.
Morozov, M., Tanakov, A., and Bystrov, D. (2004). A team of pedagogical agents in multimedia environment for children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7 (2), 19-24. http://www.ifets.info/journals/7_2/4.pdf
Morton, H. and Jack, M. (2005). Scenario-based spoken interaction with virtual agents. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 171-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220500173344
Phan, H. (2011). A cognitive multimedia environment and its importance: A conceptual model for effective e-learning and development. International Journal on E-Learning, 10(2), 199-221.
Sahimi, S., Zain, F., Kamar, N., Samar, N.,Rahman, Z., Majid, O., Atan, H.,…Luan, W. (2010). The pedagogical agent in online learning: Effects of the degree of realism on achievement in terms of gender. Contemporary Education Technology, 1(2), 175-185.
Schroeder, N. & Adesope, O. (2012). A case for the use of pedagogical agents in online learning environments. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology. 1(2), 43-47.
Theodoidou, K. (2011). Learning spanish with “Laura”: The effects of a pedagogical agent. Educational Media International, 48(4), 335-351. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2011.632280
Van Eck, R. (2006). The effect of contextual pedagogical advisement and competition on middle-school students’ attitude towards mathematics and mathematics instruction using a computer-based simulation game. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teacher, 25(2), 165-195.
Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers and Education. 55, 576-585.
Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969-986. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00797.x
Yanghee, K., and Baylor, A.(2006). Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223-243. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-8805-z
Yu, J., Brown, D., & Billett, E. (2007). Design of virtual tutoring agents for a virtual biology experiment. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 1. http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Yu_Brown_Billett.htm




[[Category:educational technologies]][[Category:Affordances and constraints of learning technologies]]
[[Category:educational technologies]][[Category:Affordances and constraints of learning technologies]]

Revision as of 17:05, 16 July 2013

This article or section is currently under construction

In principle, someone is working on it and there should be a better version in a not so distant future.
If you want to modify this page, please discuss it with the person working on it (see the "history")

Pedagogical agents

Meaghan Lister, Memorial University of Newfoundland

Definitions and background

Constraints

Links

Instructional Design – Pedagogical Agents and Tutors
Design-A-Plant Will Put Virtual Teacher in Classrooms
Pedagogical Agents
Pedagogical Agents on the Web
The role of pedagogical agents in scenario-based language e-learning: A case study

Works Cited

Retrieved from "https://edutechwiki.unige.ch/mediawiki/index.php?title=Pedagogical_agent&oldid=44511"