How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes?

Main Article Content

Noah L Schroeder
Olusola O Adesope

Abstract

Educational technology is becoming ubiquitous in schools, thus presenting new challenges in the classroom. For instance, teachers may struggle to find ways to motivate students to learn in multimedia learning environments. One plausible solution is the use of pedagogical agents, which are characters meant to facilitate learning in multimedia learning environments. This study examines the impact of a contextually-relevant, peer agent compared to a condition which provided narration and concurrent keywords displayed on the screen. The findings revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The results, in part, support the presence principle of multimedia learning.However, the results do not suggest that a pedagogical agent is deemed a seductive detail, or distraction during the learning task. Rather, the agent’s presence does not have any significant effect on learning or affective outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes?. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 2(2), 114–133. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/jotlt/article/view/3968
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Noah L Schroeder, Washington State University

Olusola O Adesope, Washington State University

References

Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250-263.

Archembault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). K-12 distance educators at work: Who’s teaching online across the United States. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 363-391.

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.

Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117-139.

Ayers, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135-146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Barretto, D., & Orey, M. (2013). Trends and issues in learning, design, and technology. In M. Orey et al. (eds) Educational Media and Technology Yearbook 37. New York: Springer. pp. 3-5. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-4430-5_1

Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373-394.

Cheng, Y. M., Chen, L. S., Huang, H. C., Weng, S. F., Chen, Y. G., & Lin, C. H. (2009). Building a general purpose pedagogical agent in a web-based multimedia clinical simulation system for medical education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 216-225.

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. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286.

Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.

Clark, R. E. & Choi, S. (2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379-381.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.

Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of media Psychology, 22(2), 8497.

Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education, 49, 677-690.

GoAnimate (2013). GoAnimate [computer software]. http://goanimate.com/

Gulz, A., 2004. Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.

Harrison, C., & Atkinson, R. K. (2009). Narration in multimedia learning environments: Exploring the impact of voice origin, gender, and presentation mode. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009, Honolulu, HI, USA.

Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27-54.

Hightower, A. M. (2009). Tracking U.S. trends: States earn B average for policies supporting ed. tech. use. Education Week, 28(26), 30-31.

Hostetter, A. B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297-315.

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 54(6), 569-596.

Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 220-234.

Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers and Education, 56, 505-514.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Kizilkaya, G., & Askar, P. (2008). The effect of an embedded pedagogical agent on the students science achievement. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(4), 208-216.

Lester, J. C., Voerman, J. L., Towns, S. G., & Callaway, C. B. (1999). Deictic believability: Coordinated gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 383-414.

Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Lu, S. (2008). Embodied conversational agents as conversational partners. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1527.

Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). How intelligent are intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analysis. 2013 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.201-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (169-182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239-252.

Mayer, R. E, Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive selfexplaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806-813.

Mayer, R. E., Sabko, K., & Mautone, P. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.

Miller, R. H. (2011). Cartoons help thwart global pandemics. Retrieved from https://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=26705&PageID=&ReferrerCode=uggc%3A%2F%2Farjf.jfh.rqh%2Fcntrf%2Ffrnepu.nfc%3FCntrVQ%3D%26Xrljbeqf%3Dkgenabezny on August 24, 2012.

Miller, R. H. (2012). Online ethics course aims at tough issues. Retrieved from http://news.wsu.edu/Pages/Publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=32496&PageID= on August 24, 2012.

Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507-523). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.

Moreno, R., Reislein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning: A test of the persona hypothesis. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 52-60.

Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261.

Oddcast Inc. (2013a). SitePal [computer software]. http://sitepal.com/

Oddcast Inc. (2013b). Voki [computer software]. http://www.voki.com/

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning. A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. U.S.A.: Sloan-C.

Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 2, 291-314.

Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Barouch Gilbert, R. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 49(1), 1-39.

Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. 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.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 299-315.

Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013, September 9). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Intelligent Tutoring Systems on K – 12 Students' Mathematical Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0032447

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp.19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-138.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. (Sixth edition). New Jersey: Pearson.

Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G. ,Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134-144.

VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197-221.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L. (2005). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 71-93). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

van Mulken, S., André, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI’98 (pp.53-66). Berlin: Springer.

Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers in Education, 55, 576-585.

Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373-377.

Veletsianos, G., Miller, C., & Doering, A. (2009). Enali: a research design framework for virtual characters and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 171-194.

Watson, J. (2005). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning. A review of state-level policy and practice. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

WSU eLearning Services. (n.d.). Showcase. Retrieved from http://teach.wsu.edu/showcase/ on August 24, 2012.

Xtranormal. (2012). Xtranormal [computer software]. http://www.xtranormal.com