Over the past decade, computer games and other interactive technologies have shown great potential when used in innovative ways to enhance learning. It is now known that learning is associated not only with cognitive ability but also with affect. The incorporation of affective embodied pedagogical agents (EPAs) in computer programs for learning can significantly influence learner beliefs and efficacy. However, there have been a number of criticisms and contradictory empirical findings calling into question earlier results and theoretical claims on the effectiveness of using EPAs. Therefore, this paper reviewed studies that evaluated the effectiveness of affect in EPAs in a computer-based learning environment (CLE). The statistical meta-analytic review (k = 30, n = 2,150) found that the use of affect in EPAs has a significant and moderate impact (r = .35) on students’ learning motivation and a relatively smaller impact on knowledge retention (r = .29) and knowledge transfer (r = .26). The effect sizes of the three outcome variables in this review are stronger compared with previous meta-analysis on the impact of the embodiment level of EPAs, indicating that the use of affect is more desirable and effective in CLEs. Finally, implications for both designers and researchers of using affective EPAs in CLEs are discussed.
AndradeA. D.BagriA.ZawK.RoosB. A.RuizJ. G. (2010) Avatar-mediated training in the delivery of bad news in a virtual world. Journal of Palliative Medicine13(12): 1415–1419.
2.
AtkinsonR. K. (2002) Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology94(2): 416–427.
3.
BanduraA.BryantJ. (2002) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research2: 121–153.
4.
BaylorA. L.KimS. (2009) Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 450–457.
5.
BaylorA. L.RyuJ. (2003) The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research28(4): 373–394.
6.
BealeR.CreedC. (2009) Affective interaction: How emotional agents affect users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies67(9): 755–776.
Carlotto, T., & Jaques, P. (2013). Evaluating the embodied agent effect in an English as a foreign language learning environment. Paper presented at the Anais do Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil.
9.
CassellJ. (2000) Embodied conversational agents, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
CassellJ. (2001) Embodied conversational agents: Representation and intelligence in user interfaces. AI Magazine22(4): 67.
11.
ChenG.-D.LeeJ.-H.WangC.-Y.ChaoP.-Y.LiL.-Y.LeeT.-Y. (2012) An empathic avatar in a computer-aided learning program to encourage and persuade learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society15(2): 62–72.
12.
ClareboutG.ElenJ. (2006) Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research35(3): 211–226.
13.
CohenJ. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, London, England: Routledge.
14.
Conati, C., & Zhao, X. (2004). Building and evaluating an intelligent pedagogical agent to improve the effectiveness of an educational game. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Funchal, Portugal.
15.
CraigS. D.GholsonB.DriscollD. M. (2002) Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology94(2): 428–434.
16.
DehnD. M.Van MulkenS. (2000) The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies52(1): 1–22.
17.
DemeureV.NiewiadomskiR.PelachaudC. (2011) How is believability of a virtual agent related to warmth, competence, personification, and embodiment?Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments20(5): 431–448.
18.
DirkinH. K.MishraP.AltermattE. (2005) All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia14(2): 113–127.
19.
DomagkS. (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: Theories, Methods, and Applications22(2): 84.
20.
DunsworthQ.AtkinsonR. K. (2007) Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education49(3): 677–690.
21.
GeeJ. P. (2003) What video games have to teach us about literacy and learning?, New York, NY: Palgraw Macmillan.
22.
GlassG. V. (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher5(10): 3–8.
23.
Guo, Y. R., Goh, D. H.-L., & Luyt, B. (2014). Using affective embodied agents in information literacy education. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 389–398). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
24.
HamlenK. R. (2014) Video game strategies as predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research50(2): 271–284.
25.
HeidigS.ClareboutG. (2011) Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?Educational Research Review6(1): 27–54.
26.
Hernández, Y., Sucar, L. E., & Conati, C. (2009). Incorporating an affective behavior model into an educational game. Paper presented at the FLAIRS Conference, Sanibel Island, Florida.
27.
Jaques, P. A., Lehmann, M., & Pesty, S. (2009). Evaluating the affective tactics of an emotional pedagogical agent. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Honolulu, Hawai.
28.
KantI.JakiS. L. (1981) Universal natural history and theory of the heavens, Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Academic Press.
29.
KimY.BaylorA. L.ShenE. (2007) Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning23(3): 220–234.
30.
Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy—Building a learning companion. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Madison, Wisconsin.
31.
KrämerN. C.BenteG. (2010) Personalizing e-learning: The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review22(1): 71–87.
32.
LeeR. J. E.NassC.BraveS. B.MorishimaY.NakajimaH.YamadaR. (2007) The case for caring colearners: The effects of a computer-mediated colearner agent on trust and learning. Journal of Communication57(2): 183–204.
33.
Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1988). Socializing the intelligent tutor: Bringing empathy to computer tutors. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 242–257). Springer Verlag, New York: Springer.
34.
Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35.
LinL.AtkinsonR.ChristophersonR.JosephS.HarrisonC. (2013) Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter?Computers & Education67: 239–249.
36.
LooijeR.NeerincxM. A.CnossenF. (2010) Persuasive robotic assistant for health self-management of older adults: Design and evaluation of social behaviors. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies68(6): 386–397.
37.
LopatovskaI.ArapakisI. (2011) Theories, methods and current research on emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human–computer interaction. Information Processing & Management47(4): 575–592.
38.
LuskM. M.AtkinsonR. K. (2007) Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples?Applied Cognitive Psychology21(6): 747–764.
39.
Maldonado, H., Lee, J.-E. R., Brave, S., Nass, C., Nakajima, H., Yamada, R., Morishima, Y. (2005). We learn better together: Enhancing eLearning with emotional characters. In Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: 10 years! (pp. 408–417). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
40.
MayerR. E.DaPraC. S. (2012) An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied18(3): 239–252.
41.
MayerR. E.DowG. T.MayerS. (2003) Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?Journal of Educational Psychology95(4): 806–812.
42.
MoundridouM.VirvouM. (2002) Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning18(3): 253–261.
43.
MummJ.MutluB. (2011) Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior27(5): 1643–1650.
44.
PhamM. T.CohenJ. B.PracejusJ. W.HughesG. D. (2001) Affect monitoring and the primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of Consumer Research28(2): 167–188.
45.
PicardR. W. (2000) Affective computing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
PlantA. E.BaylorA. L.DoerrC. E.Rosenberg-KimaR. B. (2009) Changing middle-school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers & Education53(2): 209–215.
47.
ReevesB.NassC. (1997) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Rosenberg-KimaR. B.BaylorA. L.PlantE. A.DoerrC. E. (2008) Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior24(6): 2741–2756.
49.
RosenthalR. (1979) The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86(3): 638–641.
50.
RosenthalR.DiMatteoM. R. (2001) Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 59–82.
51.
Sabourin, J., Mott, B., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Modeling learner affect with theoretically grounded dynamic Bayesian networks. In S. D'Mello, A. Graesser, B. Schuller, & J.-C. Martin (Eds.), Affective computing and intelligent interaction (pp. 286–295). Springer Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
52.
Saerbeck, M., Schut, T., Bartneck, C., & Janse, M. D. (2010). Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia.
53.
SalenK.ZimmermanE. (2005) Game design and meaningful play. In: RaessensJ.GoldsteinJ. (eds) Handbook of computer game studies, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 59–79.
54.
ThomasT.AlexanderK.JacksonR.AbramiP. (2013) The differential effects of interactive versus didactic pedagogy using computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research49(4): 403–436.
55.
van der MeijH. (2013) Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 845–857.
56.
VeletsianosG. (2009) The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent–learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning25(4): 345–357.
57.
WilsonM. (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9(4): 625–636.
58.
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Rickertsen, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA.
59.
YılmazR.Kılıç-ÇakmakE. (2012) Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education59(2): 828–838.
60.
Yu, Z., Gerritsen, D., Ogan, A., Black, A. W., & Cassell, J. (2013). Automatic prediction of friendship via multi-model dyadic features. Paper presented at the 14th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, Metz, France.
61.
ZhangP. (2013) The affective response model: A theoretical framework of affective concepts and their relationships in ICT context. Management Information Systems Quarterly37(1): 247–274.
62.
ZhouL.MohammedA. S.ZhangD. (2012) Mobile personal information management agent: Supporting natural language interface and application integration. Information Processing & Management48(1): 23–31.
