Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Pedagogical agents are virtual characters that instructional designers include in learning environments to help students learn. Research in the area has flourished for thirty years, yet there are still critical questions about the efficacy of pedagogical agents for influencing learning and affect. As such, we conducted an umbrella review to synthesize the field. We located 17 systematic reviews or meta-analyses focused on the use of pedagogical agents in educational settings. We found that agents can have small positive effects on learning, motivation, and other affective variables. However, we still cannot say how one should design a pedagogical agent for any given educational context. We highlight the limitations of existing theory in the area, as well as existing reviews from a practical and methodological perspective, and highlight productive areas for future research.

Keywords

pedagogical agent virtual human review learning motivation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Yusoff

M. D. M.

Yusof

A. M.

Jamaludin

N. S. A.

(2022). Pedagogical agent element and design for learning: A systematic literature review. E-Journal of Economics. Entrepreneurship and Management Sciences, 1(1), 116–126. http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/4130.

Abdelghani

Wang

Y. H.

Yuan

Wang

Lucas

Sauzéon

Oudeyer

P. Y.

(2023). GPT-3-driven pedagogical agents to train children’s curious question-asking skills. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34(2), 483–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00340-7

* Aljaroodi

H. M.

Adam

M. T.

Chiong

Teubner

(2019). Avatars and embodied agents in experimental information systems research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1841

* Armando

Ochs

Régner

(2022). The impact of pedagogical agents’ gender on academic learning: A systematic review. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5(1), 862997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.862997

Aromataris

Fernandez

Godfrey

C. M.

Holly

Khalil

Tungpunkom

(2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

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(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001

Bendel

(2003). Pädagogische Agenten im Corporate E-Learning. Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik. https://beat.doebe.li/bibliothek/b01472.html

* Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Wong

R. M.

Adesope

O. O.

Paas

(2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1

Chen

Z. H.

Chen

S. Y.

(2014). When educational agents meet surrogate competition: Impacts of competitive educational agents on students’ motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 75(2), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.014

10.

Choi

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. https://doi.org/10.2190/A064-U776-4208-N145

11.

Craig

S. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.003

12.

* Dai

Jung

M. M.

Postma

Louwerse

M. M.

(2022). A systematic review of pedagogical agent research: Similarities, differences and unexplored aspects. Computers & Education, 190(1), 104607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104607

13.

* Davis

R. O.

(2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24(1), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002

14.

* Davis

R. O.

Park

Vincent

(2021). A systematic narrative review of agent persona on learning outcomes and design variables to enhance personification. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1830894

15.

* Davis

R. O.

Park

Vincent

(2023). A meta-analytic review on embodied pedagogical agent design and testing formats. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 30–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100556

16.

Dinçer

Doganay

(2015). The impact of pedagogical agent on learners’ motivation and academic success. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 10(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1515/ptse-2015-0032

17.

Domagk

(2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000011

18.

Garau

Slater

Vinayagamoorthy

Brogni

Steed

Sasse

M. A.

(2003). The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 529–536). https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642703

19.

* Guo

Y. R.

Goh

D. H. L.

(2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115588774

20.

Haddaway

N. R.

Page

M. J.

Pritchard

C. C.

McGuinness

L. A.

(2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 18(2), Article e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

21.

Harrer

Cuijpers

Furukawa

T.A.

Ebert

D.D.

(2021). Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide. Boca Raton, FLLondon and Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-367-61007-4.

22.

* Heidig

Clarebout

(2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004

23.

Jaques

Andrade

Jung

Bordini

Vicari

(2023). Using pedagogical agents to support collaborative distance learning. In Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 546–547). Routledge.

24.

Johnson

A. M.

Ozogul

Moreno

Reisslein

(2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20009

25.

Kim

Baylor

A. L.

(2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y

26.

Kim

Wei

Ilieva

(2007). In Luckin

(Ed.), MathGirls: Toward developing girls’ positive attitude and self-efficacy through pedagogical agents.

27.

Kreijns

K. M.

Weidlich

(2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8

28.

Lane

H. C.

Cahill

Foutz

Auerbach

Noren

Lussenhop

Swartout

(2013). The effects of a pedagogical agent for informal science education on learner behaviors and self-efficacy. In Artificial intelligence in education: 16th international conference, AIED 2013, Memphis, TN, USA, july 9-13, 2013. Proceedings, 16 (pp. 309–318). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_32

29.

Lee

K. M.

Nass

(2003). Designing social presence of social actors in human computer interaction. In Cockton

Korhonen

(Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 289–296). https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642662

30.

Liu

Chen

Zhou

Chiang

C. H.

Chen

Y. L.

Huang

D. H.

Liu

C. Y.

Chiou

W. K.

Chiou

W. K.

(2022). Effects of animated pedagogical agent-guided loving-kindness meditation on flight attendants’ spirituality, mindfulness, subjective wellbeing, and social presence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 894220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894220

31.

* Martha

A. S. D.

Santoso

H. B.

(2019). The design and impact of the pedagogical agent: A systematic literature review. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.8

32.

Mayer

(2014a). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In Mayer

(Ed.), The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 345–368). Cambridge University Press.

33.

Mayer

R. E.

(Ed.), (2014b). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

34.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616

35.

Mayer

R. E.

Dow

G. T.

Mayer

(2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive selfexplaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806

36.

Mayer

R. E.

Estrella

(2014). Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction, 33(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.004

37.

Moreno

(2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00408.x

38.

Morrow

D. G.

Lane

H. C.

Rogers

W. A.

(2021). A framework for design of conversational agents to support health self-care for older adults. Human Factors, 63(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820964085

39.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

40.

* Papoutsi

Rangoussi

(2020). Pedagogical agents in E-learning: A review of recent (2009–2019) research results. In Proceedings of the 24th pan-hellenic conference on informatics (pp. 316–321). https://doi.org/10.1145/3437120.3437332

41.

* Peng

T. H.

Wang

T. H.

(2022). Developing an analysis framework for studies on pedagogical agent in an e-learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(3), 547–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211041701

42.

R Core Team . (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/

43.

Rosenberg-Kima

R. B.

Baylor

A. L.

Plant

E. A.

Doerr

C. 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 Behavior, 24(6), 2741–2756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.017

44.

Schneider

Beege

Nebel

Schnaubert

Rey

G. D.

(2022). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5

45.

* Schroeder

N. L.

(2024). Simple meta-analysis. https://github.com/noah-schroeder/simple_meta-analysis/

46.

* Schroeder

N. L.

Adesope

O. O.

(2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265

47.

Schroeder

N. L.

Adesope

O. O.

Gilbert

R. B.

(2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a

48.

Schroeder

N. L.

Gotch

C. M.

(2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597625

49.

Siegle

R. F.

Schroeder

N. L.

Lane

H. C.

Craig

S. D.

(2023). Twenty-five years of learning with pedagogical agents: History, barriers, and opportunities. TechTrends, 67(5), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00869-3

50.

* Sikström

Valentini

Sivunen

Kärkkäinen

(2022). How pedagogical agents communicate with students: A two-phase systematic review. Computers & Education, 188(1), 104564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104564

51.

Wang

Johnson

Mayer

Rizzo

Shaw

Collins

(2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09.003

52.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

53.

* Wang

Gong

Cao

Lang

(2023). The effects of affective pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 38(2), 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100506

54.

Woo

H. L.

(2008). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00299.x

Designing and Learning With Pedagogical Agents: An Umbrella Review

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References