Cognitive and Affective Benefits of an Animated Pedagogical Agent for Learning English as a Second Language

Abstract

This study compared the use of ananimated pedagogical agent (agent) with an electronic arrow and voice narration (arrow and voice) in a multimedia learning environment where 74 college level English as a Second Language (ESL) students learned English relative clauses. No significant differences in learning or performance were found between the group receiving the agent and the arrow and voice group. This result provides evidence for Clark's (2001) claim that learning is supported by appropriate instructional methods (in this study directing attention to and voicing key concepts), not a delivery medium (in this study an animated agent or the drawing of an arrow with voice). Clark has also argued against using expensive instructional media when lower cost alternatives achieve the same or similar learning and motivation goals. It was also found that the agent's visual appearances and social behaviors did not motivate, interest, or tutor learners better than the simple arrow with voice. Thus, this result does not support the Persona Effect (Lester, Converse, Kahler, Barlow, Stone, & Bhogal, 1997) which is derived from the hypothesis that an animated agent motivates human-computer interaction because it is perceived as more socially engaging and interesting than other attention directing and information dispensing devices, and thus leads learners to work harder and learn more. The study also did not support the cognitive efficiency hypothesis (Cobb, 1997) which refers to one medium requiring less effort from learners in achieving a specific learning criterion or leading to faster learning than another. No significant difference was found between the agent and arrow with voice groups in the measured levels of cognitive efficiency. Yet, as in past studies, the data suggested a significant learning benefit of animated pedagogical agents for learners with the lowest levels of prior knowledge but no differences at the intermediate or advanced prior knowledge levels.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

André

Rist

, & Mueller

(1999). Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4), 415–448.

Atkinson

R. K.

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

BellCraft Technologies (2004). Microsoft Agent Scripting Helper Version 6.5. Houston, TX.

Brunken

Steinbacher

Plass

, & Leutner

(2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 109–119.

Camp

Paas

Rikers

, & van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

(2001). Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort, and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 575–595.

Clark

R. E.

(1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

Clark

R. E.

(1994a). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 7–10.

Clark

R. E.

(1994b). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21–29.

Clark

R. E.

(1998). Cognitive efficiency research on media: A rejoinder to Cobb. Unpublished manuscript.

10.

Clark

R. E.

(2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.

11.

Clark

R. E.

(2003). Research on web-based learning: A half-full glass. In Bruning

Horn

, & PytikZillig

(Eds.), Web-based learning: Where do we know? Where do we go? Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.

12.

Clark

R. E.

, & Choi

(2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Research on Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209–225.

13.

Cobb

(1997). Cognitive efficiency, toward a revised theory of media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(4), 21–35.

14.

Craig

Driscoll

D. M.

, & Gholson

(2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183.

15.

Craig

S. D.

Gholson

, & Driscoll

D. M.

(2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428–434.

16.

Dehn

D. M.

, & van Mulken

(2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1–22.

17.

Erickson

(1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In Bradshaw

J. M.

(Ed.), Software agents (pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.

18.

Gimino

A. E.

(2000). Factors that influence students' investment of mental effort in academic tasks: A validation and exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

19.

Harp

S. F.

, & Mayer

R. E.

(1998). How seductive details do their damage. A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.

20.

Izumi

(2000). Promoting noticing and SLA: An empirical study of the effects of output and input enhancement on ESL relativization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

21.

Jeung

Chandler

, & Sweller

(1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–343.

22.

Johnson

W. L.

Rickel

J. W.

, & Lester

J. C.

(2000). Animated pedagogical agents, face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.

23.

Kimmel

, & Deek

F. P.

(1995). Instructional technology: A tool or a panacea? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(4), 327–332.

24.

Kozma

R. B.

(1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.

25.

Kozma

R. B.

(1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

26.

Lester

J. C.

Converse

S. A.

Kahler

S. E.

Barlow

S. T.

Stone

B. A.

, & Bhogal

R. S.

(1997, March). The persona effect. Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of Computer-Human Interaction '97 (pp. 359–366), Atlanta.

27.

Lester

J. C.

Converse

S. A.

Stone

Khaler

, & Barlow

(1997). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness; A large-scale empirical evaluation. Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 23–30), Kobe, Japan.

28.

Levin

H. M.

, & McEwan

P. M.

(2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

29.

Lowe

(2002). Computer-based education: Is it a panacea? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 163–171.

30.

Mayer

R. E.

(1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371.

31.

Mayer

R. E.

(2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Mayer

R. E.

Fennell

Farmer

, & Campbell

(2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389–395.

33.

Microsoft Corporation (2003). Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003.

34.

Moreno

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.

35.

Paas

(1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

36.

Reeves

, & Nass

(1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.

37.

Salomon

(1984). Television is easy and print is tough: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658.

38.

Sweller

, & Chandler

(1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.

39.

Sweller

Cooper

G. A.

Tierney

, & Cooper

(1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 119, 176–192.

40.

Sweller

van Merriënboer

, & Paas

(1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–256.

41.

Ullmer

E. J.

(1994). Media and learning: Are there two kinds of truth? Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 21–32.

42.

van Mulken

Andre

, & Muller

(1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In Johnson

Nigay

, & Roast

(Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI'98, pp. 53–66. Berlin: Springer.