Conflicts occur when learners interact with pedagogical agents and virtual characters. Such conflicts—arising from technological limitations, psychosocial perceptions, and pedagogical inadequacies—hinder communication and interaction between virtual characters and learners, and impede successful engagement with learning tasks and experiences. To enhance communication and interaction between virtual characters and learners, we propose a three-tier framework of 15 research-based guidelines. This framework enables theorists, researchers, and designers to view virtual characters with a holistic lens, informing the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of virtual characters in electronic learning contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshbyF.IsenA.TurkenU. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529–550.
2.
BaylorA. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.
3.
BaylorA. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373–382.
4.
BaylorA. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5–22.
5.
BaylorA. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. In Proceedings of Workshop on Affective Interactions: Computers in the Affective Loop, Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '05), San Diego, CA.
6.
BaylorA.RyuJ. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394.
7.
BransfordJ.BrownA.CockingR. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Chapter 2: How experts differ from novices). Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved on Mar 10, 2008 from http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/ch2.html
8.
ChoiS.ClarkR. (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.
9.
ClarkR. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.
10.
ClarkR.ChoiS. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209–225.
11.
ClarkR.MayerR. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
12.
CorbalanG.KesterL.van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399–422.
13.
De AngeliA.BrahnamS., (2006). Sex stereotypes and conversational agents. In Proceedings of the AVI 2006 workshop on gender and interaction: Real and virtual women in a male world, Venice, Italy, 2006.
14.
DehnD.van MulkenS. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1–22.
15.
DeutschM. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
DoeringA.VeletsianosG. (2007). Multi-scaffolding learning environment: An analysis of scaffolding and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 107–129.
17.
DoeringA.VeletsianosG.YerasimouT. (2008). Conversational agents and their longitudinal affordances on communication and interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 251–270.
18.
EpleyaN.KrugerbJ. (2005). When what you type isn't what they read: The perseverance of stereotypes and expectancies over e-mail. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 414–422.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
21.
GraesserA.Wiemer-HastingsK.Wiemer-HastingsP., Kreuz, R., & the Tutoring Research Group. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35–51.
22.
GulzA. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.
23.
GulzA.HaakeM. (2006a). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322–339.
24.
GulzA.HaakeM. (2006b). Virtual pedagogical agents—Design guidelines regarding visual appearance and pedagogical roles. In Méndez-VilasA.MartinA. SolanoGonzalezJ. MesaGonzalezJ. A. Mesa (Eds.), Current developments in technology-assisted education (2006), Vol. III, Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in Education (mICTE 2006). Seville, Spain, pp. 1848–1852.
25.
GulzA.HaakeM. (2006c). Visual design of virtual pedagogical agents: Naturalism versus stylization in static appearance. In GratchJ.YoungM.AylettR.BallinD.OliverP. (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA '06), Marina del Rey, CA: Springer; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, p. 455.
26.
HaakeM.GulzA. (2009). A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents—A user preference perspective. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(1), 39–71.
27.
Hershey-DirkinK.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 Hypermedia. 14(2), 113–127.
28.
HoltgravesT.RossS.WeywadtC.HanT. (2007). Perceiving artificial social agents. Computers and Human Behavior, 23(7), 2163–2174.
29.
JenningsN.CollinsC. (2008). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational institutions in second life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180–186.
30.
JewittC.OyamaR. (2001). Visual meaning: A social semiotic approach. In van LeeuwenT.JewittC. (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 134–156). London: Sage.
31.
JohnsonD. (1974). Communication and the inducement of cooperative behavior in conflicts: A critical review. Speech Monographs, 41, 64–78.
32.
JohnsonD.JohnsonF. (2006). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
JohnsonD.JohnsonR. (2001). Teaching students to be peacemakers: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April 10–14, 2001.
34.
JohnsonD.JohnsonR. (2003). Teaching students to be peacemakers (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
35.
JohnsonD.JohnsonR.HolubecE. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom (6th ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
JohnsonW.RickelJ.LesterJ. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.
38.
JohnsonW.RickelJ.StilesR.MunroA. (1998). Integrating pedagogical agents into virtual environments. Presence, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(6), 523–546.
39.
JonassenD. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40–73.
40.
JonassenD. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
41.
JordanP. W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products. London: Taylor and Francis.
42.
KimC.BaylorA. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 309–321.
43.
KimY.BaylorA. (2006). A social cognitive framework for designing pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569–596.
44.
KimY.BaylorA. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology, 47(1), 23–28.
45.
KirschnerP.StrijbosJ.KreijnsK.BeersP. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.
46.
LouwerseM.GraesserA.LuS.MitchellH. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–12.
47.
MayerR.JohnsonW. L.ShawE.SandhuS. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(1), 36–42.
48.
MorenoR.MayerR. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.
49.
NormanD. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
50.
NormanD. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
51.
NormanD. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
52.
NormanD. (2007). The design of future things. New York: Basic Books.
53.
PaivaA.MachadoI. (2002). Lifelong training with Vincent, a web-based pedagogical agent. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(1), 254–266.
54.
PayrS. (2003). The virtual university's faculty: An overview of educational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17(1), 1–19.
55.
ReevesB.NassC. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media as real people and places. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/CSLI.
56.
Rosenberg-KimaR.BaylorA. L.PlantE. A.DoerrC. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on women's attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741–2756.
57.
ShneidermanB.PlaisantC. (2004). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (4th ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
58.
van BreemenA. (2005). iCAT: Experimenting with animabotics. In DautenhahnK.NehanivC.te BoekhorstR.CaameroL.PolaniD.HewittJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (2005) Conference (pp. 27–32). University of Hertforshire, Hatfield, UK.
59.
Van VuurenS. (2007). Technologies that empower pedagogical agents and visions for the future. Educational Technology, 47(1), 4–10.
60.
VeletsianosG. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373–377.
61.
VeletsianosG. (2009). The impact and implication of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 345–357.
62.
VeletsianosG.MillerC. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomeno-logical exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969–986.
63.
VeletsianosG.ScharberC.DoeringA. (2008). When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescent social studies students and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 292–301.
64.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65.
WangN.JohnsonL.MayerR. E.RizzoP.ShawE.CollinsH. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 98–112.
66.
W. T. Grant Consortium on the School-Based Promotions of Social Competence. (1992). Drug and alcohol prevention curricula. In HawkinsJ. (Eds.), Communities that care (pp. 346–347). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
67.
YeeN.BailensonJ. N.UrbanekM.ChangF.MergetD. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. The Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(1), 115–121.
