By using intelligent agents to simulate instruction, agent-based learning environments can serve as a powerful research tool to investigate teaching and learning. The agent metaphor provides a way to operationalize and simulate the “human” aspect of instruction in a more ecologically valid way than other controlled computer-based methods. Additionally, from an architectural perspective, since agents are independent objects in the learning environment, it allows for more flexibility in research design. In particular, agent-based learning environments with multiple agents, such as MIMIC (Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively), allow for investigating the effect of multiple mentors or multiple perspectives on a learning topic. Preliminary results from MIMIC research indicate that multiple agents can serve to effectively operationalize instructional theory. In terms of overall impact, creating agent-based learning environments to investigate instructional issues is at the leading edge of revitalized research integrating artificial intelligence with education, and in exploring new paradigms for researching teaching and learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkhrasF. N., & SelfJ. A. (2000). System Intelligence in Constructivist Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2000, 11.
BallG.LingD.KurlanderD.MillerJ.PughD.KellyT.StankoskyA.ThielD.Van DantzichM., & WaxT. (1997). Lifelike computer characters: The persona project at Microsoft. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software Agents (pp. 191–222). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
4.
BatesJ. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37: 7, 122–125.
5.
BaylorA. L. (1998). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools in education. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, Missouri.
6.
BaylorA. L. (1999a). Foundations for designing MIMIC, an intelligent agent-based learning environment. Paper presented at the International Conference of Technology in Education (ICTE), Tampa, FL.
7.
BaylorA. L. (1999b). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools. Educational Technology, 39: 2, 36–40.
8.
BaylorA. L. (1999c). Intelligent agents for education. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
9.
BaylorA. L. (1999d). Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively (MIMIC): Developing a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA.
10.
BaylorA. L. (1999e). Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively (MIMIC): An intelligent agent-based learning environment for learning instructional design. Invited full proposal to National Science Foundation in Knowledge Distributed Intelligence: Learning Intelligent Systems Division, May 1999.
11.
BaylorA. L. (2000a). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22: 4, 373–382.
12.
BaylorA. L. (2000b). A framework for MIMIC, an intelligent agent-based learning environment. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Long Beach.
13.
BaylorA. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12: 4, 403–425.
14.
BaylorA. L., & JafariA. (1999). What are the possibilities of intelligent agents for education? Paper presented at the International Conference of Technology in Education (ICTE), Tampa, Florida.
15.
BaylorA. L., & JafariA. (2000). Intelligent agents for education: Possibilities and realities. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Long Beach.
16.
BaylorA. L.KitsantasA., & ChungH. (2001). The Instructional Planning Self-Reflective Tool (IPSRT): A method for promoting effective lesson planning. Educational Technology, 41: 2, 56–59.
17.
BaylorA. L., & KozbeB. (1998). A personal intelligent mentor for promoting meta-cognition in solving logic word puzzles. Paper presented at the Workshop “Current Trends and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education” at The Fourth World Congress on Expert Systems, Mexico City, Mexico.
18.
BehmC. (1996). Connections across cultures: Inviting multiple perspectives into classrooms of science, technology, math, and engineering, ERIC reference ED408171.
19.
BennettC., & SpaldingE. (1992). Teaching the social studies: Multiple approaches for multiple perspectives. Theory and Research in Social Education, 20: 3, 263–292.
20.
BonkC. (1998). Electronic collaborators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
BrophyS.BiswasG.KatzlbergerT.BransfordJ., & SchwartzD. (1999). Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science, Paper presented at the AI-ED 99, LeMans, France.
22.
CassellJ., & ThorissonK. R. (1999). The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13: 4–5, 519–538.
23.
DickW., & CareyL. (1996). The systematic design of instruction: Addison-Wesley Longman.
24.
DietzR. B., & LangA. (1999). Effective agents: Effects of agent affect on arousal, attention, liking and learning. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Technology Conference '99, San Francisco, California.
25.
DillenbourgP.MendelsohnP., & SchneiderD. (1994). The distribution of pedagogical roles in a multiagent learning environment. In LewisR. & MendelsohnP. (Eds.), Lessons from learning (pp. 199–216). New York: Elsevier.
26.
DriscollM. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
27.
El-KhoulyM.FarB., & KoonoZ. (1999). Agent-based computer tutorial system: An experiment for teaching computer languages. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10: 3/4, 275–286.
28.
EricksonT. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
29.
GlaserR., & ChiM. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert? In ChiM.GlaserR., & FarrM. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxiix). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.
30.
HietalaP., & NiemirepoT. (1998). Multiple artificial teachers: How do learners cope with a multi-agent learning environment? Paper presented at the Workshop on Current Trends and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education at The Fourth World Congress on Expert Systems, Mexico City, Mexico.
31.
JohnsonW. L.RickelJ. W., & LesterJ. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2000: 11, 47–78.
KitsantasA., & BaylorA. L. (2001). The impact of the IPSRT (Instructional Planning Self-Reflective Tool) on preservice teachers' performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49: 4, 101–110.
KodaT., & MaesP. (1996). Agents with face: The effects of personification of agents. Paper presented at the HCI '96, London, United Kingdom.
36.
KrajckJ. S. (1996). The casebook of project practices—An example of an interactive multimedia system for professional development. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 15: 1/2, 119–135.
37.
LampertM., & BallD. (1990). Using hypermedia technology to support a new pedagogy of teacher education (Paper 90–5): National Center for Research on Teacher Education, 116 Erickson Hall, College of Education, Michigan State University.
38.
LaurelB. (1990). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In LaurelB. (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
39.
LaurelB. (1997). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 67–78). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
40.
LaurelB.OrenT., & DonA. (1990). Issues in multimedia interface design: Media integration and interface agents. Paper presented at the CHI'90 Human Factors in Computing Systems.
41.
LepperM. R., & ChabayR. W. (1987). Socializing the intelligent tutor: Bringing empathy to computer tutors. In MandlH. & LesgoldA. (Eds.), Learning issues for intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 242–257). New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
LesterJ. C.ConverseS. A.KahlerS. E.BarlowS. T.StoneB. A., & BhogaR. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the CHI'97 Human Factors in Computing Systems.
43.
LesterJ. C., & StoneB. A. (1997). Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents.
44.
LiebermanH., & MaulsbyD. (1996). Instructible agents: Software that just keeps getting better. IBM Systems Journal, 35: 3/4, 539–556.
45.
MaesP. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM, 37: 7, 31–40.
46.
MaesP. (1997). Agents that reduce work and information overload. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 145–164). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
47.
MaloneT. W.LaiK.-Y., & GrantK. R. (1997). Agents for information sharing and coordination: A history and some reflection. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 109–144). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
48.
McArthurD.LewisM., & BishayM. (1993). The roles of artificial intelligence in education: Current progress and future prospects. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
49.
NegroponteN. (1970). The architecture machine: Towards a more human environment. MIT Press.
50.
NegroponteN. (1997). Agents: From direct manipulation to delegation. In BradshawJ. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 57–66). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
51.
NormanD. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
52.
OrenT.SalomonG.KreitmanK., & DonA. (1990). Guides: Characterizing the Interface. In LaurelB. (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 367–381). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
53.
PalinscarA., & BrownA. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1: 2, 117–175.
54.
PressleyM., & McCormickC. (1995). Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policymakers. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
55.
ReevesB., & NassC. (1996). The Media Equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
56.
ReiserR. A., & DickW. (1996). Instructional Planning: A guide for teachers. Allyn and Bacon.
57.
SalomonG. (1993). On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: The case of the writing partner. Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 179–196). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
58.
SalomonG.OrenT., & KreitmanL. (1989). Using guides to explore multimedia databases. Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Washington, D.C.
59.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N., & GlobersonT. (1991). Partners in Cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Research, 20: 3, 2–9.
60.
SeikerT. (1994). Coach: A teaching agent that learns. Communications of the ACM, 37: 7, 92–99.
61.
ShneidermanB. (1992). Designing the User Interface (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
62.
SchneidermanB. (1997). Direct manipulation versus agents: Paths to predictable, controllable, and comprehensible interfaces. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software Agents (pp. 97–108). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
63.
WhatleyJ.StanifordG.BeerM., & ScownP. (1999). Intelligent agents to support students working in groups online. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10: 3/4, 361–374.
64.
WhiteB. Y.ShimodaT. A., & FrederiksenJ. R. (2000). Facilitating students' inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In LajoieS. P. (Ed.). Computers as cognitive tools Vol. 2: No more walls (pp. 97–132), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
