The purpose of this experimental study was to test the role of image and animation on: a) learners' perceptions of pedagogical agent persona characteristics (i.e., extent to which agent was person-like, engaging, credible, and instructor-like); b) agent value; and c) performance. The primary analysis consisted of two contrast comparisons: 1) comparing the presence/absence of agent image; and 2) comparing static versus animated agent images. In the study, 75 preservice teachers developed an instructional plan for a case study involving designing economics instruction for the concepts of supply and demand within the MIMIC (Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively) agent-based environment. Overall, animation was found to be beneficial for all four persona characteristics, but not always as the single best implementation. For the agent to be perceived as instructor-like, a strong positive effect was found for the presence of agent animation. Agent credibility was facilitated by either a static or animated image, with the presence of an image being critical. Perceptions of the agent as engaging and person-like were also improved by animation, although person-like was not affected by presence/absence of image. Results are discussed in terms of implementing anthropomorphic pedagogical agents to support computer-based instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 412–427.
2.
BaylorA. L. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.
3.
BaylorA. L. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373–382.
4.
BaylorA. L. (2001a). Investigating multiple pedagogical perspectives through MIMIC (Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively). Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED) International Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
5.
BaylorA. L. (2001b). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.
6.
BaylorA. L. (2002a). Agent-based learning environments for investigating teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249–270.
7.
BaylorA. L. (2002b). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5–22.
8.
BishopM. J.CatesW. M. (2001). Theoretical foundations for sound's use in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(3), 5–22.
9.
BurgoonJ. K.BonitoJ. A.BengtssonB.CederbergC.LundebergM.AllspachL. (2000). Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 553–574.
10.
BurgoonJ. K.PfauM.BirkT. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169.
11.
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.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
13.
DehnD. M.van MulkenS. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1–22.
14.
DriscollM. P. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
15.
EkmanP. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.
16.
EricksonT. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software Agents (pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: The MIT Press.
17.
ErtmerP.RussellJ. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, 35(4), 23–31.
GratchJ. (2000). Socially situated planning. Paper presented at the AAAI Fall Symposium on Socially Intelligent Agents (Agents 2000).
20.
HarpS.MayerR. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.
21.
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.
22.
KodaT.MaesP. (1996). Agents with face: The effects of personification of agents. Paper presented at the HCI '96, London, UK.
23.
LaurelB. (1997). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 67–78). Menlo Park, CA: The MIT Press.
24.
LesterJ.TownsS. G.FitzGeraldS. G. (1999). Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(3–4), 278–291.
25.
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 CRI '97 Human Factors in Computing Systems.
26.
MaesP. (1997). Agents that reduce work and information overload. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 145–164). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
27.
MarakasG. M. (2000). A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: When the metaphor becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52, 719–750.
28.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.
29.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
30.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2000). Meaningful design for meaningful learning: Applying cognitive theory to multimedia explanations. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2000, Montreal, Canada.
31.
MorenoR.MayerR. E.LesterJ. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2000, Montreal, Canada.
32.
MorenoR.MayerR. E.SpiresH. A.LesterJ. (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), 117–213.
33.
MousaviS.LowR.SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.
34.
NassC.SteuerJ. (1993). Anthropomorphism, agency, and thopoeia: Computers as social actors. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 504–527.
35.
NormanD. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In BradshawJ. M. (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). Menlo Park, CA: The MIT Press.
36.
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.
37.
PrendingerH.IshizukaM. (2001a). Carrying the role-playing metgphor to interactive learning environments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI-2001).
38.
PrendingerH.IshizukaM. (2001b). Social role awareness in animated agents. Paper presented at the Agents 2001, Montreal, Canada.
39.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
40.
ReiserR. A.DickW. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
41.
RousseauD.Hayes-RothB. (1998). A social-psychological model for synthetic actors. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents '98).
42.
WalkerJ.SproullL.SubramaniR. (1994). Computers are social actors. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '94 Conference Proceedings.
