Skip to main content

Determining the Usability Effect of Pedagogical Interface Agents on Adult Computer Literacy Training

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
E-Learning Paradigms and Applications

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 528))

Abstract

A large part of the population in developing countries is technologically ignorant. Pedagogical interface agents are pieces of educational software with human characteristics that facilitate social learning. The aim of this research was an attempt to evaluate the extent to which a variety of pedagogical educational agents could assist adult learners in acquiring basic computer skills. This was done by conducting a usability test in the context of South African adult computer literacy training. A hundred and three participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or a test group, where after all participants received Microsoft Office Word training (pre-test). Only test group participants were introduced to pedagogical agents (experimental treatment). During the usability test both groups were given tasks to perform. Findings showed that computer illiterate adult users could perform better during literacy training with the assistance of educational agents when compared to only being taught through traditional teaching methods. This could open the doors to more effective ways of reaching and teaching a larger group of previously educationally disadvantaged adults in order to give them a better chance at securing employment in the labour market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Continental Corporation: ABET Against illiteracy in South Africa. http://www.contionline.com/generator/www/com/en/continental/csr/themes/society/education_science/abet_en.html

  2. Lincicum, S.: Introduction to interface agents. http://www.ous.edu/onlinenw/2003/executive/LincicumExecSumm.pdf

  3. Potgieter, L.: Creating different virtual character representations (interface agents) in a simulated MS-WORD environment. BSc Honors Project. University of the Free State, South Africa (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Beuth, Berlin (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rudowsky, I.: Intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, NY (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Giraffa, L.M.M., Viccari, R.M.: The use of agents techniques on intelligent tutoring systems. http://lsm.dei.uc.pt/ribie/docfiles/txt200342413856156.PDF (1998)

  7. Bartneck, C., Croft, E., Kulic, D.: Measuring the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence and perceived safety of robots. In: Proceedings of the Metrics for Human-Robot Interaction Workshop in affiliation. The 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2008), Technical Report 471, University of Hertfordshire, pp. 37–44. Amsterdam (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Angeli, A.D.: Ethical implications of verbal disinhibition with conversational agents. PsychNology J 7(1), 49–57 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wonisch, D., Cooper, G.: Interface agents: preferred appearance characteristics based upon context. http://www.vhml.org/workshops/HF2002/papers/wonisch/wonisch.pdf (2002)

  10. Chou, C.Y., Chan, T.W., Lin, C.J.: Redefining the learning companion: the past, present, and future of educational agents. http://chan.lst.ncu.edu.tw/publications/2003-Chou-rtl.pdf (2003)

  11. Landowska, A.: The role and construction of educational agents in distance learning environments. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Information Technology. Gdansk 19–21 May 2008, pp. 321–324 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Technological Fluency Institute: Computer Literacy: What is computer Literacy & Why is it important. http://www.techfluency.org/computer-literacy.htm

  13. Githens, R.P.: Older adults and e-learning. http://www.rodgithens.com/papers/older_adults_elearning_2007.pdf

  14. Nielsen, J.: Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

  15. Usability.gov: usability basics. http://www.usability.gov/basics/index.html

  16. Peacock, M.: The what, why and how of usability testing. http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-engagement/the-what-why-and-how-of-usability-testing-007152.php

  17. Adebesin, T.F., De Villiers, M.R., Semugabi, S.: Usability testing of e-learning: an approach incorporating co-discovery and think-aloud. http://researchspace.csir.co.za (2009)

  18. Catrambone, R., Stasko, J., Xiao, J.: Anthropomorphic agents as user interface paradigm: experimental findings and a framework for research. In: Cognitive Science Society. The 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2004, pp. 166–171 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Prendiger, H., Mori, J., Ishizuka, M.: Using human physiology to evaluate subtle expressivity of a virtual quizmaster in a mathematical game. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62(2), 231–245 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bickmore, T., Cassel, J.: Social dialogue with embodied conversational agents. In: van Kuppevelt, J., Bernesen, N.O. (eds.) Advances in natural, multimodal dialogue systems. Kluwer, NY (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sahimi, S.M., Zain, F.M., Kamar, N.A.N., Samar, N., Rahman, Z.A., Majid, O., Atan, H., Fook, F.S., Luan, W.S.: The pedagogical agent in online learning: effects of the degree of realism on achievement in terms of gender. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 1(2), 175–185 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Li, I., Forlizzi, J., Dey, A., Kiesler, S.: My agent as myself or another: effects on credibility and listening to advice. In: DPPI’07: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 194–208. NY (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ratan, R., Bailenson, J.N.: Similarity and persuasion in immersive virtual reality. Panel presentation to the Communication and Technology Commission of ICA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. White, M., Foster, M. E., Oberlander, J., Brown, A.: Using facial feedback to enhance turn-taking in a multimodal dialogue system. In: Proceedings of HCI International 2005 Thematic Session on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kim, Y., Wei, Q.: The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Comput. Educ. 56(2011), 505–514 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Carmody, K., Berge, Z.: Pedagogical agents in online learning. http://ww.cogimedia.com/110revised.pdf (2008)

  27. Steve in action. http://www.isi.edu/isd/VET/vet-body.html

  28. Johnson, W.L.: Socially intelligent agent research at CARTE. http://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2000/FS-00-04/FS00-04-015.pdf (2000)

  29. Sabot, A., Aini, Z.I., Lew, T.T.: Computer virus courseware using animated pedagogical agent. http://elib.unirazak.edu.my/staff-publications/iznora/computer%20virus.pdf (2005)

  30. Bertrand, J., Babu, S.V., Polgreen, P., Segre, A.: Virtual agents based simulation for training healthcare workers in hand hygiene procedures. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6356, pp. 125–131 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Foo, K.K.: Effects of pedagogical agents’ instructional roles on learners with different cognitive styles in terms of achievement and motivation. Dissertation, University Sains Malaysia, Penang (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Johnson, B., Christensen, L.: Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE, London (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Department of Labour: Speech by Minister of labour, M. Mdladlana. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/2004/04102015451003.htm

  34. Investorwords. http://www.investorwords.com/3738/population.html

  35. Kendra cherry: What is informed consent? http://psychology.about.com/od/iindex/g/def_informedcon.htm

  36. Tullis, T., Albert, B.: Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Morgan Kaufmann, MA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Telkom Centre of Excellence at the Department of Computer Science and Informatics, University of the Free State, for partially funding this research. Thanks to Mr. Casper Wessels from the Department of Information Technology, Central University of Technology, Free State for providing computers that were used to carry out this research. Our thanks also go to the adult learners from MUCCP for their willingness to participate in this research. Mrs. Suezette Opperman is also thanked for the language editing, and Dr. Melody Mentz for assisting with data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ntima Mabanza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix A

Post-test Questionnaire (without agents)

The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit your personal opinions of the Microsoft Office environment you had worked with while carrying out different tasks for evaluation purposes. Please answer all the questions.

For question 1 to question 23 indicate rate your opinion on a scale of 1–5, place a circle around the appropriate number, where: 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 2 = “Disagree”, 3 = “Not sure”, 4 = “Agree”, 5 = “Strongly agree”

No.

 

SD

D

NS

A

SA

Learning contents provided by the microsoft office

1.

Microsoft office had functionalities I expected it to have

1

2

3

4

5

2.

Microsoft office environment was easy to use

1

2

3

4

5

Effectiveness of the microsoft office help function

3.

I found the microsoft office help function to be useful

1

2

3

4

5

4.

Microsoft office help function provided me with all the necessary information

1

2

3

4

5

5.

Microsoft office help function helped me to quickly learn how to perform a particular task

1

2

3

4

5

6.

Microsoft office help function helped me to recall the different steps involved for a particular task

1

2

3

4

5

7.

Microsoft office help function helped me to complete my tasks quicker

1

2

3

4

5

8.

Microsoft office help function was very practical

1

2

3

4

5

9.

Microsoft office help function assisted me to identify my mistakes when performing a task

1

2

3

4

5

10.

With microsoft office help function, it was quicker and easier for me to recover from a mistake

1

2

3

4

5

11.

I was able to understand the concepts better with the microsoft office help function than I would have without them

1

2

3

4

5

12.

With the help of microsoft office help function I have managed to develop new abilities

1

2

3

4

5

13.

Microsoft office help function helped me to feel more confident about my computer skills

1

2

3

4

5

14.

I trusted the hint from microsoft office help function

1

2

3

4

5

Satisfaction levels about the microsoft office

15.

The interactions with microsoft office were easy

1

2

3

4

5

16.

I was able to use microsoft office successfully

1

2

3

4

5

17.

I felt frustrated working with microsoft office

1

2

3

4

5

18.

I felt nervous when working with microsoft office

1

2

3

4

5

19.

I really had to concentrate to work with microsoft office

1

2

3

4

5

20.

It was exciting working with microsoft office

1

2

3

4

5

21.

Working with microsoft office made me change my attitude towards computers

1

2

3

4

5

22.

My experience with microsoft office encouraged me to learn about other computer programs

1

2

3

4

5

23.

Based on my experience with microsoft office, I can encourage my friends to learn about new concepts

1

2

3

4

5

24. What was the most difficult part when you worked with Microsoft Office? (You may tick more than one option)

Microsoft office environment was distracting

 

Microsoft office help function instructions were too difficult to follow

 

I understood very little from the microsoft office help function

 

Other, please specify:

 

25. What was the best part when you worked with Microsoft Office? (You may tick more than one option)

Easier to get information needed from microsoft office help function

 

Easy to understand and follow microsoft office help function instruction

 

Microsoft office help function instructions were straightforward

 

With Microsoft office help function it was easier to figure out how to perform a particular task

 

Other, please specify:

 

26. Did you enjoy being part of this study?

27. Provide reasons for your answer in question 26.

____________________________________________________________________________

28. How much did you learn from the study overall?

A lot

sufficient

Average

Poor

Nothing

1

2

3

4

5

29. Any general comments or suggestions:

___________________________________________________________________________________

30. I would like to participate in a similar research project in future.

31. If you answered ‘YES’ in question 30, please provide your cell phone number:_________________

Thank you very much for your input in this research.

Appendix B

Post-test Questionnaire (with agents)

The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit your personal opinions of the agents you had worked with while carrying out different tasks for evaluation purposes. Please answer all the questions.

For question 1 to question 25 rate your opinion on a scale of 1-5, circling the appropriate number, where: 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 2 = “Disagree”, 3 = “Not sure”, 4 = “Agree”, 5 = “Strongly agree”

No.

 

SD

D

NS

A

SA

Learning contents provided by the agents

1.

The agents had functions and capabilities I expected

1

2

3

4

5

2.

The agents used a language that was familiar to me

1

2

3

4

5

3.

The agents’ hints provided all the necessary information

1

2

3

4

5

Effectiveness of the agents

4.

The agents’ hints helped me to quickly learn how to perform a particular task

1

2

3

4

5

5.

The agents’ hints helped to recall the different steps involved for a particular task

1

2

3

4

5

6.

The agents’ hints helped me to complete my tasks quicker

1

2

3

4

5

7.

The agents’ hints were very practical

1

2

3

4

5

8.

The agents’ hints assisted me to identify my mistakes when performing a task

1

2

3

4

5

9.

With the agents, it was quicker and easier for me to recover from a mistake

1

2

3

4

5

10.

I was able to understand the concepts better with the agents than I would have without them

1

2

3

4

5

11.

With the help of the agents I have managed to develop new abilities

1

2

3

4

5

Satisfaction levels about the agents

12.

The interactions with the agents were easy

1

2

3

4

5

13.

I was able to use the agents successfully

1

2

3

4

5

14.

I trusted the advice from the agents

1

2

3

4

5

15.

I found the agents to be intelligent

1

2

3

4

5

16.

I found the agents to be friendly

1

2

3

4

5

17.

I felt frustrated working with the agents

1

2

3

4

5

18.

I felt nervous when working with the agents

1

2

3

4

5

19.

I really had to concentrate to work with the agents

1

2

3

4

5

20.

It was exciting working with the agents

1

2

3

4

5

21.

The agents’ hints helped me to feel more confident about my computer skills

1

2

3

4

5

22.

Working with the agents made me change my attitude towards computers

1

2

3

4

5

23.

My experience with these agents encouraged me to find out more about them

1

2

3

4

5

24.

Based on my experience with the agents, I can encourage my friends to use them when learning about new concepts

1

2

3

4

5

25.

I would like to consider using agents when learning other concepts in real life

1

2

3

4

5

For question 26 to question 29 select whether the statement is true of false in terms of your preference

26.

I prefer a male agent to a female agent

True

False

27.

I prefer a cartoon agent to a realistic agent

True

False

28.

I prefer a dog agent to a human agent

True

False

29.

I prefer a text agent to a text and audio agent

True

False

For question 30 to question 32 select the one agent that you liked the most based on the criteria listed below

No.

Liking levels of the agents’ temperament

  

Male text

Female text

Male Text and audio

Female Text and audio

Male cartoon dog

Female cartoon dog

Male cartoon human

Female cartoon human

Male realistic dog

Female realistic dog

30.

Appearance

          

31.

Voice

          

32.

Movement

          

33. For each of these agents, indicate whether you enjoyed working with them or not. Please provide suggestions for improvement.

  

Enjoyable

Frustrating

Suggestions

33.1

Male text agent

   

33.2

Female text agent

   

33.3

Male text and audio agent

   

33.4

Female text and audio agent

   

33.5

Male cartoon dog agent

   

33.6

Female cartoon dog agent

   

33.7

Male cartoon human agent

   

33.8

Female cartoon human agent

   

33.9

Male realistic dog agent

   

33.10

Female realistic dog agent

   

34. Select your first choice of agent in terms of your overall preference and indicate it with an ‘X’ (select only one)

34.1

Male text agent

 

34.2

Female text agent

 

34.3

Male text and audio agent

 

34.4

Female text and audio agent

 

34.5

Male cartoon dog agent

 

34.6

Female cartoon dog agent

 

34.7

Male cartoon human agent

 

34.8

Female cartoon human agent

 

34.9

Male realistic dog agent

 

34.10

Female realistic dog agent

 

35. Please give a brief reason for your 1st choice rating in question 34 (e.g. 1st choice agent was friendly, intelligent, attractive, etc.).

1st _______________________________________________________________________________

36. What was the most difficult part when you worked with agents? (You may tick more than one option)

Agents were distracting

 

Agents were speaking too fast

 

I understood very little of what the agents said

 

Agents were saying the same things over and over again

 

Other, please specify:

 

37. What was the best part when you worked with agents? (You may tick more than one option)

Easier to get information needed

 

Easy to understand what the agents said

 

Agents’ help and hints were straightforward

 

Easier to figure out how to perform a particular task

 

Other, please specify:

 

38. Did you enjoy being part of this study?

39. Provide reasons for your answer in question 38.

_________________________________________________________________________________

40. How much did you learn from the study overall?

A lot

sufficient

Average

Poor

Nothing

1

2

3

4

5

41. Any general comments or suggestions:

___________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

42. I would like to participate in a similar research project in future.

43. If you answered ‘YES’ in question 42, please provide your cell phone number: _____________________

Thank you very much for your input in this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mabanza, N., de Wet, L. (2014). Determining the Usability Effect of Pedagogical Interface Agents on Adult Computer Literacy Training. In: Ivanović, M., Jain, L. (eds) E-Learning Paradigms and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 528. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41965-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41965-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-41964-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41965-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics