Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Architecture and interaction protocol for pedagogical-empathic agents in 3D virtual learning environments

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes an interaction design architecture and an interaction protocol for the construction of pedagogical agents acting in distributed 3D learning environments. Agents designed based on the proposed architecture are able to interact verbally, non-verbally or both with the students, combining empathic and pedagogical behavioral parameters in order to support students during online educational activities. The representation of the agent results from both pedagogical and emotional factors and is related with the learning environment and its technology. The agent logic is based on three types of the learning environment’s events: (a) emotional events, (b) pedagogical events and (c) events that are triggered by the environment itself. The proposed architecture is validated through the implementation of an autonomous pedagogical-empathic agent in the virtual environment of OpenSim. The agent observes students’ anxiety during the learning process and reacts when their anxiety level is considered high.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aguilar RA, Antonio AD, Imbert R (2006) Pedagogical Virtual Agents to Support Training of Human Groups, Electronics, In: Proc. Of the Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference (CERMA'06). Cuernavaca 2006:149–154

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aimeur E, Frasson C (1996) Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Comput Educ 27(2):115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arafa Y, Dionisi G, Fehin P (2000) Compaq et al. This document is a deliverable of the MAPPA project Agent-to-Human interaction - principles, a project performed within the ESPRIT programme (project identifier EP28831)

  4. Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (2018) https://www.aapb.org. Accessed April 2018

  5. Bellifemine F, Caire G, Greenwood D, (2007) Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 4 Agent Technology Overview

  6. Carnegie Mellon University (2018) http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~softagents/multi.html. Accessed April 2018

  7. Chan TW, Baskin AB (1990) Learning companion systems. In: Frasson C, Gauthier G (eds) Intelligent tutoring systems at the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, pp 7–33

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen GD, Lee JH, Wang CY, Chao PY, Li LY, Lee TY (2012) An Empathic Avatar in a Computer-Aided Learning Program to Encourage and Persuade Learners. Educational Technology & Society 15(2):62–72

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chopra AK, Artikis A, Bentahar J, Colombetti M, Dignum F, Fornara N, Jones AJI, Singh MP, Yolum P (2013) Research directions in agent communication. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 4, 2, Article 20, 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2438653.2438655

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chou, CY, Chan T-W, Lin C-J (2003) Redefining the learning companion: the past, present and future of educational agents. Comput Educ 40(3):255–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clark R, Feldon D (2014) Ten Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning. In: Mayer R (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.009

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cook DJ (2009) Multi-agent smart environments, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments 1, IOS Press pp. 51–55. https://doi.org/10.3233/AIS-2009-0007

  13. Damasio A (1994) Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York

  14. De Lucia A, Francese R, Passero I, Tortora G (2009) Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Comput Educ 52:220–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dillenbourg P, Self J (1992) People power: A human-computer collaborative learning system. In: G.G. Frasson C, McCalla G (ed.) The 2nd international conference of intelligent tutoringsystems, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 608), Springer-Verlag, pp. 651–660

  16. Elliott C, Rickel J, Lester J (1999) Lifelike pedagogical agents and affective computing: An exploratory synthesis, In: Wooldridge MJ, Veloso M (eds), Artificial intelligence today. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 1600. Springer, Berlin, pp 195–211

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 2000, http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061/, Accessed July, 24 2017

  18. FIPA, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2018) http://www.fipa.org. Accessed April 2018

  19. Franklin S, Graesser A (1996) Is it an Agent, or Just a Program? In: Müller JP, Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (eds), Proc. Of the Workshop on Intelligent Agents III, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ECAI '96). Springer-Verlag, London, pp 21–35

  20. Gill S, Kolt GS, Keating J (2004) Examining the multi-process theory: an investigation of the effects of two relaxation techniques on state anxiety. J Bodyw Mov Ther 8(4):288–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Human-Agent Communications Working Group (HAC WG) (2018) Website, http://www.fipa.org/subgroups/HAC-WG.html. Accessed April 2018

  22. Hmelo-Silver C (2002) Collaborative Ways of Knowing: issues in facilitation. In: Stahl G (ed), Proc Of the Conf on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community (CSCL '02), 2002. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, pp 199–208

  23. Izard CE (2009) Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions and Emerging Issues. Annu Rev Psychol 60:1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jarmon L, Traphagan T, Mayrath M, Trivedi A (2009) Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Comput Educ 53:169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson WL, Rickel JW, Lester JC (2000) Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int J Artif Intell Educ 11:47–78

    Google Scholar 

  26. Keil D, Goldin D (2006) Indirect Interaction in Environments for Multi-agent Systems. In: Weyns D, Van Dyke Parunak H, Michel F (eds) Environments for Multi-Agent Systems II. E4MAS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3830. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kim Y, Baylor AL (2006) A social–cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educ Technol Res Dev 54(6):569–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim Y, Thayne J, Wei Q (2017) Education. Tech Research Dev 65:219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9476-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Konstantinidis A, Tsiatsos T, Terzidou T, Pomportsis A (2010) Fostering collaborative learning in Second Life: Metaphors and affordances. Comput Educ 55(2):603–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Landowska A (2013) Affect-awareness Framework for Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In: Proc. Of the 6th International Conference on Human System Interaction (HSI) Conf., 2013. IEEE, Sopot, pp 540–547

  31. Larson HA, El Ramahi MK, Conn SR, Estes LA, Ghibellini AB (2010) Reducing Test Anxiety among Third Grade Students through the Implementation of Relaxation Techniques. Journal of School Counseling 8(19):n19

    Google Scholar 

  32. Linnenbrink EA (2007) The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In: Schutz PA, Pekrun R (eds) Educational psychology series. Elsevier Academic, San Diego, pp 107–124

    Google Scholar 

  33. Luck M, Griffiths N, d’Invernoy M (1997) From Agent Theory to Agent Construction: A Case Study, In Intelligent Agents III: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, Mueller, Wooldridge and Jennings (ed.), Lecture Notes in AI, 1193, pp. 49–63, Springer-Verlag

  34. Maes P (1991) Designing Autonomous Agents: Theory and Practice from Biology to Engineering and Back. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Miller RL, Benz JJ, Wysocki DK (2002) Encouraging collaborative learning: Computer-mediated conferencing or Fishbowl interaction, Available from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472925.pdf. Accessed July, 24 2017

  36. Moreno R, Mayer RE, Spires HA, Lester JC (2001) The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn Instr 19(2):177–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Odell J, Parunka VDH, Fleischer M (2003) Modeling Agents and their Environment: The Communication Environment. Journal of Object Technology 2(3):39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Olafson KM, Ferraro FR (2001) Effects of emotional state on lexical decision performance. Brain Cogn 45:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Open Metaverse Foundation (2018) http://openmetaverse.co/. Accessed April 2018

  40. OpenSimulator (2018) Website http://opensimulator.org. Retrieved April 2018

  41. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Russell SJ, Norvig P (2009) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall Press, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Soliman M, Guetl C (2010) Intelligent Pedagogical Agents in Immersive Virtual Learning Environments: A Review. In: The 33rd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO 2010). Opatija-Croatia, pp 827–832

  44. Soller A, Jermann P, Muhlenbrock M, Martinez A (2004) Designing Computational Models of Collaborative Learning Interaction. In: Proc Of the 2nd International Workshop on Designing Computational Models of Collaborative Learning Interaction (ITS 2004). Maceío, Brazil, pp 5–12

  45. Takatoa R, Okamoto T (2005) A Design of Interaction Model among Pedagogical Agents in Collaborative Teaching Process. Computer Science and Information Systems 2(2):23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Terzidou T, Tsiatsos T (2015) Pedagogical Agents in 3D Learning Environments. In: Khosrow-Pour M (ed) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, 3rd edn. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 2572–2581. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch250

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Ur S, VanLehn K (1995) Steps: A simulated, tutorable physics student. J Artif Intell Educ 6(4):405–435

    Google Scholar 

  48. Vandenbos GR (2015) APA dictionary of psychology, 2nd edn. American Psychological Association

  49. Veletsianos G, Miller C (2008) Conversing with Pedagogical Agents: A Phenomenological Exploration of Interacting with Digital Entities. Br J Educ Technol 39(6):969–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Videira LC (2011) Hypergrid: Architecture and Protocol for Virtual World Interoperability. IEEE Internet Comput 15(5):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Weka (2018) http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/. Accessed April 2018

  52. Williams CK, Rasmussen CE (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. the MIT Press, www.GaussianProcess.org/gpml. Accessed July, 24 2017

  53. Wooldridge M (1999) Intelligent Agents. In: Weiss G (ed) Multiagents Systems. A modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 27–77

  54. Wooldridge M, Jennings N (1995) Intelligent Agents. Theory and Practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(2):115–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Apostolidis H, Stylianidis P, Tsiatsos T (2014) Anxiety awareness in education: a prototype biofeedback device. In: Karagiannidis C, Politis P, Karasavvidis I (eds) Research on e-Learning and ICT in Education. Springer, New York, pp 227–285

    Google Scholar 

  56. Terzidou T, Tsiatsos T, Miliou C, Sourvinou A (2016) Agent supported serious game environment. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 9(3):217–230. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2521649

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the end users for their support in the evaluation of the presented agent implementation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Theodouli Terzidou, Τhrasyvoulos Tsiatsos & Hippokratis Apostolidis

Authors
  1. Theodouli Terzidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Τhrasyvoulos Tsiatsos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hippokratis Apostolidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Τhrasyvoulos Tsiatsos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Terzidou, T., Tsiatsos, Τ. & Apostolidis, H. Architecture and interaction protocol for pedagogical-empathic agents in 3D virtual learning environments. Multimed Tools Appl 77, 27661–27684 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-5942-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-5942-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation