H. Chad Lane
- American Psychological Association. 2014. Prosody in speech and song. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/peeps/issue-29.Google Scholar
- S. Anasingaraju, N. Adamo-Villani, and H. N. Dib. 2020. The contribution of different body channels to the expression of emotion in animated pedagogical agents. Int. J. Technol. Hum. Interact. 16, 4, 70–88. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier. 1995. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. J. Learn. Sci. 4, 2, 167–207. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. K. Atkinson, R. E. Mayer, and M. M. Merrill. 2005. Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 30, 1, 117–139. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. P. Aylett, L. Clark, B. R. Cowan, and I. Torre. 2021. Building and designing expressive speech synthesis. In B. Lugrin, C. Pelachaud, and D. Traum (Eds.), The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents: 20 years of Research on Embodied Conversational Agents, Intelligent Virtual Agents, and Social Robotics Volume 1: Methods, Behavior, Cognition. ACM Press, 173–211. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. F. L. Azevedo, D. Morrow, J. Graumlich, A. Willemsen-Dunlap, M. Hasegawa-Johnson, T. S. Huang, K. Gu, S. Bhat, T. Sakakini, V. Sadauskas, and D. J. Halpin. 2018. Using conversational agents to explain medication instructions to older adults. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2018, 185–194.Google Scholar
- A. L. Baylor. 2005. The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. In International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- A. L. Baylor and Y. Kim. 2004. Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, and F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Vol. 3220: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, 592–603. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. M. Bell, L. Martinez, M. Gotsis, H. C. Lane, J. N. Davis, L. Antunez-Castillo, G. Ragusa, and D. Spruijt-Metz. 2018. Virtual sprouts: A virtual gardening pilot intervention increases self-efficacy to cook and eat fruits and vegetables in minority youth. Games Health J. 7, 2, 127–135. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Belpaeme, J. Kennedy, A. Ramachandran, B. Scassellati, and F. Tanaka. 2018. Social robots for education: A review. Sci. Robot. 3, 21. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Bickmore. 2022. Health-related applications of socially interactive agents. In B. Lugrin, C. Pelachaud, and D. Traum (Eds.), The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents: 20 years of Research on Embodied Conversational Agents, Intelligent Virtual Agents, and Social Robotics Volume 2: Interactivity, Platforms, Application. ACM Press, 403–435. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. W. Bickmore and R. W. Picard. 2005. Establishing and maintaining long-term human–computer relationships. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 2, 293–327. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. W. Bickmore, D. Schulman, and C. Sidner. 2013. Automated interventions for multiple health behaviors using conversational agents. Patient Educ. Couns. 92, 2, 142–148. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Biswas, J. R. Segedy, and K. Bunchongchit. 2016. From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty’s Brain. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 1, 350–364. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. S. Bloom. 1984. The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educ. Res. 13, 6, 4–16. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. A. Calvo, S. D’Mello, J. M. Gratch, and A. Kappas. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Affective Computing. Oxford Library of Psychology.Google Scholar
- J. Cassell. 2022. Socially interactive agents as peers. In B. Lugrin, C. Pelachaud, and D. Traum (Eds.), The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents: 20 years of Research on Embodied Conversational Agents, Intelligent Virtual Agents, and Social Robotics Volume 2: Interactivity, Platforms, Application. ACM Press, 331–365. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Castro-Alonso, R. M. Wong, O. O. Adesope, and F. Paas. 2021. Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev. 33, 989–1015. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. T. H. Chi, S. A. Siler, H. Jeong, T. Yamauchi, and R. G. Hausmann. 2001. Learning from human tutoring. Cogn. Sci. 25, 4, 471–533. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. K. Chiou, N. L. Schroeder, and S. D. Craig. 2020. How we trust, perceive, and learn from virtual humans: The influence of voice quality. Comput. Educ. 146, 103756. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Choi and R. E. Clark. 2006. Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 34, 4, 441–466. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. E. Clark and S. Choi. 2005. Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 32, 3, 209–225. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. E. Clark and S. Choi. 2007. The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to Veletsianos. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 36, 4, 379–381. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. W. Cook, H. S. Friedman, K. A. Duggan, J. Cui, and V. Popescu. 2017. Hand gesture and mathematics learning: Lessons from an avatar. Cogn. Sci. 41, 2, 518–535. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. D. Craig and N. L. Schroeder. 2017. Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Comput. Educ. 114, 193–205. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Craig and N. L. Schroeder. 2018. Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In Deep Comprehension. Routledge, 128–139. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. D. Craig and N. L. Schroeder. 2019. Text-to-speech software and learning: Investigating the relevancy of the voice effect. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57, 6, 1534–1548. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. O. Davis. 2018. The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 24, 193–209. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. O. Davis, J. Vincent, and T. Park. 2019. Reconsidering the voice principle with non-native language speakers. Comput. Educ. 140, 103605. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. M. Dehn and S. van Mulken. 2000. The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52, 1, 1–22. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Dermeval, R. Paiva, I. I. Bittencourt, J. Vassileva, and D. Borges. 2018. Authoring tools for designing intelligent tutoring systems: A systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 28, 3, 336–384. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Edwards, C. Edwards, P. R. Spence, C. Harris, and A. Gambino. 2016. Robots in the classroom: Differences in students’ perceptions of credibility and learning between “teacher as robot” and “robot as teacher.” Comput. Hum. Behav. 65, 627–634. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. M. Estepp and T. Roberts. 2015. Teacher immediacy and professor/student rapport as predictors of motivation and engagement. NACTA J. 59, 2, 155–163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.59.2.155.Google Scholar
- C. Frechette, and R. Moreno. 2010. The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. J. Media Psychol. 22, 2, 61–72. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Ginns, A. J. Martin, and H. W. Marsh. 2013. Designing instructional text in a conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 25, 4, 445–472. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Goldin-Meadow. 2003. Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- A. C. Graesser, K. VanLehn, C. P. Rose, P. W. Jordan, and D. Harter. 2001. Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Mag. 22, 4, 39–51. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. C. Graesser, C. M. Forsyth, and B. A. Lehman. 2017. Two heads may be better than one: Learning from computer agents in conversational trialogues. Teach. Coll. Rec. 119, 3, 1–20. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Gratch, N. Wang, J. Gerten, E. Fast, and R. Duffy. 2007. Creating rapport with virtual agents. In C. Pelachaud, J. Martin, E. Andre, G. Chollet, K. Karpouzis, and D. Pele (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Vol. 4722: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 125–138. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gulz. 2004. Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 14, 3, 313–334.Google Scholar
- A. Hartholt, D. Traum, S. C. Marsella, A. Shapiro, G. Stratou, A. Leuski, L. P. Morency, and J. Gratch. 2013. All together now. In R. Aylett, B. Krenn, C. Pelachaud, and H. Shimodaira (Eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents, Vol. 8108: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Heidig and G. Clarebout. 2011. Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educ. Res. Rev. 6, 1, 27–54. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. L. Johnson and J. C. Lester. 2016. Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 1, 25–36. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. L. Johnson, J. Rickel, and J. C. Lester. 2000. Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 11, 47–48.http://ihelp.usask.ca/iaied/ijaied/abstracts/Vol_11/johnson.html.Google Scholar
- J. Kay. 2008. Lifelong learner modeling for lifelong personalized pervasive learning. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 1, 4, 215–228. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Kay and B. Kummerfeld. 2012. Lifelong learner modeling. Adaptive Technologies for Training and Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 140–164. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Kim and A. L. Baylor. 2016. Research based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 1, 160–169. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. C. King, M. I. Campero, J. L. Sheats, C. M. Castro Sweet, M. E. Hauser, D. Garcia, A. Chazaro, G. Blanco, J. Banda, D. K. Ahn, J. Fernandez, and T. Bickmore. 2020. Effects of counseling by peer human advisors vs computers to increase walking in underserved populations: The COMPASS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 180, 11, 1481–1490. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Krämer and G. Bente. 2010. Personalizing e-learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 1, 71–87. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. A. Kulik and J. D. Fletcher. 2016. Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 86, 1, 42–78. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Kumpulainen and D. Wray (Eds.). 2003. Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: From Theory to Practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
- H. C. Lane. 2016. Pedagogical agents and affect: Molding positive learning interactions. In S. Y. Tettegah and M. Gartmeier (Eds.), Emotions, Technology, Design, & Learning. Academic Press, 47–61. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. C. Lane, D. Noren, D. Auerbach, M. Birch, and W. Swartout. 2011. Intelligent tutoring goes to the museum in the big city: A pedagogical agent for informal science education. In G. Biswas and S. Bull (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED2011), Vol. 6738: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 155–162. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. C. Lane, C. Cahill, S. Foutz, D. Auerbach, D. Noren, C. Lussenhop, and W. Swartout. 2013. The effects of a pedagogical agent for informal science education on learner behaviors and self-efficacy. In H. C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow and P. Pavlik (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED2013), Vol. 6738: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 309–318. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. C. Lane, M. G. Core, M. J. Hays, D. Auerbach, and M. Rosenberg. 2015. Situated pedagogical authoring: Authoring intelligent tutors from a student’s perspective. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 9112: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, 195–204. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. P. Lawson, R. E. Mayer, N. Adamo-Villani, B. Benes, X. Lei, and J. Cheng. 2021a. Do learners recognize and relate to the emotions displayed by virtual instructors? Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 31, 1, 134–153. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. P. Lawson, R. E. Mayer, N. Adamo-Villani, B. Benes, X. Lei, and J. Cheng. 2021b. Recognizing the emotional state of human and virtual instructors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 114, 106554. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, and K. Knutson. 2003. Learning Conversations in Museums. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- H. Li and A. C. Graesser. 2021. The impact of conversational agents’ language on summary writing. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 53, 1, 44–66. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Lugrin. 2021. Introduction to socially interactive agents. In B. Lugrin, C. Pelachaud, and D. Traum (Eds.), The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents: 20 years of Research on Embodied Conversational Agents, Intelligent Virtual Agents, and Social Robotics Volume 1: Methods, Behavior, Cognition. ACM Press, 1–18. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Lugrin, C. Pelachaud, and D. Traum. (Eds.). 2021. The Handbook on Socially Interactive Agents: 20 years of Research on Embodied Conversational Agents, Intelligent Virtual Agents, and Social Robotics Volume 1: Methods, Behavior, Cognition. ACM Press, 538 pages. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Matsuda, E. Yarzebinski, V. Keiser, R. Raizada, W. W. Cohen, G. J. Stylianides, and K. R. Koedinger. 2013. Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: Lessons learned with SimStudent. J. Educ. Psychol. 105, 4, 1152. DOI: Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. E. Mayer. 2014. Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. E. Mayer’s (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd. ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 345–368. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. E. Mayer, K. Sobko, and P. D. Mautone. 2003. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 2, 419. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. C. Merrill, B. J. Reiser, M. Ranney, and J. G. Trafton. 1992. Effective tutoring techniques: A comparison of human tutors and intelligent tutoring systems. J. Learn. Sci. 2, 3, 277–305. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. L. Z. Montenegro, C. A. da Costa, and R. da Rosa Righi. 2019. Survey of conversational agents in health. Expert Syst. Appl. 129, 56–67. .Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Moreno. 2005. Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook on Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, 507–524. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Moreno and T. Flowerday. 2006. Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 31, 2, 186–207. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. G. Morrow, H. C. Lane, and W. A. Rogers. 2021. A framework for design of conversational agents to support health self-care for older adults. Hum. Factors 63, 3, 369–378. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- O. Mubin, C. J. Stevens, S. Shahid, A. Al Mahmud, and J.-J. Dong. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. J. Technol. Educ. Learn. 1, 209–0015, 1–7. .Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Murray, S. Blessing, and S. Ainsworth. 2003. Authoring Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- M. Obaid, R. Aylett, W. Barendregt, C. Basedow, L. J. Corrigan, L. Hall, A. Jones, A. Kappas, D. Küster, A. Paiva, F. Papadopoulos, S. Serholt, and G. Castellano. 2018. Endowing a robotic tutor with empathic qualities: Design and pilot evaluation. Int. J. Hum. Robot. 15, 06, 1850025. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Ozogul, A. M. Johnson, R. K. Atkinson, and M. Reisslein. 2013. Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Comput. Educ. 67, 36–50. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. S. Palincsar and A. L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cogn. Instr. 1, 2, 117–175. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233567.Google Scholar
- P. I. Pavlik, L. G. Eglington and L. M. Harrell-Williams. 1 October. 2021. Logistic knowledge tracing: A constrained framework for learner modeling. In IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, Vol. 14, 5, 624–639. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. L. Pressey. 1926. A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores—and teaches. School and Society 23, 586, 373–376.Google Scholar
- B. Reeves and C. Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- M. Rheu, J. Y. Shin, W. Peng, and J. Huh-Yoo. 2021. Systematic review: Trust-building factors and implications for conversational agent design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 37, 1, 81–96. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Rickel and W. L. Johnson. 1997. Integrating pedagogical capabilities in a virtual environment agent. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents. ACM, 30–38. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. P. Rowe, L. R. Shores, B. W. Mott, and J. C. Lester. 2011. Integrating learning, problem solving, and engagement in narrative-centered learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 21, 1, 115–133. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Ryu and A. L. Baylor. 2005. The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technol. Instr. Cogn. Learn. 2, 4, 291–315.Google Scholar
- M. Saerbeck, T. Schut, C. Bartneck, and M. D. Janse. 2010. Expressive robots in education: Varying the degree of social supportive behavior of a robotic tutor. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1613–1622. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. L. Schroeder. 2017. The influence of a pedagogical agent on learners’ cognitive load. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20, 4, 138–147. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26229212.Google Scholar
- N. L. Schroeder and O. O. Adesope. 2014. A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 46, 3, 229–251. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. L. Schroeder and C. M. Gotch. 2015. Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 53, 2, 183–204. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. L. Schroeder and S. D. Craig. 2021. Learning with virtual humans: Introduction to the special issue. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 53, 1, 1–7. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. L. Schroeder, O. O. Adesope, and R. B. Gilbert. 2013. How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49, 1, 1–39. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. L. Schroeder, W. L. Romine, and S. D. Craig. 2017. Measuring pedagogical agent persona and the influence of agent persona on learning. Comput. Educ. 109, 176–186. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. L. Schroeder, F. Yang, T. Banerjee, W. L. Romine, and S. D. Craig. 2018. The influence of learners’ perceptions of virtual humans on learning transfer. Comput. Educ. 126, 170–182. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. L. Schroeder, E. K. Chiou, and S. D. Craig. 2021. Trust influences perceptions of virtual humans, but not necessarily learning. Comput. Educ. 160, 104039. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Shintel, N. L. Anderson, and K. M. Fenn. 2014. Talk this way: The effect of prosodically conveyed semantic information on memory for novel words. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 4, 1437–1442. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. J. Shute and J. Psotka. 1996. Intelligent tutoring systems: Past, present, and future. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for Research for Educational Communications and Technology. MacMillan, 570–599.Google Scholar
- A. Silvervarg, R. Wolf, K. P. Blair, M. Haake, and A. Gulz. 2021. How teachable agents influence students’ responses to critical constructive feedback. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 53, 1, 67–88. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. A. Sottilare, K. W. Brawner, A. M. Sinatra, and J. H. Johnston. 2017. An updated concept for a Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT). GIFTtutoring.org. 1–19.Google Scholar
- J. Sweller, P. L. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
- K. VanLehn. 2006. The behavior of tutoring systems. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 16, 3, 227–265.Google Scholar
- K. VanLehn. 2011. The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educ. Psychol. 46, 4, 197–221. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Veletsianos. 2010. Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Comput. Educ. 55, 2, 576–585. DOI: .Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Veletsianos and G. Russell. 2014. Pedagogical agents. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, 759–769. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. A. Zipp and S. D. Craig. 2019. The impact of a user’s biases on interactions with virtual humans and learning during virtual emergency management training. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 67, 6, 1385–1404. DOI: .Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Pedagogical Agents
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Pedagogical Agents: Back to the Future
Back in the 1990s, we started work on pedagogical agents — a novel paradigm for interactive learning. Pedagogical agents are autonomous characters that inhabit learning environments to engage with learners in rich, face‐to‐face interactions. Building on ...
How pedagogical agents communicate with students: A two-phase systematic review
AbstractTechnological advancements have improved the capabilities of pedagogical agents to communicate with students. However, an increased use of pedagogical agents in learning environments calls for a deeper understanding of student–agent ...
Highlights- Two-phase systematic literature review on pedagogical agent communication.
- ...
Comments