The Effectiveness of Embodied Pedagogical Agents and Their Impact on Students Learning in Virtual Worlds
Source abstract
Abstract
Over the last years, the successful integration of virtual reality in distance education contexts has led to the development of various frameworks related to the virtual learning approaches. 3D virtual worlds are an integral part of the landscape of education and demonstrate novel learning possibilities that can open new directions in education. An important aspect of virtual worlds relates to the intelligent, embodied pedagogical agents that are employed to enhance the interaction with students and improve their overall learning experience. The proper design and integration of embodied pedagogical agents in virtual learning environments are highly desirable. Although virtual agents constitute a vital part of virtual environments, their exact impact needs are yet to be addressed and assessed. The aim of the present study is to thoroughly examine and deeply understand the effect that embodied pedagogical agents have on the learning experience of students as well as on their performance. We examine how students perceive the role of pedagogical agents as learning companions during specific game-based activities and the effect that their assistance has on students’ learning. A concrete experimental study was conducted in AVARES, a 3D virtual world educational environment that teaches the domain of environmental engineering and energy generation. The results of the study point out that embodied pedagogical agents can improve students’ learning experience, enhance their engagement with learning activities and, most of all, improve their knowledge construction and performance.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Educational Games and Gamification · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Computer Engineering and Informatics Department, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Allison, C., Campbell, A., Davies, C.J., Dow, L., Kennedy, S., McCaffery, J.P., and Perera, G.I.U.S. (2012, January 26–27). Growing the use of Virtual Worlds in education: An OpenSim perspective. Proceedings of the 2nd European Immersive Education Summit, Paris, France.
2. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x ↗
3. Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009)10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020 ↗
4. Grivokostopoulou, F., Perikos, I., and Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2016, January 2–4). An innovative educational environment based on virtual reality and gamification for learning search algorithms. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E 2016), Mumbai, India.10.1109/T4E.2016.029 ↗
5. Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.026 ↗
6. Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x ↗
7. The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners’ agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement
8. Searls, D.B. (2012). Ten simple rules for online learning. PLoS Comput. Biol., 8.10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002631 ↗
9. Veletsianos, G., and Russell, G.S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_61 ↗
10. Banakou, D., and Chorianopoulos, K. (2010). The effects of avatars’ gender and appearance on social behavior in online 3D virtual worlds. J. Virtual Worlds Res., 2.10.4101/jvwr.v2i5.779 ↗
11. Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806 ↗
12. Soliman, M., and Guetl, C. (2010, January 24–28). Intelligent pedagogical agents in immersive virtual learning environments: A review. Proceedings of the 2010 33rd International Convention, Opatija, Croatia.
13. Soliman, M., and Guetl, C. (2013, January 13–15). Implementing Intelligent Pedagogical Agents in virtual worlds: Tutoring natural science experiments in OpenWonderland. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2013), Berlin, Germany.10.1109/EduCon.2013.6530196 ↗
14. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A., and Bhogal, R.S. (1997, January 22–27). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems, Altanta, GA, USA.10.1145/258549.258797 ↗
15. Social cues in animated conversational agents10.1002/acp.1117 ↗
16. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419 ↗
17. How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review10.2190/EC.49.1.a ↗
18. Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.005 ↗
19. Clark, R.C., and Mayer, R.E. (2011). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118255971 ↗
20. Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., and Shukla, M. (2019, January 2–4). Learner Experience in Hybrid Virtual Worlds: Interacting with Pedagogical Agents. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.10.5220/0007758604880495 ↗
21. Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004 ↗
22. Pour, P.A., Hussain, M.S., AlZoubi, O., D’Mello, S., and Calvo, R.A. (2010). The Impact of System Feedback on Learners’ Affective and Physiological States. InIntelligenttutoring Systems, Springer.
23. The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09.003 ↗
24. Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., and Shukla, M. (2019, January 15–17). What Does the Pedagogical Agent Say?. Proceedings of the 2019 10th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), Patras, Greece.10.1109/IISA.2019.8900767 ↗
25. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02 ↗
26. Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments10.1207/S15327809JLS1003_3 ↗
27. Grivokostopoulou, F., Perikos, I., Kovas, K., and Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2015, January 6–9). Teaching Renewable Energy Sources Using 3D Virtual World Technology. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 15th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2015), Hualien, Taiwan.10.1109/ICALT.2015.126 ↗
28. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., and Sarsa, H. (2014, January 6–9). Does gamification work?—A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, HI, USA.10.1109/HICSS.2014.377 ↗
29. Grivokostopoulou, F., Perikos, I., Kovas, K., and Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2016, January 16–18). Learning Approaches in a 3D Virtual Environment for Learning Energy Generation from Renewable Sources. Proceedings of the FLAIRS Conference, Key Largo, FL, USA.
30. Grivokostopoulou, F., Paraskevas, M., Perikos, I., Nikolic, S., Kovas, K., and Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2018, January 4–7). Examining the Impact of Pedagogical Agents on Students Learning Experience in Virtual Worlds. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia.10.1109/TALE.2018.8615421 ↗
31. Focus on formative feedback10.3102/0034654307313795 ↗
32. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale
33. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale10.1080/10447310802205776 ↗
34. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests10.1007/BF02310555 ↗