Using Pedagogical Agents on Computer Aided Teaching: A Synthesis of Studies

Year 2016, Volume: 39 Issue: 39, 83 - 99, 01.01.2016

Serkan Dinçer , Ahmet Doğanay

Abstract

Pedagogical agents are generally defined as modules facilitating the social
learning, guiding students, giving motivational support and feedback in
educational software. The purpose of this study is to synthesize results of the
studies done on pedagogical agents by using content analysis method. In order
to seek for answers to research questions, the sources of the meta-analysis
study conducted by Dinçer and Yavuz (2013) about pedagogical agent were utilized, in addition to
this; the articles published from this date on were included by being scanned.
The studies carried out about pedagogical
agents between 2002 and 2013 were analyzed and thirty one articles were
included in the study. The articles included were examined in terms of their
purposes and it was decided to group the themes within these titles: “effect on
academic success”, “effect on attitude”, and agent features was investigated.
The result reached was that approximately in all of the studies the software
having pedagogical agent were more
successful than the ones not having agent or traditional instruction and
positively effect the attitude. Besides, it was concluded that the agent design
giving the best results were the visual agents like human voice. As a result,
it is thought that it is necessary to use the pedagogical agents in every educational software especially for guiding the
students and increase their attitude and motivation. However, it is considered
that during the design of the pedagogical
agents making designs in accordance with cognitive load and the principles
of multi-media; using more than one character and adding others such as voice,
text, etc. to these characters will be beneficial. 

Keywords

Pedagogical agent, computer aided teaching/learning, educational software

Bilgisayar Destekli Öğretimde Eğitsel Arayüzlerin Kullanımı: Bir Sentez Çalışması

Abstract

Eğitsel arayüzler genel olarak eğitim yazılımlarında
sosyal öğrenmeyi kolaylaştıran, öğrencilere rehberlik eden, motivasyon desteği
ve dönütler veren modüller olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bu araştırmada eğitim
yazılımlarında arayüz kullanımının etkilerini araştırmak amacıyla içerik
analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sorularına cevap aramak için Dinçer
ve Yavuz (2013) tarafından eğitsel arayüz konusunda yapılan meta-analiz
çalışmasının kaynaklarından yararlanılmış, buna ek olarak bu tarihten sonra
yayınlanan diğer makalelerde taranarak bu çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. 2002-2013
yılları arasında eğitsel arayüzlerle yapılan çalışmalar incelenmiş, çalışmaya
31 makale dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaya dahil edilen makaleler amaçları
bakımından incelenmiş ve temaların akademik başarıya etki, tutuma etki
başlıklarında gruplanmasına karar verilmiş ve arayüz özellikleri incelenmiştir.
Hemen hemen tüm çalışmalarda eğitsel arayüze sahip eğitim yazılımlarının, sahip
olmayanlara ya da geleneksel öğretime göre akademik başarı açısından daha
başarılı olduğu ve tutumu olumlu yönde etkilediği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca
en iyi sonuçlar veren eğitsel arayüz tasarımının sesli insan benzeri olan
görsel arayüzler olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Sonuç olarak eğitsel arayüzlerin
özellikle öğrencilere rehberlik etmesi ve tutum-motivasyonlarını artırması
nedeniyle her eğitim yazılımında kullanılması gerektiği düşünülmektedir. Ancak
eğitsel arayüzlerin tasarlanmasında bilişsel yüke ve çoklu ortam ilkelerine
uygun tasarımların yapılması; birden fazla karakter kullanılarak bu
karakterlere ses, metin vb. özelliklerinde eklenmesinin yararlı olacağı
düşünülmektedir. 

Keywords

Eğitsel arayüzler, bilgisayar destekli öğretim/eğitim, eğitsel yazılımlar

References

• Alessi, S.M. ve Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3. Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Allbeck, J. ve Badler, N. (2003). Representing and parameterizing agent behaviors. H. Prendinger ve M. Ishizuka (Ed.) Life-like characters: Tools, affective functions and applications içinde (syf. 19-38). Germany: Springer.
• Arslan, A. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim yapmaya ilişkin tutum ölçeği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 24-33.
• Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.
• Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., ve Meril, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
• Bandura A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–47.
• Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5–22.
• Baylor, A. L. ve Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
• Baylor, A. L. ve Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate Government Healthcare & Higher Education 2003 içinde (syf. 1503–1506). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Baylor, A. L. ve Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95–115.
• Baylor, A. L., Shen, E. ve Huang, X. (2003). Which pedagogical agent do learners choose? The effects of gender and ethnicity. G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World conference on e-learning in corporate government healthcare & higher education 2003 içinde (syf. 1507–1510). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Beale, I., Kato, P., Marin-Bowling, V., Guthrie, N. ve Cole, S. (2007). Improvement in cancer-related knowledge following use of a psychoeducational video game for adolescents and young adults with cancer. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 263–270.
• Bickmore, T. W., Pfeifer, L. M. ve Orlow, M. K. (2009). Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 75(3), 315-320.
• Bozkurt, E. ve Sarıkoç, A. (2008). Fizik eğitiminde sanal laboratuvar, geleneksel laboratuvarın yerini tutabilir mi? Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25, 89-100.
• Brave, S., Nass, C. ve Hutchinson, K., (2005). Computers that are care: investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(2), 161-178.
• Brenner, W., Zarnekow, R. ve Wittig, H. (1998). Intelligent software agents. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• Buisine, S. ve J. C. Martin (2007). The effects of speech-gesture cooperation in animated agents' behavior in multimedia presentations. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 484-493.
• Carter, V. ve Good, E. (1973 ). Dictionary of education. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Chan, T.W. (1995). Artificial agents in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 263-282.
• Chen, Z. H. (2012). We care about you: Incorporating pet characteristics with educational agents through reciprocal caring approach. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1081-1088.
• Clark, R. ve Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
• Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. D. C. Berliner ve R. C. Calfee (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology içinde (syf. 807-840). New York: Macmillan.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L. ve Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6. Baskı.). New York: Routledge.
• Colangelo, N. ve Davi, G.A. (1997). Handbook of gifted education (2. Baskı). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Dehn, D. M. ve van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1–22.
• Dehn, D. M. ve van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(1), 1-22.
• Dinçer, S. ve Yavuz, C. (2013). Eğitsel ajan kullanımının öğrenci başarısına etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10, 35-48.
• Dinçer. S. (2006). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim ve uzaktan eğitime genel bir bakış, Akademik Bilişim 2006 Bildiri Kitapçığı (syf. 65-76). Denizli: Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
• Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3), 313-334.
• Gülbahar, Y. ve Alper, A. (2009). Öğretim teknolojileri alanında yapılan araştırmalar konusunda bir içerik analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 42(2), 93-111.
• Haddad, H. ve Klobas, J. (2003). The relationship between visual abstraction and the effectiveness of a pedagogical character-agent. Proceedings of AAMAS 2002 Workshop on Embodied Conversational Agents-Let’s Specify and Evaluate Them, 1-8.
• Hong, Z. W., Chen, Y. L. ve Lan, C. H. (2012). A courseware to script animated pedagogical agents in instructional material for elementary students in English education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, (ahead-of-print), 1-16. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2012.733712
• Hubal, R. C., Fishbein, D. H., Sheppard, M. S., Paschall, M. J., Eldreth, D. L. ve Hyde, C. T. (2008). How do varied populations interact with embodied conversational agents? Findings from inner-city adolescents and prisoners. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1104-1138.
• İnceoğlu M.( 2004). Tutum, algi, iletişim. Ankara: Kesit Tanıtım Ltd. Şti.
• Jin, S. A. A. (2010). The effects of incorporating a virtual agent in a computer-aided test designed for stress management education: The mediating role of enjoyment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 443-451.
• Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D. ve Reisslein, M. (2013). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1807-1815.
• Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. ve Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 351-371
• Kerly, A., Ellis, R. ve Bull, S. (2008). CALMsystem: A Conversational Agent for Learner Modelling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(3), 238-246.
• Kızılkaya, G. ve Aşkar, P. (2006). Eğitim yazılımlarında eğitsel yardımcı kullanımı: Eğitsel ara yüz ajanı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 25-31.
• Kim, Y. ve Wei, Q. A. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505-514.
• Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L. ve Reed, G. (2003). The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World conference on elearning in corporate, government, healthcare, & higher education 2003 içinde (syf. 2237–2240). AACE: Chesapeake, VA.
• Kocasaraç, H. (2003). Bilgisayarların öğretim alanında kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen yeterlilikleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 77-85.
• Lester, J., Towns, S., Callaway, C., Voerman, J. ve Fitzgerald, P. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost ve E. Churchill (Ed.), Embodied conversational agents içinde (syf. 123-155). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Lim, M. Y., Leichtenstern, K., Kriegel, M., Enz, S., Aylett, R., Vannini, N., Hall, L. ve Rizaao, P. (2011). Technology-enhanced role-play for social and emotional learning context – Intercultural empathy. Entertainment Computing, 2(4), 223-231.
• Lim, S. ve Reeves, B., (2010). Computer agents versus avatars: Responses to interactive game characters controlled by a computer or other player. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1), 57-68.
• Lin, L., Atkinson, R., Christopherson, R., Joseph, S.ve Harrison, C. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67(1), 239-249.
• Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (1988). Teaching and learning computer programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Mayer, R. E., Johnson, W. L., Shaw, E. ve Sandhu, S. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(1), 36-42.
• Mayer, R. E., Schustack, M. ve Blanton, E. (1999). What do children learn from using computers in an informal collaborative setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27–31.
• Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K. ve Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425.
• McQuiggan, S. W. ve Lester, J. C. (2007). Modeling and evaluating empathy in embodied companion agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(4), 348-360.
• Moreno, R. (1999). Introducing social cues in multimedia learning: The role of pedagogic agents‟ image and language in a scientific lesson. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, University of California, Santa Barbara.
• Moreno, R. ve Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia design: The role of modality and contiguity, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
• Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A. ve Lester, J. C. (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), 177–213.
• Mumm, J. ve Mutlu, B. (2011). Designing motivational agents: The role of praise, social comparison, and embodiment in computer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1643-1650.
• Osman, K. ve Lee, T. T. (2013). Impact of Interactıve Multımedıa Module Wıth Pedagogıcal Agents on Students’understandıng and Motıvatıon ın The Learnıng of Electrochemıstry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (ahead-of-print). DOI: 10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y
• Peker, M. ve Mirasyedioğlu, Ş. (2003) Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin matematik ve fen dersine yönelik tutumları ve başarı arasındaki ilişki. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(14), 157- 166.
• Perez-Marin, D. ve Pascual-Nieto, I. (2013). An exploratory study on how children interact with pedagogic conversational agents. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(9), 955-964.
• Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E. ve Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students' attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers & Education, 53(2), 209-215.
• Prendinger, H., Ma, C. L. ve Ishizuka, M. (2007). Eye movements as indices for the utility of life-like interface agents: A pilot study. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 281-292.
• Reategui, E., Polonia, E. ve Roland, L. (2007). The role of animated pedagogical agents in scenario-based language e-learning: A case-study. Proceedings of the International Conference of Interactive computer aided learning ICL2007: E Portofolio and Quality in e-Learning, 7, 1-7.
• Reeves, B. ve Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Rodicio, H. G. ve Sánchez, E. (2012). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning: A comparison of human tutoring and computer support. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(5), 423-439.
• Ropero, J., Gómez, A., Carrasco, A. ve Leon, C. (2012). A Fuzzy Logic intelligent agent for Information Extraction: Introducing a new Fuzzy Logic-based term weighting scheme. Expert Systems with Applications 39(4), 4567-4581.
• Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L. Plant, E. A. ve Doen C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students' attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2741-2756.
• Salim, S.S., Marzuki, N. ve Kasirun, Z. (2007). Modelling the requirements of an animated pedagogical agent for a web-based learning environment through inputprocess-output relationships. Austria: Conference ICL2007.
• Schrader, C. ve Bastiaens, T. J. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 648-658.
• Serenko, A. (2007). The development of an instrument to measure the degree of animation predisposition of agent users. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 478-495.
• Silverman, S. ve Scrabis, K.A. (2004) A Review of research on ınstructional theory in physical education. International Journal of Physical Education, 41(1), 4-12.
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
• Şahin, E. (2011). Açıklayıcı ve kuralcı öğretim kuramları ve model örnekleri. S. Fer (Ed.), Öğrenme öğretme kuram ve yaklaşımları içinde, (syf. 83-107). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Şen, A. İ. ve Koca, S. A. (2005). Orta öğretim öğrencilerinin matematik ve fen dersine yönelik tutumları ve nedenleri. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 18, 236–252.
• Şimşek, A. (1999) Yeni öğrenme modeli ve eğitimde bilişim teknolojileri: Bilgisayar destekli eğitim raporu (syf: 1-19), İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi.
• Tavşancıl, E. ve Aslan, E. (2001). İçerik analizi ve uygulama örnekleri. İstanbul: Epsilon Yayınları.
• TDK. (2014). TC. Başbakanlık Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Dil Kurumu. http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.52e7e801a9ef68.12698548 adresinden, 15.01.2014 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. ve Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Applied Experimental Psychology, 3(4), 257-287.
• Ünal-Çolak, F. ve Ozan, Ö. (2012). The effects of animated agents on students’ achievement and attitudes. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 96-111.
• Van Der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845-857.
• van Merriënboer, J. ve Ayres, P. (2005). Reseach on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 5–13.
• Veletsianos, G. (2012). How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 275-283.
• Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. R., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E. ve Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98-112.
• Wooldridge, M. ve Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review. 10(2), 115-152.
• Xu, D. M. ve Wang, H. Q. (2006). Intelligent agent supported personalization for virtual learning environments. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 825-843.
• Yenice, N., Sümer, Ş., Oktaylar, H. C. ve Erbil, E. (2003). Fen bilgisi derslerinde bilgisayar destekli öğretimin ders hedeflerine ulaşma düzeyine etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 152-158.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Yılmaz, R. ve Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (2011). Sanal öğrenme ortamlarında sosyal model olarak eğitsel arayüz ajanları. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(4), 243-264.
• Yılmaz, R. ve Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 828-838.