Learning with virtual humans: Introduction to the special issue

References

• Adobe Systems Incorporated. (2020). Mixamo. https://www.mixamo.com/
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailenson, J. (2008). Why digital avatars make the best teachers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(30), B27. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-digital-avatars-make-the-best-teachers/
   Google Scholar
• Baylor, A. L. (2005, January). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. In International conference on intelligent user interfaces (p. 29).
   Google Scholar
• Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 363–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondie, R., Mancenido, Z., & Dede, C. (2021). Interaction principles for digital puppeteering to promote teacher learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1823284
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, E. G., & Kendall, B. (2014). A review of computer simulations in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.43.1.b
   Google Scholar
• Chughtai, R., Zhang, S., Craig, S. D. (2015, September). Usability evaluation of intelligent tutoring system: ITS from a usability perspective. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 367–371). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591076
   Google Scholar
• Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267–286.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY
   Google Scholar
• Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In K. Millis, D. Long, J. Magliano, & K. Wiemer (Eds.), Deep learning: Multi-disciplinary approaches (pp. 128–139). Routledge/Taylor Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. O., Park, T., & Vincent, J. (2021). A systematic narrative review of agent persona on learning outcomes and design variables to increase personification. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1830894
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. O., Vincent, J., & Park, T. (2019). Reconsidering the voice principle with non-native language speakers. Computers & Education, 140, 103605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes?: The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000011
   Google Scholar
• Epic Games Inc. (2020). Unreal engine. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Lippert, A. M., & Hampton, A. J. (2017). Successes and failures in building learning environments to promote deep learning: The value of conversational agents. In Informational environments (pp. 273–298). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2010.515933
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A. C., Lippert, A. M., & Hampton, A. J. (2017). Successes and failures in building learning environments to promote deep learning: The value of conversational agents. In Informational environments (pp. 273–298). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirumi, A., Kleinsmith, A., Johnsen, K., Kubovec, S., Eakins, M., Bogert, K., Rivera-Gutierrez, D. J., Reyes, R. J., Lok, B., & Cendan, J. (2016). Advancing virtual patient simulations through design research and interPLAY: Part I: Design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 763–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9429-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodge, E. M., Tabrizi, M. H. N., Farwell, M. A., & Wuensch, K. L. (2008). Virtual reality classrooms: Strategies for creating a social presence. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2), 105–109.
   Google Scholar
• Howell, H., & Mikeska, J. N. (2021). Approximations of practice as a framework for understanding authenticity in simulations of teaching. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, A. M., Guerrero, T. A., Tighe, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2017, June). iSTART-ALL: Confronting adult low literacy with intelligent tutoring for reading comprehension. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 125–136). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. L., & Rickel, J. (1997). Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 8(1–4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/272874.272877
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 47–78.
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2016). Effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 42–78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315581420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997, March). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 359–366).
   Google Scholar
• Li, H., & Graesser, A. C. (2021). The impact of conversational agents’ language on summary writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1826022
   Google Scholar
• Lowenthal, P. R. (2010). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In Social computing: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 113–128). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, N., Sekar, V. P. C., & Wall, N. (2018, June). Metacognitive scaffolding amplifies the effect of learning by teaching a teachable agent. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 311–323). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Cohen, W. W., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: Lessons learned with SimStudent. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1152–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2019). Computer games in education. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102744
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Wiemer, K., Wallace, P., & Steciuch, C. (2018). Learning scientific inquiry from a serious game that uses autotutor. In Deep comprehension (pp. 180–193). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–523). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow, D. G., Lane, H. C., & Rogers, W. A. (2020). A framework for design of conversational agents to support health self-care for older adults. Human Factors, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820964085
   Google Scholar
• Nye, B. D., Davis, D. M., Rizvi, S. Z., Carr, K., Swartout, W., Thacker, R., & Shaw, K. (2021). Feasibility and usability of MentorPal, a framework for rapid development of virtual mentors. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1771640
   Google Scholar
• Olafsson, S., O'Leary, T. K., & Bickmore, T. W. (2020, October). Motivating health behavior change with humorous virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 1–8).
   Google Scholar
• Roscoe, R. D., Branaghan, R. J., Cooke, N. J., & Craig, S. D. (2018). Human systems engineering and educational technology. In End-user considerations in educational technology design (pp. 1–34). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Roscoe, R. D., Segedy, J. R., Sulcer, B., Jeong, H., & Biswas, G. (2013). Shallow strategy development in a teachable agent environment designed to support self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 62, 286–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowe, J., Mott, B., McQuiggan, S., Robison, J., Lee, S., & Lester, J. (2009). Crystal island: A narrative-centered learning environment for eighth grade microbiology. In Workshop on intelligent educational games at the 14th international conference on artificial intelligence in education, Brighton, UK (pp. 11–20).
   Google Scholar
• Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 291.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., Chiou, E. K., & Craig, S. D. (2021). Trust influences perceptions of virtual humans, but not necessarily learning. Computers & Education, 160, 104039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., Romine, W. L., & Craig, S. D. (2017). Measuring pedagogical agent persona and the influence of agent persona on learning. Computers & Education, 109, 176–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., Yang, F., Banerjee, T., Romine, W. L., & Craig, S. D. (2018). The influence of learners’ perceptions of a virtual human on learning transfer. Computers & Education, 126, 170–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvervarg, A., Wolf, R., Blair, K. P., Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2021). How teachable agents influence students’ responses to critical constructive feedback. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1784812
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unity Technologies. (2020). Unity for all. https://unity.com/
   Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 759–769). Springer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, S., & Bickmore, T. (2019, June). A virtual counselor for genetic risk communication. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 374–378). Springer.
   Google Scholar