Revisiting contextual relevance: pedagogical agent appearance

References

• 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
• Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=itls_facpub
   Google Scholar
• Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.2190/V0WQ-NWGN-JB54-FAT4
   Google Scholar
• Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning English as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441–466. https://doi.org/10.2190/A064-U776-4208-N145
   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
• Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379–381. https://doi.org/10.2190/2781-3471-67MG-5033
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R. O., Park, T., & Vincent, J. (2021). A systematic narrative review of agent persona on learning outcomes and design variables to enhance personification. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1830894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, R. O., Park, T., & Vincent, J. (2023). A meta-analytic review on embodied pedagogical agent design and testing formats. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 30–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000011
   Google Scholar
• Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H. L. (2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115588774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y
   Google Scholar
• Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., Ginns, P., Krell, M., & Schneider, S. (2022). A systematic meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of subjective cognitive load questionnaires in experimental multimedia learning research. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2485–2541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy (pp. 131–150). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 3, 251–266.
   Google Scholar
• Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & FitzGerald, P. J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123–154). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lunardo, R., Bressolles, G., & Durrieu, F. (2016). The interacting effect of virtual agents’ gender and dressing style on attractiveness and subsequent consumer online behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.014
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 77–108). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00003-X
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358
   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
• Mori, M., MacDorman, K. F., & Kageki, N. (2012). The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nag, P., & Yalçın, Ö. N. (2020, October). Gender stereotypes in virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1145/3383652.3423876
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2001, May). Social role awareness in animated agents. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 270–277). https://doi.org/10.1145/375735.376307
   Google Scholar
• Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Center for the Study of Language and Information; Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(2), 114–133. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/jotlt/article/view/3968
   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., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401–411. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.4.401
   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 virtual humans on learning transfer. Computers & Education, 126, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiban, Y., Schelhorn, I., Jobst, V., Hörnlein, A., Puppe, F., Pauli, P., & Mühlberger, A. (2015). The appearance effect: Influences of virtual agent features on performance and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2006). How the human system deals with complexity. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 13–25). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Mulken, S., André, E., & Müller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay, & C. Roast (Eds.), People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI’98 (pp. 53–66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3605-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.2190/T543-742X-033L-9877
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G., Miller, C., & Doering, A. (2009). EnALI: A research and design framework for virtual characters and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.2.c
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yung, H. I., & Paas, F. (2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153–160. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.18.3.153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar