You are here:

Emboddied Agents in E-Learning Environments: An Exploratory Case Study
Article

, , University of Salford, United Kingdom

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

There is increasing interest in embodied agents (or avatars) and the effects on human cognition and motivation. Specifically there is an increasing interest in the use of embodied agents in e-learning environments. However, empirical investigations into the use of embodied agents in online education are limited. Our aim is to provide a framework for the development and evaluation of embodied agents in e-learning environments. The framework is derived from an indepth interpretive case study. This framework is useful for practitioners and researchers into courseware and embodied agent development, providing guidelines for embodied agent design and implementation in e-learning environments. There are a number of key findings, perhaps the most challenging being the dichotomous relationship that emerges between lecturer and student perception of the degree of autonomy that can be afforded to embodied agents. The research findings suggest that educators favour highly controlled embodied agents with limited autonomy while students are looking for more autonomous embodied agents that are highly personalised and can act as an informal interface between themselves and the lecturer.

Citation

Mahmood, A.K. & Ferneley, E. (2006). Emboddied Agents in E-Learning Environments: An Exploratory Case Study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 143-162. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Bell, F., & Heinze, A. (2004). With regard to respect – a framework for the governance of educational virtual communities. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 1(1), 19-34. Blignauta, S., & Trollipa, S. R. (2003). Developing a taxonomy of faculty participation in asynchronous learning environments – An exploratory investigation. Computers & Education, 41(2), 149-172.
  2. Canole, G. (2002). The evolving landscape of learning technology. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 10(3), 4-18.
  3. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  4. 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.
  5. Dehn, D. M. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal Human-Computer Studies, 52, 1-22.
  6. Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996). Personality and learning preferences of learners in design and design-related disciplines. Paper presented at the International Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development Conference (IDATER 96), Loughborough University.
  7. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
  8. Foreman, J. (2004). Game-based learning: How to delight and instruct in the 21st Century. Educause Review Quarterly, 39(5), 50-66.
  9. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley. California: Sociology Press.
  10. Hara, N., & Kling, R. (1999). "Students" frustrations with a web-based distance education course. First Monday, 4(12). Retrieved December 18, 2005 from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/hara/index.html
  11. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software for the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Holscherl, C., & Strubel, G. (2000). Web search behaviour of Internet experts and newbies. Computer Networks, 33(1), 337-346. Jafari, A.
  12. Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 24-49.
  13. Khalifa, M., & Lam, R. (2002). Web-based learning: Effects on learning process and outcome. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, 45(4).
  14. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.
  15. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243.
  16. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of CHI'97 Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
  17. Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, G. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixedinitiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and UserAdapted Interaction, 9(1-2), 1-44).
  18. 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 E. Churchill (Ed.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123-154). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  19. Lisewski, B. (2004). Implementing a learning technology strategy: Top-down strategy meets bottom-up culture. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 12(2), 175-188.
  20. Logan, B., Fraser, M., Fielding, D., Benford, S., Greenhalgh, C., & Herrero, P. (2002). Keeping in touch: Agents reporting from collaborative virtual environments in artificial intelligence and interactive entertainment. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence Conference (pp. 62-67). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
  21. Maes, P. (1994). Agents that reduce work and information overload. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 31-40.
  22. Markus, M. L. (1997). The qualitative difference in information systems research and practice. In J. L. Lee (Ed.), Information systems and qualitative research (pp. 11-27). London: Chapman and Hall.
  23. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
  24. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Moundridou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253-261.
  26. Nejdl, E. (2001). Learning repositories – Technologies and context. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
  27. Ng, M. H., Hall, W., Maier, P., & Armstrong, R. (2002). The application and evaluation of adaptive hypermedia techniques in web-based medical education. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 10(3), 19-40.
  28. Norman, K. (1998). Collaborative interactions in support of learning: Models, metaphors and management. In S. Wilbur (Ed.), The digital university: Reinventing the academy (pp. 39-53). London: Springer.
  29. Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual REality: perception, cognition and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 343-382.
  30. Ruttkay, Z., & Pelachaud, C. (2004). From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents. Human-Computer Interaction Series. New York: Springer.
  31. Shaw, E., Johnson, W. L., & Ganeshan, R. (1999). Pedagogical agents on the Web. Proceedings
  32. Squires, D. (1999). Peripatetic electronic teachers in higher education. Association For Learning Technology Journal, 7(3), 52-63.
  33. Stash, N., & Cristea, A. (2004). Authoring learning styles in adaptive hypermedia: Problems and solutions. Proceedings of WWW 2004 (pp. 114-123).
  34. Stojanovic, L., Staab, S., & Studer, R. (2001). E-learning based on the semantic web. Paper presented at the World Conference on the WWW and the Internet, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  35. Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376-394.
  36. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design & Methods (3rd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Related Collections