You are here:

Effects of Pedagogical Agent Gestures on Social Acceptance and Learning: Virtual Real Relationships in an Elementary Foreign Language Classroom
article

, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea (South) ; , University of Florida, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 28, Number 4, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Pedagogical agents (PAs) are lifelike characters in virtual environments that help facilitate learning through social interactions and the virtual real relationships with the learners. This study explored whether and how PA gesture design impacts learning and agent social acceptance when used with elementary students learning foreign language grammar. Unlike prior research, this study examined the effects of PA gestures in three conditions: full gesture condition (deictic, iconic, metaphoric, and beat gestures), deictic gesture condition, and no gesture condition. Transfer of knowledge, retention, and agent social acceptance data were collected from 160 South Korean 5th and 6th graders learning about using “-er/more” for comparatives in English. Retention and transfer test data revealed no significant differences in learning outcomes across conditions. Regarding social acceptance, PA in the full gesture condition was perceived as significantly more human-like and engaging than PA in the no gesture condition. However, multiple regression revealed that social acceptance factors “human-like” and “engaging” were also negative predictors of learning outcome scores. This finding suggests full gesture PAs may have the ability to increase social perception by learners, but the novelty of PAs with full gestures may also have an initial negative effect on learning outcomes.

Citation

Davis, R. & Antonenko, P. (2017). Effects of Pedagogical Agent Gestures on Social Acceptance and Learning: Virtual Real Relationships in an Elementary Foreign Language Classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 28(4), 459-480. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, R.E., & Merrill, 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.
  2. Barmaki, R. (2016). Gesture Assessment of Teachers in an Immersive Rehearsal Environment, Ph.D., Computer Science, University of Central Florida, August 2016.
  3. Baylor, A.L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
  4. Bergmann, K., & Macedonia, M. (2013). A virtual agent as vocabulary trainer: iconic gestures help to improve learners’ memory performance. In Intelligent virtual agents (pp. 139-148). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  5. Church, R.B., Ayman-Nolley, S., & Mahootian, S. (2004). The role of gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning?. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 303-319.
  6. Clark, R.E., & Choi, S. (2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379-381.
  7. Dehn, D.M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 52(1), 1-22.
  8. De Koning, B.B., & Tabbers, H.K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683–689.
  9. Dirkin, K.H., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113.
  10. 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, 22(2), 82–95.
  11. Duncan, S., & Fiske, D.W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  12. Garau, M., Slater, M., Pertaub, D.P., & Razzaque, S. (2005). The responses of people to virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(1), 104-116.
  13. 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.
  14. Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2008). Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents. Educational Technology& Society, 11(4), 1-15.
  15. Hostetter, A.B. (2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 297-315.
  16. Hubbard, A.L., Wilson, S.M., Callan, D.E., & Dapretto, M. (2009). Giving speech a hand: Gesture modulates activity in auditory cortex during speech perception. Human brain mapping, 30(3), 1028-1037.
  17. 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.
  18. Johnson, A.M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102, 319–337.
  19. Kelly, S.D., Manning, S.M., & Rodak, S. (2008). Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 569-588.
  20. Kelly, S.D., McDevitt, T., & Esch, M. (2009). Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning in aforeign language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 313-334.
  21. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge University Press.
  22. Krauss, R.M., Morrel Samuels, P., & Colasante, C. (1991). Do conversational hand gestures communicate? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 743–754.
  23. 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). ACM.
  24. Louwerse, M.M., Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., & Mitchell, H.H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 693-704.
  25. Macedonia, M., Müller, K., & Friederici, A.D. (2011). The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate. Human Brain Mapping, 32(6), 982-998.
  26. Macedonia, M., & Von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics, 6(3-4), 393-416.
  27. Macedonia, M., Kern, R., & Roithmayr, F. (2014). Do children accept virtual agents as foreign language trainers?. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 7(1), 131-137.
  28. 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. 201–214). Cambridge,
  29. Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agentbased microworlds?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806.
  30. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.
  31. Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 507–
  32. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of social issues, 56(1), 81-103.
  33. Nowak, K.L., Fox, J., & Ranjit, Y.S. (2015). Inferences About Avatars: Sexism, Appropriateness, Anthropomorphism, and the Objectification of Female Virtual Representations. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 20(5), 554-569.
  34. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5-10.
  35. Rader, D., & Sittig, L.H. (2003). New kid in school: Using literature to help children in transition. Teachers College Press.
  36. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ryu, J.H., (2012). The effect of image realism and learner’s expertise on persona effect of pedagogical agent. Science of Emotion& Sensibility, 15(1), 47-56.
  37. Ryu, J.H., & Baylor, A.L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 291319.
  38. 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.
  39. Son, C. (2014). Design principles of animated pedagogical agent and instructional message for affective learning. Educational Technology International, 15(1), 1-26.
  40. Straube, B., Green, A., Bromberger, B., & Kircher, T. (2011). The differentiation of iconic and metaphoric gestures: Common and unique integration processes. Human brain mapping, 32(4), 520-533.
  41. Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D.M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661699.
  42. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Taylor, M., Tucker, J., Donehower, C., Pabian, P., Dieker, L.A., Hynes, M.C., & Hughes, C. (2017). Impact of virtual simulation on the interprofessional communication skills of physical therapy students. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 31(3), 83-90.
  44. Tuite, K. (1993). The production of gesture. Semiotica, 93(1-2), 83-106.
  45. Vander Meij, H., vander Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 381-403.
  46. Van Mulken, S., André, E., & Müller, J. (1998). The persona effect: how substantial is it. People and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI, 98, 53-66.
  47. Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers& Education, 55(2), 576-585.
  48. Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G.S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In Handbook ofRresearch on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 759-769).
  49. Woo, H.L. (2008). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(3), 203-218.

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts