You are here:

Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS)
Article

, Old Dominion University, United States ; , University of North Dakota, United States

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 16, Number 2, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Pedagogical agents are gaining acceptance as effective learning tools (Baylor & Ryu, 2003; Moreno, Mayer, Spires & Lester 2001; Moreno, 2004). The increase in the use of agents highlights the need for standardized measurements for evaluating user performance in these environments. While learning gains are a primary variable of interest in such environments, the role of affective variables may be at least as important as learning gains (Anderson, 1995; Bardwell, 1984; Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992; Kort, Reilly, & Picard, 2001). The purpose of this research was to design and validate an instrument, the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS), to measure users' perception of pedagogical agents who use conversational dialog to teach (i.e., as tutors). Items were developed from existing higher education teacher rating scales. Scale items were administered to 129 participants from three large urban universities in the south and northwest after interactions with AutoTutor, an animated pedagogical agent designed to teach conceptual physics. Results of factor analysis indicate a scale with three constructs: (a) conversation/pedagogy, (b) attitude toward student, and (c) student interest/attention. Reliability analyses showed strong reliability coefficients for each construct (alphas of .84, .87 and .89, respectively). Scales may be used independently or together in pedagogical agent tutoring environments.

Citation

Adcock, A.B. & Van Eck, R.N. (2005). Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 195-217. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 22, 2022 from .

© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abrami, P.C., d'Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R.P.S. Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. New York: Agathon Press.
  2. Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. Bardwell, R. (1984). The development and motivational function of expectations. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 461-472.
  3. Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7),22-125. Baylor, A. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36-40.
  4. Baylor, A., & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373-395.
  5. Bloom, B.S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
  6. Chappell, K.K., & Taylor, C.S. (1997). Evidence for the reliability and factorial validity of the "computer game attitude scale." Journal of Educational Computing Research, 71(1), 67-77.
  7. Chi, M.T.H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
  8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
  9. Darlington, R. (2004). Factor analysis. Retrieved June 10, 2004, from http://comp9.psych.cornel L.edu/Darlington/factor.htm
  10. Dempsey, J., Litchfield, B., & Van Eck, R. (2002, December). Use of pedagogical advisement in technology-assisted learning environments. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the International Conference on Computers in Education, Aukland, New Zealand. ICCE Society Press.
  11. Genesereth, M.R. (1994). Software agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 48-53.
  12. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1974)
  13. Graesser, A., Moreno, K.N., Marineau, J.C., Adcock, A.B., Olney, A.M., & Person, N.K. (2003). AutoTutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialog or the talking head? Paper presented at the International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia.
  14. Graesser, A.C., & Person, N.K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 104-137.
  15. Graesser, A.C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39-50.
  16. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Focus on the CALIS procedure.
  17. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
  18. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  19. Johnson, W.L. (2004). Motivational effects of socially intelligent pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  20. Johnson, W., Rickel, J.W., and Lester, J.C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78.
  21. Kaiser, H.F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.
  22. Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R.W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. Proceedings of ICALT 2001, 43-48.
  23. Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., & Latham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2-3), 259-284.
  24. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.E. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of Counseling Practice, 31(3), 356-362.
  25. Lepper, M.R., & Chabay, R.W. (1987). Socializing the intelligent tutor: Bringing empathy to computer tutors. In H. Mandl & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Learning issues in intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 242-257). New York: Springer Verlag.
  26. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A. & Bhoga, R.S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Association of Computing Machinery. Retrieved, 2001, from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi97/proceedings/paper/j1.htm
  27. Lester, J.C. & Stone, B.A. (1997). Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Ray, CA.
  28. Lloyd, B.H., & Gressard, C. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-505.
  29. Marsh, H.W., Cairns, L., Relich, J., Barnes, J., & Debus, R.L. (1984). The relationship between dimensions of self-attribution and dimension of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1), 3-32.
  30. Moreno, R. (2004). Agent-based methods for multimedia learning environments: What works
  31. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., 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.
  32. Norman, D. (1994). How people might interact with agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 68-71.
  33. Picard, R. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  34. 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.
  35. Sedighian, K., & Sedighian, A. S. (1996). Can educational computer games help educators learn about the psychology of learning mathematics in children? Paper presented at the 18th
  36. Shaw, M.E., & Costanza, P.R. (1970). Theories of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  37. Smead, V.S., & Chase, C.I. (1981). Student expectations as they relate to achievement in eighth grade mathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 115-120.
  38. Van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J.V. (2002). The effect of competition and contextualized advisement on the transfer of mathematics skills in a computer-based instructional simulation game. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 23-41. Adcock and Van Eck

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