Adolphs, R., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). The interaction of affect and cognition: A neuro-biological perspective. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cogniton: Cambridge University Press.
Aimeur, E., & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education, 27
(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2000). Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help? Paper presented at the The 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2000.
Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & PeUetier, K. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Science, 4
(2), 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94
(2), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory
. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52
, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
, 586–598.Google Scholar
Bates, J. (1992). The nature of characters in interactive worlds and the oz project (No. CMU-CS-92-200). Pittsburgh, PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
Baylor, A. L. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50
(2), 5–22.Google Scholar
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15.
Bower, G. H., & Forgas, J. P. (2001). Mood and social memory. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 7
, 1–23.Google Scholar
Chan, T. W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems at the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education
, (pp. 7–33): NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Chan, T. W., & Chou, C. Y. (1997). Exploring the design of computer supports for reciprocal tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8
, 1–29.Google Scholar
Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40
, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences
. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19
(2), 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempsey, J. V., & van Eck, R. (2003). Modality and placement of a pedagogical adviser in individual interactive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34
(5), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.)
. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Dillenbourg, P., & Self, J. (1992). People power: A human-computer collaborative learning system. In G. G. C. Frasson, & G. McCalla (Ed.), The 2nd international conference of intelligent tutoring systems, lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 608, pp. 651–660). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction
. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents
(pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed
.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78
(3), 225–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Goodman, B., Seller, A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection and articulartion using a learning companion. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan.
Graesser, A. C, Person, N. K., Harter, D., & Group, T. R. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in autotutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12
, 257–279.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22
, 39–51.Google Scholar
Griffin, M. M., & Griffin, B. W. (1998). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement, self-efficacy, and test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23
(3), 298–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998). The competence of learning companion agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9
, 178–192.Google Scholar
Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2003). Gender interactions in online debates: Look who’s arguing with whom. Paper presented at the The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
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
, 47–78.Google Scholar
Kapoor, A., & Picard, R. W. (2005). Multimodal affect recognition in learning environments. ACMMMOS, Nov. 6–11. Singapore.
Kim, Y. (2003a). An agent as a learning companion: What it matters. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.
Kim, Y. (2003b). Pedagogical agent as learning companion: Its constituents and implications. Paper presented at the E-Learn, the Annual Conference of Association for the Advancement of computing in Education, Phoenix, AZ.
Kim, Y. (2004). Learners’ expectations on the desirable characteristics of learning companions. Paper presented at the the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
King, I. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10
(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8
, 30–43.Google Scholar
Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Educational for Information, 14
(2), 95–107.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation
. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4)
, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mclnerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds.). (2000). Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning
. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Mdnerney, D. M., & Van Etten, S. (Eds.)- (2002). Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 2). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Microsoft. (2001). Farewell clippy: What’s happening to the infamous office assistant in office xp. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/fea-tures/2001/apr01/04-llclippy.asp
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulken, S. V., Andre, E.,&Muller, J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? Paper presented at the HCI-98, Berlin.
Nijholt, A. (2001). Agents, believability, and environment in advanced learning environments: Introduction to a panel discussion. Paper presented at the International Conference of Advanced Learning Technologies, Madison, Wisconsin.
Norman, D. A. (1997). How might people interact with agents? In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–55). The MIT Press.
Palinscar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1
(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child
. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Picard, R., Cassell, J., Kort, B., Reilly, R., Bickmore, T. W., Kapoor, A., Mota, S., & Vaucelle, C. Affective learning companion. Retrieved January 23, 2006, from www.media.mit.edu/affect/AC_ressearch/lc/.
Powell, J. V., Aeby, V. G., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. (2003). A comparison of student outcomes with and without teacher facilitated computer-based instruction. Computers & Education, 40
, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructinal technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media reflections, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37
(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O’Dell, J. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of ontent and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37
(4), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer interactions in shared technological activity: A study of participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12
, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryokai, K., Vaucelle, C., & Cassell, J. (2003). Virtual peers as partners in storytelling and literacy learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19
(2), 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57
(2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79
, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42
(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teachers’ behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educantional Psychology, 85
, 571–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16
(4), 117–121.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15
(4), 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topping, K. (Ed.). (2001). Peer-assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers
. Newton, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
Topping, K., Hill, S., McKaig, A., Rogers, C, Rushi, N., & Young, D. (1997). Paired reciprocal peer tutoring in undergraduate economics. Innovations in Education and Training International, 34
(2), 96–113.Google Scholar
Uresti, R. J. (2000). Should i teach my computer peer? Some issues in teaching a learning companion. Paper presented at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Uresti, R. J., & Boulay, B. D. (2004). Expertise, motivation and teaching in learning companion systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14
, 193–231.Google Scholar
van Eck, R., & Dempsey, J. (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.Google Scholar
VanLehn, K., Freedman, R., Jordan, P., Murray, C., Osan, R., Ringenberg, M., et al. (2000). Fading and deepening: The next steps for andes and other model-tracing tutors. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society
. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F. J. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem-solving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition
(pp. 151–171). Bridgewater, NJ: Replica Books.Google Scholar
Wong, C. A., & Dornbusch, S. M. (2000). Adolescent engagement in school and problem behaviors: The role of perceived teacher caring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Woolf, B. (1990). 20 years in the trenches: What have we learned? In C. Frasson & G. Gauthier (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: At the crossroads of artificial intelligence and education
, (pp. 7–33). NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception. Paper presented at the Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), New York City.
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71
, 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar