Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Twenty-five Years of Learning with Pedagogical Agents: History, Barriers, and Opportunities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pedagogical agents are on-screen characters that help facilitate learning in a virtual or mixed-reality setting. The research on pedagogical agents has shifted focus since their creation, from understanding their underlying principles, identifying their potential roles and usage, and recently finetuning their design for applied practice. This paper explores the history of pedagogical agents and summarizes the current state of knowledge. Once the current state of pedagogical agents is established, barriers and opportunities are discussed to suggest how researchers can best improve pedagogical agents and their implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamo, N., Dib, H. N., & Villani, N. J. (2019). Animated agents’ facial emotions: Does the agent design make a difference? In L. T. DePaolis & P. Bourdot (Eds.), Augmented reality, virtual reality and computer graphics (pp. 10–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25965-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Adamo, N., Benes, B., Mayer, R. E., Lei, X., Wang, Z., Meyer, Z., & Lawson, A. (2021). Multimodal affective pedagogical agents for different types of learners. In D. Russo, T. Ahram, W. Karwowski, G. Di Bucchianico, & R. Taiar (Eds.), Intelligent Human Systems Integration 2021 (pp. 218–224). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68017-6_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, I., Mawasi, A., Wang, S., Wylie, R., Bergner, Y., Whitehurst, A., & Walker, E. (2019). Investigating help-giving behavior in a cross-platform learning environment. In S. Isotani et al. (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education: 20th International Conference, Proceedings, Part I (pp. 14–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anasingaraju, S., Adamo-Villani, N., & Dib, H. N. (2020). The contribution of different body channels to the expression of emotion in animated pedagogical agents. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 16(4), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJTHI.2020100105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arguedas, M., Xhafa, F., Casillas, L., Daradoumis, T., Peña, A., & Caballé, S. (2018). A model for providing emotion awareness and feedback using fuzzy logic in online learning. Soft Computing, 22(3), 963–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2399-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badathala, S. P., Adamo, N., Villani, N. J., & Dib, H. N. (2018). The effect of gait parameters on the perception of animated agents’ personality. In L. De Paolis & P. Bourdot (Eds.), Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics (pp. 464–479). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95270-3_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L. (2003). Systematically designing pedagogical agents: Effects of image, animation and agent role on learner performance and motivation. In A. K. Noor (Ed.), Advanced learning technologies and learning networks and their impact on future aerospace workforce (pp. 239–250). NASA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3559–3565. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2004 (pp. 592–603). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30139-4_56

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson, H., & Yan, H. (2000). Human conversation as a system framework: Designing embodied conversational agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. F. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 29–63). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2697.001.0001

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, M., Adesope, O. O., & Ayres, & Paas, F. (2019). Gender imbalance in instructional dynamic versus static visualizations: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Ayres, & 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J., Zhou, W., Lei, X., Adamo, N., & Benes, B. (2020). The effects of body gestures and gender on viewer’s perception of animated pedagogical agent’s emotions. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction. Multimodal and Natural Interaction (pp. 169–186). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49062-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chia, A. (2022). The metaverse, but not the way you think: game engines and automation beyond game development. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 39(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2022.2080850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, E. K., Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2020). How we trust, perceive, and learn from virtual humans: The influence of voice quality. Computers & Education, 146, 103756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103756

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chughtai, R., Zhang, S., & Craig, S. D. (2015, September). Usability evaluation of intelligent tutoring system: ITS from a usability perspective. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59(1), 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591076

    Article  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, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. W., Friedman, H. S., Duggan, K. A., Cui, J., & Popescu, V. (2017). Hand gesture and mathematics learning: lessons from an avatar. Cognitive Science, 41(2), 518–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., & Brittingham, J. K. (2013). Instruction via observational learning: Addressing the growing need for efficient learning techniques in schools. In R. K. Atkinson (Ed.), Learning environments: Technologies, challenges and impact assessment (pp. 81–99). Nova Science Publishers.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. In K. K. Millis, D. Long, J. Magliano, & K. Wiemer (Eds.), Deep comprehension (pp. 128–139). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315109503-11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in virtual tutoring sessions: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(2), 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Sullins, J., Witherspoon, A., & Gholson, B. (2006). Deep-level reasoning questions effect: The role of dialog and deep-level reasoning questions during vicarious learning. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2404_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Brittingham, J. K., Williams, J. L., & Shubeck, K. T. (2012). Promoting vicarious learning of physics using deep questions with explanations. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115585927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Mello, S., Craig, S., Fike, K., & Graesser, A. (2009). Responding to learners’ cognitive-affective states with supportive and shakeup dialogues. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interaction (pp. 595–604). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02580-8_65

    Chapter  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. O., & Vincent, J. (2019). Sometimes more is better: Agent gestures, procedural knowledge and the foreign language learner. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3252–3263. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. O., Vincent, J., & Wan, L. (2021a). Does a pedagogical agent’s gesture frequency assist advanced foreign language users with learning declarative knowledge? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00256-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, R. O., Wan, L. L., Vincent, J., & Lee, Y. J. (2021b). The effects of virtual human gesture frequency and reduced video speed on satisfaction and learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2331–2352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10010-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • du Boulay, B., & Mizoguchi, R. (1997). Animated pedagogical agents and problem solving effectiveness: A large-scale empirical evaluation. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1997: Knowledge and Media in Learning Systems: Proceedings of AI-ED 97, World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan (Vol. 39, p. 23). IOS Press.

  • Elliott, C., Rickel, J., & Lester, J. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents and affective computing: An exploratory synthesis. In M. J. Wooldridge & M. Veloso (Eds.), Artificial intelligence today (pp. 195–211). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48317-9_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C. (2015). Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(2), 412–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00991.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gholson, B., & Craig, S. D. (2006). Promoting constructive activities that support vicarious learning during computer-based instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9006-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gholson, B., Witherspoon, A., Morgan, B., Brittingham, J., Coles, R., Graesser, A. C., Sullins, J., & Craig, S. D. (2009). Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science, 37, 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9069-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gholson, B., Coles, R., & Craig, S. D. (2010). Features of computerized multimedia environments that support vicarious learning processes. In M. Khine & I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 53–77). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Franceschetti, D., Gholson, B., & Craig, S. (2011). Learning Newtonian physics with conversational agents and interactive simulation. In N. Stein & S. W. Raudenbush (Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 157–172). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837535

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414540680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Lippert, A. M., & Hampton, A. J. (2017). Successes and failures in building learning environments to promote deep learning: The value of conversational agents. In J. Buder & F. Hesse (Eds.), Informational environments (pp. 273–298). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64274-1_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Dowell, N., Hampton, A. J., Lippert, A. M., Li, H., & Shaffer, D. W. (2018). Building intelligent conversational tutors and mentors for team collaborative problem solving: Guidance from the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment. In J. J. Johnston, R. Sottilare, A. Sinatra, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Building intelligent tutoring systems for teams: What matters (pp. 173–214). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620180000019012

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gratch, J., Hartholt, A., Dehghani, M., & Marsella, S. (2013). Virtual humans: a new toolkit for cognitive science research. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 215–233). Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grivokostopoulou, F., Kovas, K., & Perikos, I. (2020). The effectiveness of embodied pedagogical agents and their impact on students learning in virtual worlds. Applied Sciences, 10(5), 1739. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14(3–4), 313–334.

  • Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilfert, T., & König, M. (2016). Low-cost virtual reality environment for engineering and construction. Visualization in Engineering, 4, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40327-015-0031-5

  • Horovitz, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, X., Cai, Z., Han, L., Craig, S. D., Wang, T., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). AutoTutor Lite. In V. Dimitrova et al. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 802–802). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-028-5-802

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., Roscoe, R. D., Craig, S. D., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2022). Extending the cognitive-affective theory of learning with media in virtual reality learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 807–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioia, K. A., & Craig, S. D. (2018, October). The influence of vicarious learning on explicit bias and knowledge retention in an online LGBT competency training program. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1034–1046). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). http://www.learntechlib.org/primary/j/ELEARN/v/2018/n/1/

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Pedagogical agents: back to the future. AI Magazine, 39(2), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v39i2.2793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., & Rickel, J. (1997). Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 8(1-4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/272874.272877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J., Stiles, R., & Munro, A. (1998). Integrating pedagogical agents into virtual environments. Presence, 7(6), 523–546. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 47–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013a). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1807–1815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013b). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signaling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamińska, D., Sapiński, T., Wiak, S., Tikk, T., Haamer, R. E., Avots, E., et al. (2019). Virtual reality and its applications in education: Survey. Information, 10(10), 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10100318/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappagantula, S. R. K., Adamo-Villani, N., Wu, M. L., & Popescu, V. (2019). Automatic deictic gestures for animated pedagogical agents. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2922134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance. The ARCS model approach. Springer Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 309–321.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010). Personalizing e-learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. C., Noren, D., Auerbach, D., Birch, M., & Swartout, W. (2011). Intelligent tutoring goes to the museum in the big city: A pedagogical agent for informal science education. In G. Biswas, S. Bull, J. Kay, & A. Mitrovic (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2011 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) (Vol. 6738). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. C., Cahill, C., Foutz, S., Auerbach, D., Noren, D., Lussenhop, C., & Swartout, W. (2013). The effects of a pedagogical agent for informal science education on learner behaviors and self-efficacy. In H. C. Lane, K. Yacef, J. Mostow, & P. Pavlik (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2013 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7926). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. P., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Does the emotional stance of human and virtual instructors in instructional videos affect learning processes and outcomes? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, 102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. P., Mayer, R. E., Adamo-Villani, N., Benes, B., Lei, X., & Cheng, J. (2020). Recognizing the emotional state of human and virtual instructors. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. P., Mayer, R. E., Adamo-Villani, N., Benes, B., Lei, X., & Cheng, J. (2021). Do learners recognize and relate to the emotions displayed by virtual instructors? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 31(1), 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00238-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997a). 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). AMC. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258797

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Stone, B. A., Kahler, S. E., & Barlow, T. (1997b). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness: A large-scale empirical evaluation. In P. Brusilovsky & S. Ritter (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 1997 (pp. 23–30). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, G. D. (1999a). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 9(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Voerman, J. L., Towns, S. G., & Callaway, C. B. (1999b). Deictic believability: Coordinated gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4-5), 383–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J., Branting, K., & Mott, B. (2004). Conversational agents. In M. P. Singh (Ed.), The practical handbook of internet computing (pp. 220–240).

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382–1395. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? Computers & Education, 143, 103658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippert, A., Shubeck, K., Morgan, B., Hampton, A., & Graesser, A. (2020). Multiple agent designs in conversational intelligent tutoring systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09431-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 21(6), 747–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 937–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makransky, G., Wismer, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makransky, G., Andreasen, N. K., Baceviciute, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, B., & Thomas, J. (2022). Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory. Education and information technologies, 27(1), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10653-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003a). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of educational psychology, 95(4), 806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003b). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). Operation ARA: A serious game that combines intelligent tutoring and learning principles to teach science. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 169–183). APA. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.006

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Min, W., Park, K., Wiggins, J., Mott, B., Wiebe, E., Boyer, K. E., & Lester, J. (2019). Predicting dialogue breakdown in conversational pedagogical agents with multimodal LSTMs. In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 20th International Conference, AIED 2019, Chicago, IL, USA, June 25-29, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 20 (pp. 195–200). Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00408.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., Mayer, R., & Lester, J. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 776–781). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, C., Ball, J., Cooke, N., Freiman, M., Caisse, M., Rodgers, S., & McNeese, N. (2019). Autonomous intelligent agents for team training. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 34(2), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogan, A., Finkelstein, S., Mayfield, E., D'Adamo, C., Matsuda, N., & Cassell, J. (2012). “Oh dear stacy!” social interaction, elaboration, and learning with teachable agents. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 39–48). https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207684

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Okwumabua, T. M., Peasant, C., Anderson, M. B., Barnes, E., & Craig, S. D. (2018). Using deep reasoning questions to improve an email-based sexually transmitted infection prevention intervention. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 13(4), 452–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2018.1474823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. (2005). The effects of seductive augmentation and agent role on learning interest, achievement, and attitude (Published Dissertation). The Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiyetunbi, O. J., & Babatunde, O. E. (2019). Pedagogical agent for Okun language expression construction and translation using a computer support collaborative learning (Cscl) approach in a cloud environment. East African Scholars Journal of Engineering and Computer Sciences, 2(10), 270–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge, UK, 10, 236605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1997). Integrating pedagogical capabilities in a virtual environment agent. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Autonomous agents (pp. 30–38). https://doi.org/10.1145/267658.267664

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied artificial intelligence, 13(4-5), 343–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (2000). Task-oriented collaboration with embodied agents in virtual worlds. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 95–122). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schnaubert, L., & Rey, G. D. (2021). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5

    Article  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2021). Learning with virtual humans: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1863114

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, N. L., Chiou, E. K., & Craig, S. D. (2021). Trust influences perceptions of virtual humans, but not necessarily learning. Computers & Education, 160, 104039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, N. L., Siegle, R. F., Verma, V., & Craig, S. D. (2022). When refutation and deep reasoning questions lose their edge: The case of short, narrated videos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1197–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211070534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, D., Bickmore, T. W., & Sidner, C. L. (2011). An intelligent conversational agent for promoting long-term health behavior change using motivational interviewing. In AAAI Spring Symposium: AI and Health Communication. AAAI https://dblp.org/db/conf/aaaiss/aaaiss2011-1.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubeck, K. T., Craig, S. D., & Hu, X. (2016). Live-action mass-casualty training and virtual world training: A comparison. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 2103–2107). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213601476

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siegle, R. F., Roscoe, R. D., Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2020). Immersive learning environments at scale: Constraints and opportunities. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (pp. 1165–1169). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siegle, R. F., Puchalski, J. L., & Craig, S. D. (2022). How an animated pedagogical agent’s emotional expression can impact trust and learning outcomes: Emotive virtual humans have the same results with a smile or scowl. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 66(1), 470–474. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

  • Stone, B. A., & Lester, J. C. (1996). Dynamically sequencing an animated pedagogical agent. In W. J. Clancey & D. S. Weld (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 96, IAAI 96 (pp. 424–431). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullins, J., Craig, S. D., & Graesser, A. C. (2009). Tough love: The influence of an agent's negative affect on students' learning. In V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. du Boulay, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED2009 (pp. 677–679). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-028-5-677

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Towns, S. G., FitzGerald, P. J., & Lester, J. C. (1998). Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. In B. P. Goettl, H. M. Halff, C. L. Redfield, & V. J. Shute (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems 4th International Conference. ITS 1998 (pp. 474–483). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68716-5_53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Twyford, J., & Craig, S. D. (2017). Modeling goal setting within a multimedia environment on complex physics content. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(3), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116667371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agent’s effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9378-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, N., Gabrys, B., & Dubey, V. N. (2016). An overview of self-adaptive technologies within virtual reality training. Computer Science Review, 22, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2016.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath, A., Kam, M., & Kumar, N. (2017). Examining low-cost virtual reality for learning in low-resource environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1277–1281). https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064696

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, E., & Ogan, A. (2016). We’re in this together: Intentional design of social relationships with AIED systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26, 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0100-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Experimental evaluation of polite interaction tactics for pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 12–19). https://doi.org/10.1145/1040830.1040845

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, J. B., Kulkarni, M., Min, W., Boyer, K. E., Mott, B., Wiebe, E., & Lester, J. (2019). Take the initiative: Mixed initiative dialogue policies for pedagogical agents in game-based learning environments. In S. Isotani, E. Millán, A. Ogan, P. Hastings, B. McLaren, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2019 (pp. 314–318). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23207-8_58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zipp, S. A., & Craig, S. D. (2019). The impact of a user’s biases on interactions with virtual humans and learning during virtual emergency management training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1385–1404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09647-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Craig, S. D., Chiou, E. K., & Schroeder, N. L. (2019). The impact of virtual human voice on learner trust. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 2272–2276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631517

  • Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & Tutoring Research Group. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Cognitive Systems Research, 1(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(99)00005-4

Download references

Funding

The current paper was partially funded by NSF grant 1917994. The statements within this work do not reflect the opinion, view, or policy of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering, Human Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 7271 E Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Santa Catalina Hall, Ste. 150, Mesa, AZ, 85212, USA

    Robert F. Siegle & Scotty D. Craig

  2. Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations Dayton, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA

    Noah L. Schroeder

  3. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    H. Chad Lane

Authors
  1. Robert F. Siegle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noah L. Schroeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Chad Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Scotty D. Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scotty D. Craig.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in this study were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board (IRB). The methodology and research instruments for this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University. Informed consent was obtained from each participant in this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siegle, R.F., Schroeder, N.L., Lane, H.C. et al. Twenty-five Years of Learning with Pedagogical Agents: History, Barriers, and Opportunities. TechTrends 67, 851–864 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00869-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00869-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation