Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 569–596 | Cite as

A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions

Article

Abstract

Teaching and learning are highly social activities. Seminal psychologists such as Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura have theorized that social interaction is a key mechanism in the process of learning and development. In particular, the benefits of peer interaction for learning and motivation in classrooms have been broadly demonstrated through empirical studies. Hence, it would be valuable if computer-based environments could support a mechanism for a peer interaction. Though no claim of peer equivalence is made, pedagogical agents as learning companions (PALs)—animated digital characters functioning to simulate human-peer-like interaction—might provide an opportunity to simulate such social interaction in computer-based learning. In this article we ground the instructional potential of PALs in several social-cognitive theories, including distributed cognition, social interaction, and Bandura’s social-cognitive theory. We discuss how specific concepts of the theories might support various instructional functions of PALs, acknowledging concepts that PALs cannot address. Based on the theoretical perspectives, we suggest key constituents for designing PALs that in human-peer interactions have proven significant. Finally, we review the current status of PAL research with respect to these constituents and suggest where further empirical research is necessary.

Keywords

pedagogical agents learning companions social interaction computer-based learning environment advanced technology for learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aimeur, E., & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education, 27(2), 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Arnone, M. P., Grabowski, B. L., & Rynd, C. P. (1994). Curiosity as a personality variable influencing learning in a learner controlled lesson with and without advisement. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asher, S. R., Parker, J. G., & Walker, D. L. (1996). Distinguishing friendship from acceptance: Implications for intervention and assessment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. New-comb & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 366–406). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (in press). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  11. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (2), 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2003). Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, motivator, and mentor. Paper presented at the International Conference of Ed-Media, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  16. 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, Maceio, Alagoas, Brazil.Google Scholar
  17. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 95–115.Google Scholar
  18. Baylor, A. L., & Plant, A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  19. Bickhard, M. H. (2004). The social ontology of persons. In J. I. M. Carpendale & U. Muller (Eds.), Social interaction and the development of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From sad environments to AI. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 71–97). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(4), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Brophy, S., Biswas, G., Katzlberger, T., Bransford, J., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Teachable agents: Combining insights from learning theory and computer science. Paper presented at the AI-ED 99, LeMans, France.Google Scholar
  25. Burleson, W., Picard, R. W., Perlin, K., & Lippincott, J. (2004). A platform for affective agent research. Paper presented at the Workshop on Empathetic Agents, International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  26. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carpendale, J. I. M., & Muller, U. (Eds.). (2004). Social interaction and the development of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Chan, T. W. (1996). Learning companion systems, social learning systems, and the global social learning club. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 7(2), 125–159.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Chiplin-Williams, G. J. (1997). Effects of peer-mediated versus adult-mediated intervention on learning community and domestic skills. Unpublished dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
  32. Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Graesser, A. C., & Group, T. R. (2000). Listening in on dialogues and monologues in a virtual tutoring session: Learning and questioning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253.Google Scholar
  34. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  35. Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A. H., Canamero, L., & Edmonds, B. (Eds.). (2002). Socially intelligent agents: Creating relationships with computers and robots. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Denham, S. A., & Kochanoff, A. (2002). “Why is she crying?” Children’s understanding of emotion from preschool to preadolescence. In The wisdom in feeling (pp. 239–270). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Dillenbourg, P., Mendelsohn, P., & Schneider, D. (1994). The distribution of pedagogical roles in a multiagent learning environment. In R. Lewis & P. Mendelsohn (Eds.), Lessons from learning (pp. 199–216): Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  40. Elliott, C., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents and affective computing: An exploratory synthesis. In M. W. M. Veloso (Ed.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1600, pp. 195–212). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Ellis, H. C., Ottaway, S. A., Varner, L. J., Becker, A. S., & Moore, B. A. (1997). Emotion, motivation, and text comprehension: The detection of contradictions in passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 126(2), 131–146.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Gartner, A., Kohler, M., & Riessman, F. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York and London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  45. Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  46. Goodlad, S., & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring: A guide to learning by teaching. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  47. Goodman, B., Seller, A., Linton, F., & Gaimari, R. (1998). Encouraging student reflection and articulation using a learning companion. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan.Google Scholar
  48. Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K. N., & Marineau, J. C. (2003). Autotutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialogue or the talking head ? Paper presented at the The International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Hays-Roth, B., & Doyle, P. (1998). Animate characters. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1, 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hewitt, I., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.Google Scholar
  54. Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998a). The competence of learning companion agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178–192.Google Scholar
  55. Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998b). Multiple artificial teachers: How do learners cope with a multi-agent learning environment? Paper presented at the Workshop Proceedings on Current Trends and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education at the 4th World Congress on Expert Systems, Mexico City, Mexico.Google Scholar
  56. Hudlicka, E. (2003). To feel or not to feel: The role of affect in human-computer interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 59, 1–32.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Kearsley, G. (1993). Intelligent agents and instructional systems: Implications of a new paradigm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 4(4), 295–304.Google Scholar
  59. Kim, Y. (2003a). The effects of competency and type of interaction of agent learning companion on agent value, motivation, and learning. Paper presented at the Ed-Media, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The effects of agent affect and gender on learning, interest, self-efficacy, and agent persona. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
  62. Kim, Y. (2005a). Learning companions as change agents: Improving girls’ self-efficacy beliefs in learning math: NSF #051503.Google Scholar
  63. Kim, Y. (2005b). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: Building social relations with learners. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  64. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2005a). The impact of affective expression and gender of a learning companion. Paper presented at the Annual Conference in American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  65. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2005b). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: Building empa-thetic relationships with learners. Paper presented at the Annual Conference in American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  66. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(03).Google Scholar
  67. King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Koda, T., & Maes, P. (1996). Agents with faces: The effect of personification. Paper presented at the 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication, Tsukuba, Japan.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Kort, B., Reilly, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An affective model of interplay between emotions and learning: Reengineering educational pedagogy-building a learning companion. Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.Google Scholar
  71. Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education forInformation, 14(2), 95–107.Google Scholar
  72. Laurel, B. (1990). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 355–365). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  73. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Lee, E., & Nass, C. (1998). Does the ethnicity of a computer agent matter? An experimental comparison of human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication. Paper presented at the WECC Conference, Lake Tahoe, CA.Google Scholar
  75. 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. Paper presented at the CHI’97 Human Factors in Computing Systems., Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  76. Littleton, K., Light, P., Joiner, R., Messer, D., & Barnes, P. (1998). Gender, task scenarios and children’s computer-based problem solving. Educational Psychology, 18, 327–340.Google Scholar
  77. Matusov, E., & Hayes, R. (2000). Sociocultural critique of Piaget and Vygotsky. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mayer, R. E., Johnson, L., Shaw, E., & Sandhu, S. (2005). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  79. Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moreno, K. N., Person, N. K., Adcock, A. B., Eck, R. N. V., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium on Personalized Agents, Cape Cod, MA.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Mulken,S. V., Andre, E.,&Muller,J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? Paper presented at the HCI-98, Berlin.Google Scholar
  83. Okonkwo, C. (2003). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion.Google Scholar
  84. Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.Google Scholar
  85. Palthepu, S., Greer, J., & McCalla, G. (1991). Learning by teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  86. Pea, R. (2001). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Perkins, D. N. (2001). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Piaget, L. (1995). Sociological studies (I. Smith, Trans. 2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O’dell, J. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of intent and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(4), 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Ruttkay, Z., & Pelachaud, C. (Eds.). (2004). From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents: Springer.Google Scholar
  95. 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
  96. Saarni, C. (2001). Emotion communication and relationship context. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Salomon, G. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
  100. Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222–241.Google Scholar
  102. Scheirer, J., Fernandez, R., Klein, J., & Picard, R. W. (2002). Frustrating the user on purpose: A step toward building an affective computer. Interacting with Computers, 14(2), 93–118.Google Scholar
  103. Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schunk, D. H., & Lilly, M. W. (1984). Sex differences in self-efficacy and attributions: Influence of performance feedback. Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 203–213.Google Scholar
  105. Suzuki, N., Takechi, Y., Ishii, K., & Okada, M. (2003). Effects of echoic mimicry using hummed sounds on human/computer interaction. Speech Communication, 40, 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Takeuchi, A., & Naito, T. (1995). Situated facial displays: Towards social interaction. Paper presented at the Conference of Human Factors in Computer System (CHI–95), Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Tudge, J. R. H., & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tudge, J. R. H., Winterhoff, P. A., & Hogan, D. M. (1996). The cognitive consequences of collaborative problem solving with and without feedback. Child Development, 67, 2892–2909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ur, S., & VanLehn, K. (1995). Steps: A simulated, tutorable physics student. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 405–435.Google Scholar
  111. 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.Google Scholar
  112. 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
  113. Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., & Subramani, R. (1994). Using a human face in an interface. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  115. 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
  116. White, B. Y., Shimoda, T. A., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Facilitating students’ inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls (Vol. 2, pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  117. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional TechnologyUtah State UniversityLogan
  2. 2.Center for Research on Engaging Advanced Technology for Education (CREATE)USA
  3. 3.Department of Educational Psychology and Learning SystemsFlorida State UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Center for Research of Innovative Technologies for Learning (RITL)USA

Personalised recommendations