Skip to main content

A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Aimeur, E., & Frasson, C. (1996). Analyzing a new learning strategy according to different knowledge levels. Computers & Education, 27(2), 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (in press). Digital chameleons: Automatic assimilation of nonverbal gestures in immersive virtual environments. Psychological Science.

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51 (2), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, J. (1994). The role of emotion in believable agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 122–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Plant, A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice. Unpublished manuscript.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpendale, J. I. M., & Muller, U. (Eds.). (2004). Social interaction and the development of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.

  • Forgas, J. P. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of affect and social cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, A., Kohler, M., & Riessman, F. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York and London: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertner, A. S., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Andes: A coached problem solving environment for physics. Paper presented at the ITS 2000, Montreal, Canada.

  • Goodlad, S., & Hirst, B. (1989). Peer tutoring: A guide to learning by teaching. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Hays-Roth, B., & Doyle, P. (1998). Animate characters. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1, 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, I., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998a). The competence of learning companion agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9, 178–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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). 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 

  • Kim, Y. (2005a). Learning companions as change agents: Improving girls’ self-efficacy beliefs in learning math: NSF #051503.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • King, A. (1998). Transactive peer tutoring: Distributing cognition and metacognition. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Large, A. (1996). Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: A research review. Education forInformation, 14(2), 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Matusov, E., & Hayes, R. (2000). Sociocultural critique of Piaget and Vygotsky. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 215–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Mulken,S. V., Andre, E.,&Muller,J. (1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? Paper presented at the HCI-98, Berlin.

  • Okonkwo, C. (2003). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion.

  • Palincsar, A., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palthepu, S., Greer, J., & McCalla, G. (1991). Learning by teaching. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Learning Sciences.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Piaget, L. (1995). Sociological studies (I. Smith, Trans. 2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

  • Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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., & 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruttkay, Z., & Pelachaud, C. (Eds.). (2004). From brows to trust: Evaluating embodied conversational agents: Springer.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarni, C. (2001). Emotion communication and relationship context. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(4), 354–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1988). AI in reverse: Computer tools that turn cognitive. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1990). Cognitive effects with and of computer technology. Communication Research, 17(1), 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 222–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research, 57(2), 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ur, S., & VanLehn, K. (1995). Steps: A simulated, tutorable physics student. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6(4), 405–435.

    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 

  • Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanghee Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L. A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. Education Tech Research Dev 54, 569–596 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

Keywords

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