Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Beier, M. E. (2013). Trait complex, cognitive ability, and domain knowledge predictors of baccalaureate success, STEM persistence, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(3), 911–927. doi:10.1037/a0032338.
Article
Google Scholar
Agrawala, M., Li, W., & Berthouzoz, F. (2011). Design principles for visual communication. Communications of the ACM,
54(4), 60–69. doi:10.1145/1924421.1924439.
Article
Google Scholar
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Educational Psychology Review,
103(1), 1–18. doi:10.1037/a0021017.
Article
Google Scholar
André, E., Müller, J., & Rist, T. (1996). The PPP persona: a multipurpose animated presentation agent. In Proceedings of the Paper presented at the Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces, Gubbio.
André, E., Rist, T., & Müller, J. (1999). Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal,
13(4–5), 415–448. doi:10.1080/088395199117333.
Article
Google Scholar
Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J., & Klinger, D. (2011). Influence of motivation, self-beliefs, and instructional practices on science achievement of adolescents in Canada. Social Psychology of Education,
14(2), 233–259. doi:10.1007/s11218-010-9144-9.
Article
Google Scholar
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Cooper, D. G., Burleson, W., & Muldner, K. (2011). The impact of animated pedagogical agents on girls’ and boys’ emotions, attitudes, behaviors and learning. In: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Athens, Georgia.
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Royer, J. M., & Tai, M. (2009). Affective Gendered Learning Companions. In: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED), Brighton.
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(2), 416–427. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.416.
Article
Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman and Company.
Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management,
38(1), 9–44. doi:10.1177/0149206311410606.
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. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development,
59(2), 291–300. doi: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: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), Maceió, Alagoas.
Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
28(4), 373–394. doi:10.2190/V0WQ-NWGN-JB54-FAT4.
Article
Google Scholar
Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Warren, D. (2004). Supporting learners with math anxiety: The impact of pedagogical agent emotional and motivational support. In: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), Maceió, Alagoas.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology,
54(2), 199–231. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
45(8), 955–970. doi:10.1002/tea.20249.
Article
Google Scholar
Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM,
43(4), 70–78. doi:10.1145/332051.332075.
Article
Google Scholar
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
32(3), 243–257. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320305.
Article
Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin,
135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412.
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. doi:10.2190/A064-U776-4208-N145.
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(3), 209–225. doi:10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY.
Article
Google Scholar
Clore, G. L., & Palmer, J. (2009). Affective guidance of intelligent agents: How emotion controls cognition. Cognitive Systems Research,
10(1), 21–30. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2008.03.002.
Article
Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
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. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.428.
Article
Google Scholar
de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science,
321, 532–533. doi:10.1126/science.1127750.
Article
Google Scholar
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research,
68(2), 179–201. doi:10.3102/00346543068002179.
Article
Google Scholar
de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W. R., Veermans, K., & van der Meij, J. (2005). Authoring discovery learning environments: In search for reusable components. In J. M. Spector & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 11–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
Dehn, D. M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). Impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies,
52(1), 1–22. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0325.
Article
Google Scholar
Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
22(2), 84. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000011.
Article
Google Scholar
Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers and Education,
49(3), 677–690. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.010.
Article
Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership,
65(2), 32–39.
Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivation beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,
53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.
Article
Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
8(3–4), 391–450. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075.
Article
Google Scholar
Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
37(3), 293–309. doi:10.1177/0361684313480694.
Article
Google Scholar
Eysink, T. H. S., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instructional approaches. American Educational Research Journal,
46(4), 1107–1149. doi:10.3102/0002831209340235.
Article
Google Scholar
Feng, S.-L., & Tuan, H.-L. (2005). Using ARCS model to promote 11th graders’ motivation and achievement in learning about acids and bases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,
3(3), 463–484. doi:10.1007/s10763-004-6828-7.
Article
Google Scholar
Ferry, T. R., Fouad, N. A., & Smith, P. L. (2000). The role of family context in a social cognitive model for career-related choice behavior: A math and science perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
57, 348–364. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1999.1743.
Article
Google Scholar
Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
22(2), 61–72. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000009.
Article
Google Scholar
Graesser, A., & McNamara, D. (2010). Self-regulated learning in learning environments with pedagogical agents that interact in natural language. Educational Psychologist,
45(4), 234–244. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.515933.
Article
Google Scholar
Gulz, A. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters: Differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,
21(6), 405–418. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00147.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Haake, M. (2009). Embodied pedagogical agents. From visual impact to pedagogical implications. (Doctoral Thesis), Department of Design Sciences, Lund University, Sweden.
Hagemans, M., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2013). Regulating the inquiry learning process. The effects of a concept map based support tool for simulation-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105(1), 1–24. doi:10.1037/a0029433.
Article
Google Scholar
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review,
6(1), 27–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004.
Article
Google Scholar
Huett, J. B., Kalinowski, K. E., Moller, L., & Huett, K. C. (2008). Improving the motivation and retention of online students through the use of ARCS-based e-mails. American Journal of Distance Education,
22(3), 159–176. doi:10.1080/08923640802224451.
Article
Google Scholar
Järvelä, S., Veermans, M., & Leinonen, P. (2008). Investigating student engagement in computer-supported inquiry: a process-oriented analysis. Social Psychology of Education,
11(3), 299–322. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9047-6.
Article
Google Scholar
Kaya, S., & Rice, D. C. (2009). Multilevel effects of student and classroom factors on elementary science achievement in five countries. International Journal of Science Education,
32(10), 1337–1363. doi:10.1080/09500690903049785.
Article
Google Scholar
Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance. The ARCS model approach. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.
Book
Google Scholar
Keller, J. M., & Suzuki, K. (2004). Learner motivation and e-learning design: A multinationally validated process. Journal of Educational Media,
29(3), 229–239. doi:10.1080/1358165042000283084.
Article
Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development,
54(6), 569–596. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3.
Article
Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,
23(3), 220–234. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00210.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.
Article
Google Scholar
Lau, S., & Roeser, R. W. (2002). Cognitive abilities and motivational processes in high school students’ situational engagement and achievement in science. Educational Assessment,
8(2), 139–162. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0802_04.
Article
Google Scholar
Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
46(8), 922–944. doi:10.1002/tea.20339.
Article
Google Scholar
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Loorbach, N., Karreman, J., & Steehouder, M. (2007). Adding motivational elements to an instruction manual for seniors: Effects on usability and motivation. Technical Communication,
54(3), 343–358.
Google Scholar
Loorbach, N., Steehouder, M., & Taal, E. (2006). The effects of motivational elements in user instructions. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
20(2), 177–199. doi:10.1177/1050651905284404.
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,
21(6), 747–764. doi:10.1002/acp.1347.
Article
Google Scholar
Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude-achievement relationships over time among white middle-school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
39(4), 324–340. doi:10.1002/tea.10024.
Article
Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist,
59(1), 14–19. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.14.
Article
Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science,
32(1–2), 99–113. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d.
Article
Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–523). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. In: Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA), Montreal.
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. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02.
Article
Google Scholar
Moreno, R., Reislein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
22(2), 52–60. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000008.
Article
Google Scholar
Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted learning,
18(3), 253–261. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00237.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Nagy, G., Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2010). The development of students’ mathematics self-concept in relation to gender: Different countries, different trajectories? Journal of Research on Adolescence,
20, 482–506.
Article
Google Scholar
Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroom motivation: Strategies of first-year teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(2), 195–200. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.195.
Article
Google Scholar
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The referential structure of the affective lexicon. Cognitive Science,
11, 341–364. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1103_4.
Article
Google Scholar
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education,
25(9), 1049–1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199.
Article
Google Scholar
Paiva, A., & Machado, I. (1998, August 16-19). Vincent, an autonomous pedagogical agent for on-the-job training. In: Proceedings of the Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), San Antonio, Texas.
Picard, R. W., & Klein, J. (2002). Computers that recognise and respond to user emotion: Theoretical and practical implications. Interacting with Computers,
14(2), 141–169. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(01)00055-8.
Article
Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education. Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Plant, E. A., Baylor, A. L., Doerr, C. E., & Rosenberg-Kima, R. B. (2009). Changing middle-school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers and Education,
53(2), 209–215. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.013.
Article
Google Scholar
Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior,
24, 2741–2756. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.017.
Article
Google Scholar
Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Plant, E. A., Doerr, C. E., & Baylor, A. L. (2010). The influence of computer-based model’s race and gender on female students’ attitudes and beliefs towards engineering. Journal of Engineering Education,
99(1), 35–44. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01040.x.
Article
Google Scholar
Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L. K., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
48(9), 1050–1078. doi:10.1002/tea.20437.
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. doi:10.2190/EC.49.1.a.
Article
Google Scholar
Song, S., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(2), 5–22. doi:10.1007/bf02504925.
Article
Google Scholar
van Welbergen, H., Reidsma, D., Ruttkay, Z. M., & Zwiers, J. (2010). Elckerlyc, a BML Realizer for continuous, multimodal interaction with a virtual human. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces,
3(4), 271–284. doi:10.1007/s12193-010-0051-3.
Article
Google Scholar
Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review,
18(3), 239–253. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0.
Article
Google Scholar
Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies,
66(2), 98–112. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09.003.
Article
Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology,
71(1), 3–25.
Article
Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25, 68–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Woolf, B. P., Arroyo, I., Muldner, K., Burleson, W., Cooper, D. G., Dolan, R., & Christopherson, R. (2010). The effect of motivational learning companions on low achieving students and students with disabilities. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Yeung, K. S., Kuppan, L., Kadir, M. S., & Foong, S. K. (2010). Boys’ and girls’ self-beliefs, engagement, and aspirations in physics. International Journal of Learning,
17(10), 397–418.
Google Scholar