Learning by Explaining to a Digital Doppelganger

  • Ning Wang
  • Ari Shapiro
  • Andrew Feng
  • Cindy Zhuang
  • Chirag Merchant
  • David Schwartz
  • Stephen L. Goldberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10858)


Digital doppelgangers are virtual humans that highly resemble the real self but behave independently. An emerging computer animation technology makes the creation of digital doppelgangers an accessible reality. This allows researchers in pedagogical agents to explore previously unexplorable research questions, such as how does increasing the similarity in appearance between the agent and the student impact learning. This paper discusses the design and evaluation of a digital doppelganger as a virtual listener in a learning-by-explaining paradigm. Results offer insight into the promise and limitation of this novel technology.


Pedagogical agent Learning by explaining Rapid Avatar Capture and Simulation 



This work is supported by the US Army Research Laboratory. Statements expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the United States Government. No official endorsement should be inferred.


  1. 1.
    Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.W., Lester, J.C., et al.: Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 11(1), 47–78 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T., Stone, B.A., Bhogal, R.S.: The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 359–366. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.: Steve: an animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. SIGART 8(1–4), 16–21 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lester, J.C., Stone, B.A.: Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents, pp. 16–21. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig, S.D., Gholson, B., Driscoll, D.M.: Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. J. Educ. Psychol. 94(2), 428 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Person, N.K.: Autotutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: is it the dialog or the talking head? AI Educ. 97, 47 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, N., Johnson, W.L., Mayer, R.E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., Collins, H.: The politeness effect: pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(2), 98–112 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biswas, G., Jeong, H., Kinnebrew, J.S., Sulcer, B., Roscoe, R.: Measuring self-regulated learning skills through social interactions in a teachable agent environment. Res. Practice Tech. Enhanced Learn. 5(02), 123–152 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baylor, A.L., Kim, Y.: Pedagogical agent design: the impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In: Lester, J.C., Vicari, R.M., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3220, pp. 592–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veletsianos, G.: Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Comput. Educ. 55(2), 576–585 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Domagk, S.: Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? J. Media Psychol. 22, 84–97 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schroeder, N.L., Adesope, O.O., Gilbert, R.B.: How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49(1), 1–39 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Finkelstein, S., Yarzebinski, E., Vaughn, C., Ogan, A., Cassell, J.: The effects of culturally congruent educational technologies on student achievement. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7926, pp. 493–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bailenson, J.N.: Doppelgangers-a new form of self? Psychologist 25(1), 36–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shapiro, A., Feng, A., Wang, R., Li, H., Bolas, M., Medioni, G., Suma, E.: Rapid avatar capture and simulation using commodity depth sensors. Comput. Anim. Virtual Worlds 25(3–4), 201–211 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gratch, J., Wang, N., Okhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Morales, M., van der Werf, R.J., Morency, L.-P.: Can virtual humans be more engaging than real ones? In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4552, pp. 286–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chi, M.T., Siler, S.A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., Hausmann, R.G.: Learning from human tutoring. Cogn. Sci. 25(4), 471–533 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg, M.: Society & the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leone, J.E., Mullin, E.M., Maurer-Starks, S.S., Rovito, M.J.: The adolescent body image satisfaction scale for males: exploratory factor analysis and implications for strength and conditioning professionals. J. Strength Cond. Res. 28(9), 2657–2668 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    IPIP, Preliminary IPIP Scales Measuring Constructs Similar to Those Included in Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO Personality Inventory (2015). Accessed 2015.
  21. 21.
    Witmer, B.G., Jerome, C.J., Singer, M.J.: The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence 14(3), 298–312 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fox, J., Bailenson, J.N.: Virtual self-modeling: the effects of vicarious reinforcement and identification on exercise behaviors. Media Psychol. 12(1), 1–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feng, A., Rosenberg, E.S., Shapiro, A.: Just-in-time, viable, 3-D avatars from scans. Comput. Anim. Virtual Worlds 28(3–4) (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ning Wang
    • 1
  • Ari Shapiro
    • 1
  • Andrew Feng
    • 1
  • Cindy Zhuang
    • 2
  • Chirag Merchant
    • 1
  • David Schwartz
    • 2
  • Stephen L. Goldberg
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Army Research LaboratoryOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations