Advertisement

The Effects of a Pedagogical Agent for Informal Science Education on Learner Behaviors and Self-efficacy

  • H. Chad Lane
  • Clara Cahill
  • Susan Foutz
  • Daniel Auerbach
  • Dan Noren
  • Catherine Lussenhop
  • William Swartout
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7926)

Abstract

We describe Coach Mike, an animated pedagogical agent for informal computer science education, and report findings from two experiments that provide initial evidence for the efficacy of the system. In the first study, we found that Coach Mike’s presence led to 20% longer holding times, increased acceptance of programming challenges, and reduced misuse of the exhibit, but had limited cumulative impact on attitudes, awareness, and knowledge beyond what the host exhibit already achieved. In the second study, we compared two different versions of Coach Mike and found that the use of enthusiasm and self-regulatory feedback led to greater self-efficacy for programming.

Keywords

pedagogical agents intelligent tutoring systems informal science education computer science education enthusiasm self-efficacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson, W.L., et al.: Animated Pedagogical Agents: Face-to-Face Interaction in Interactive Learning Environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 11, 47–48 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunsworth, Q., Atkinson, R.K.: Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education 49, 677–690 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Craig, S.D., et al.: Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology 94, 428–434 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, R.E., Choi, S.: Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research 32, 209–225 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dehn, D.M., van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52, 1–22 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arroyo, I., et al.: Affective Gendered Learning Companions. In: Dimitrova, V., Mizoguchi, R., du Boulay, B., Graesser, A.C. (eds.) Proc. of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 41–48. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lester, J.C., et al.: The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 359–366. ACM, Atlanta (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, Y., et al.: Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development 54, 223–243 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krämer, N., Bente, G.: Personalizing e-Learning. The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents. Educational Psychology Review 22, 71–87 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heckman, J.J.: Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children. Science 312, 1900–1902 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedman, A.J. (ed.): Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects. National Science Foundation (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calvo, R.A., D’Mello, S.: New perspectives on affect and learning technologies. Springer, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bickmore, T., Pfeifer, L., Schulman, D.: Relational agents improve engagement and learning in science museum visitors. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 55–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kopp, S., Gesellensetter, L., Krämer, N.C., Wachsmuth, I.: A Conversational Agent as Museum Guide – Design and Evaluation of a Real-World Application. In: Panayiotopoulos, T., Gratch, J., Aylett, R., Ballin, D., Olivier, P., Rist, T. (eds.) IVA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3661, pp. 329–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swartout, W., et al.: Ada and Grace: Toward Realistic and Engaging Virtual Museum Guides. In: Allbeck, J., Badler, N., Bickmore, T., Pelachaud, C., Safonova, A. (eds.) IVA 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6356, pp. 286–300. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D.: Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horn, M.S., et al.: Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In: Proc. 27th Int. Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 975–984. ACM, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lane, H.C., Noren, D., Auerbach, D., Birch, M., Swartout, W.: Intelligent tutoring goes to the museum in the big city: A pedagogical agent for informal science education. In: Biswas, G., Bull, S., Kay, J., Mitrovic, A. (eds.) AIED 2011. LNCS, vol. 6738, pp. 155–162. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 81–112 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kunz-Kollman, E., Reich, C.: Lessons from observations of educator support at an engineer design activity (No. 2007-9). Museum of Science, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: the exercise of self-control. W.H. Freeman, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lepper, M.R., et al.: Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In: Lajoie, S.P., Derry, S.J. (eds.) Computers as Cognitive Tools, pp. 75–105. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Chad Lane
    • 1
  • Clara Cahill
    • 2
  • Susan Foutz
    • 3
  • Daniel Auerbach
    • 1
  • Dan Noren
    • 3
  • Catherine Lussenhop
    • 2
  • William Swartout
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Creative TechnologiesUniversity of Southern CaliforniaPlaya VistaUSA
  2. 2.Boston Museum of ScienceBostonUSA
  3. 3.Independent ContractorUSA

Personalised recommendations