Pedagogical Agents



In this chapter we synthesize the pedagogical agent literature published during 2005–2011. During these years, researchers have claimed that pedagogical agents serve a variety of educational purposes such as being adaptable and versatile; engendering realistic simulations; addressing learners’ sociocultural needs; fostering engagement, motivation, and responsibility; and improving learning and performance. Empirical results supporting these claims are mixed, and results are often contradictory. Our investigation of prior literature also reveals that current research focuses on the examination of cognitive issues through the use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods. Nevertheless, sociocultural investigations are becoming increasingly popular, while mixed methods approaches, and to a lesser extent interpretive research, are garnering some attention in the literature. Suggestions for future research include the deployment of agents in naturalistic contexts and open-ended environments, and investigation of agent outcomes and implications in long-term interventions.


Pedagogical agent Conversational agent Teachable agent Intelligent tutoring system 


  1. Adcock, A. B., Duggan, M. H., Nelson, E. K., & Nickel, C. (2006). Teaching effective helping skills at a distance. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(4), 349–360.Google Scholar
  2. Adcock, A., & Van Eck, R. (2005). Reliability and factor structure of the attitude toward tutoring agent scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 195–212.Google Scholar
  3. Angeli, A. D., & Brahnam, S. (2008). I hate you! Disinhibition with virtual partners. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 302–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Baylor, A. L. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.Google Scholar
  7. Baylor, A. L. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3559–3565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1), 95–115.Google Scholar
  10. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28, 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bickmore, T. (2003). Relational agents: Effecting change through human-computer relationships. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  13. Bickmore, T., Shulman, D., & Yin, L. (2009). Engagement vs. deceit: Virtual humans with human autobiographies. Intelligent Virtual Agents: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5773, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., Vye, N., & The Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chase, C., Chin, D., Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. (2009). Teachable agents and the protégé effect: Increasing the effort towards learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 334–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, S., & Clark, R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chou, C., Chan, T., & Lin, C. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers in Education, 40(3), 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2007). In search of pedagogical agents’ modality and dialogue effects in open learning environments. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 10(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  20. *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.Google Scholar
  21. D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., McDaniel, B., & Graesser, A. C. (2008). Automatic detection of learner’s affect from conversational cues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 18(1–2), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Multimodal semi-automated affect detection from conversational cues, gross body language, and facial features. User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 20(2), 147–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dehn, D., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 52(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dirkin, K. H., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113–127.Google Scholar
  25. Doering, A., Veletsianos, G., & Yerasimou, T. (2008). Conversational agents and their longitudinal affordances on communication and interaction. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 251–270.Google Scholar
  26. *Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84–97.Google Scholar
  27. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers in Education, 49(3), 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Media Psychology, 22(2), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert, J., Wilson, D., & Gupta, P. (2005). Learning C with Adam. International Journal on E-Learning, 4(3), 337–350.Google Scholar
  30. *Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Education, 48, 612–618.Google Scholar
  31. Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., & McDaniel, B. (2007). AutoTutor holds conversations with learners that are responsive to their cognitive and emotional states. Educational Technology, 47, 19–22.Google Scholar
  32. Graesser, A., Jeon, M., & Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. *Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of virtual characters in computer based learning environments: Claims and evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313–334.Google Scholar
  35. Gulz, A. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters—Differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(4), 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2010). Challenging gender stereotypes using virtual pedagogical characters. In S. Goodman, S. Booth, & G. Kirkup (Eds.), Gender issues in learning and working with Information Technology: Social constructs and cultural contexts. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  38. Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2008). Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  39. Hawryskiewycz, I. (2006). Software agents for managing learning plans. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 269–277.Google Scholar
  40. Hubal, R. C., Fishbein, D. H., Sheppard, M. S., Paschall, M. J., Eldreth, D. L., & Hyde, C. T. (2008). How do varied populations interact with embodied conversational agents? Findings from inner-city adolescents and prisoners. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1104–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jackson, G. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2007). Content matters: An investigation of feedback categories within an ITS. In R. Luckin, K. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kester, L., Lehnen, C., Van Gerven, P., & Kirschner, P. (2006). Just-in-time, schematic supportive information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. *Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A socio-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569–596.Google Scholar
  44. Kim, C., & Baylor, A. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 309–321.Google Scholar
  45. Kim, Y., Baylor, A., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers in Education, 56, 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kramer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010). Personalizing e-learning: The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lin, Y., Chen, M., Wu, T., & Yeh, Y. (2008). The effectiveness of a pedagogical agent-based learning system for teaching word recognition to children with moderate mental retardation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 715–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindström, P., Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Sjödén, B. (2011). Matching and mismatching between the pedagogical design principles of a math game and the actual practices of play. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(1), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Louwerse, M. M., Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., & Mitchell, H. H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 693–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Louwerse, M., Graesser, A., Namara, D., & Lu, S. (2009). Embodied conversational agents as conversational partners. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1244–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lusk, M., & Atkinson, R. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 747–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahmood, K., & Ferneley, E. (2006). Embodied agents in e-learning environments: An exploratory case study. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 143–162.Google Scholar
  55. *Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.Google Scholar
  56. Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. *Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (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, 177–213.Google Scholar
  58. Murray, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Computerized pedagogical agents as an educational means for developing physical self-efficacy and encouraging activity in youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Norman, D. (1997). How might people interact with agents. In J. M. Bradshaw (Ed.), Software agents (pp. 49–56). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Payr, S. (2003). The virtual university’s faculty: An overview of educational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. *Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Rosenberg-Kima, R., Baylor, A., Plant, E., & Doerr, C. (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(6), 2741–2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosenberg-Kima, R., Plant, E., Doerr, C., & Baylor, A. (2010). The influence of computer-based model’s race and gender on female students’ attitudes and beliefs towards engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 99, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwartz, D. L., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., & Davis, J. (2007). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agent paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design (pp. 114–140). UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sklar, E., & Richards, D. (2010). Agent-based systems for human learners. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(2), 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sträfling, N., Fleischer, I., Polzer, C., Leutner, D., & Krämer, N. C. (2010). Teaching learning strategies with a pedagogical agent. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Merriënboer, J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Veletsianos, G. (2009). The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers in Education, 55(2), 576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Veletsianos, G. (2012). How do Learners Respond to Pedagogical Agents that Deliver Social-oriented Non-task Messages? Impact on Student Learning, Perceptions, and Experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Veletsianos, G., Heller, R., Overmyer, S., & Procter, M. (2010). Conversational agents in virtual worlds: Bridging disciplines. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969–986.Google Scholar
  77. Veletsianos, G., Miller, C., & Doering, A. (2009). EnALI: A research and design framework for virtual characters and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C., & Doering, A. (2008). When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescent social studies students and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with Computers, 20(3), 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wagster, J., Tan, J., Wu, Y., Biswas, G., & Schwartz, D. L. (2007). Do learning by teaching environments with metacognitive support help students develop better learning behaviors? In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceeding of the 29th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 695–700). Nashville, TN: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  80. Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on empty: The Failure to teach K-12 computer science in the digital age. Association for Computing Machinery and The Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved December 10, 2011, from
  81. Woo, H. L. (2008). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Yung, H. I., & Dwyer, F. M. (2010). Effects of an animated agent with instructional strategies in facilitating student achievement of educational objectives in multimedia learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(1), 55–64.Google Scholar
  83. Zumbach, J., Schmitt, S., Reimann, P., & Starkloff, P. (2006). Learning life sciences: Design and development of a virtual molecular biology learning lab. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(3), 281–300.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations