Pedagogical-Agent Learning Companions in a Virtual Reality Educational Experience

  • David NovickEmail author
  • Mahdokht Afravi
  • Adriana Camacho
  • Aaron Rodriguez
  • Laura Hinojos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11591)


This research studies pedagogical agents as a learning companion (PALs) and aims to find which approach is more effective for learners in terms of learning, engagement and rapport: a PAL that is the same gender as the student, a PAL that is female, or a PAL that is male. We compared results in terms of learning and rapport with respect to the gender of a PAL. To this end, we implemented a multimodal interactive virtual-reality application to teach students about the 1770 Boston Massacre. Our results suggest that (1) both male and female participants will learn well with a female PAL, and (2) differences in rapport do not seem to affect learning.


Embodied conversational agents Human-agent dialog Dialog system 


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Baylor, A.L., Kim, Y.: Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 15(2), 95–115 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brixey, J., Novick, D.: Building rapport with extraverted and introverted agents. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems (IWSDS), IWSDS, Farmington, PA, June 2017.
  4. 4.
    Cassell, J. (ed.): Embodied Conversational Agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Girard, S., Johnson, H.: What do children favor as embodied pedagogical agents? In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 307–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haake, M., Gulz, A.: A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents-a user preference perspective. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 19(1), 39–71 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, A.M., DiDonato, M.D., Reisslein, M.: Animated agents in k-12 engineering outreach: preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(4), 1807–1815 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, W.L., Lester, J.C.: Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26(1), 25–36 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 54(6), 569–596 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, Y., Wei, Q.: The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Comput. Educ. 56(2), 505–514 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Novick, D., Gris Sepulveda, I., Rivera, D.A., Camacho, A., Rayon, A., Gutierrez, M.: The UTEP AGENT system. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, November 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Novick, D., et al.: The Boston massacre history experience. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 499–500. ACM (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Novick
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mahdokht Afravi
    • 1
  • Adriana Camacho
    • 1
  • Aaron Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Laura Hinojos
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations