Virtual Agents in the Classroom: Experience Fielding a Co-presenter Agent in University Courses

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10011)


The design of a conversational virtual agent that assists professors and students in giving in-class oral presentations is described, along with preliminary evaluation results. The life-sized agent is integrated with PowerPoint presentation software and can deliver presentations in conjunction with a human presenter using appropriate verbal and nonverbal behavior. Results from evaluation studies in two courses—business and professional speaking, and computer science research methods—indicate that the agent is widely accepted in the classroom by students, and can serve to increase engagement in presentations given both by professors and students.


Embodied conversational agent Powerpoint Slideware 



This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under award IIS-1514490. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Goodman, A.: Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes. Andy Goodman & Cause Communication, Los Angeles (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishop, J., Bauer, K., Becker, E.: A survey of counseling needs of male and female college students. J. Coll. Student Dev. 39, 205–210 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trinh, H., Ring, L., Bickmore, T.: DynamicDuo: co-presenting with virtual agents. In: ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    André, E., Rist, T., Müller, J.: WebPersona: a lifelike presentation agent for the world-wide web. Knowl.-Based Syst. 11, 25–36 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nijholt, A., van Welbergen, H., Zwiers, J.: Introducing an embodied virtual presenter agent in a virtual meeting room. In: IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 579–584 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noma, T., Badler, N.: A virtual human presenter. In: IJCAI 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Latane, B., Nida, S.: Social impact theory and group influence: a social engineering perspective. In: Paulus, P.B. (ed.) Psychology of Group Influence, pp. 3–34. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson, J., Latané, B.: All alone in front of all those people: Stage fright as a function of number and type of co-performers and audience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 40, 73–81 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edge, D., Savage, J., Yatani, K.: HyperSlides: dynamic presentation prototyping. In: CHI 2013, pp. 671–680 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trinh, H., Yatani, K., Edge, D.: PitchPerfect: integrated rehearsal environment for structured presentation preparation. In: CHI (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Damian, I., Tan, C., Baur, T., Schoning, J., Luyten, K., Andre, E.: Augmenting social interactions: realtime behavioral feedback using social signal processing techniques. In: CHI 2015, pp. 565–574 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saket, B., Yang, S., Tan, H., Yatani, K., Edge, D.: TalkZones: section-based time support for presentations. In: MobileHCI 2014 Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cassell, J., Vilhjálmsson, H., Bickmore, T.: BEAT: the behavior expression animation toolkit. In: SIGGRAPH 2001, pp. 477–486 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCroskey, J., McCroskey, L.: Self-report as an approach to measuring communication competence. Commun. Res. Rep. 5, 108–113 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Computer and Information ScienceNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations