The Roles of Animated Pedagogical Agents’ Presence and Nonverbal Communication in Multimedia Learning Environments

Abstract

We examined how the presence and nonverbal communication of an animated pedagogical agent affects students’ perceptions and learning. College students learned about astronomy either without an agent’s image or with an agent under one of the following conditions: a static agent (S), an agent with deictic movements (D), an agent with facial expressions (E), or an agent with both deictic movements and facial expressions (DE). Group S outperformed group E on a comprehension test, but no other differences were found on students’ learning or perceptions. The results show that the presence of the studied agent – regardless of nonverbal abilities – did not produce at least a moderate effect size. Further, a static version of the agent was preferable to one with only facial expressions.

Exploring the affective, motivational and cognitive effects of pedagogical agent enthusiasm in a multimedia learning environment

“…On the one hand, one might anticipate that the presence of an enthusiastic agent will negatively impact the cognitive, emotional and motivational aspects of multimedia learning. This prediction is based on the notion that an agent's exaggerated behavioural cues may impose additional processing burden to the visual and mind (extraneous cognitive load, [13][14][15][16]). On the other hand, agent enthusiasm was expected to positively affect learning and motivation, due to the enhanced positive emotional responses in learners, which direct their approach behaviours (intrinsic motivation, affective perceptions, cognitive outcome) in the learning process [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”

“…As mentioned previously, the cognitive load theory states that learners have limited working memory while processing new information [43]. Thus, the cognitive load view asserts that agent nonverbal cues may distract learners from salient learning materials [13][14][15][16]. Specifically, distractions arise as learners have to pay attention to the nonverbal cues of an agent, which then cause visual and cognitive interferences during the learning process.…”

“…Additionally, exaggerated behavioural cues by an enthusiastic agent may also elicit negative emotional responses in learners [15]. When an agent exhibits a high amount of verbal and nonverbal cues, it produces an illusion of superior functionality and intelligence.…”

“…For instance, on the one hand, detractors of agent enthusiasm may argue that exaggerated nonverbal cues by an enthusiastic agent may distract learners from salient learning [13][14][15][16]. Under this view, enthusiastic pedagogical agents may be detrimental to cognitive and emotional outcomes in learning by imposing additional processing burden to a learner's mind, which is known as "extraneous cognitive load".…”

Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment

“…Indeed, some of the first APAs were introduced into these environments specifically for the purpose of making the users' interactions with the system more life-like (e.g., André et al 1996;Bates 1994;Cassell 2000;Lester et al 1997;Paiva and Machado 1998;Picard and Klein 2002). Finally, APAs can also prime a social interaction schema that can positively influence student motivation (e.g., André et al 1999;Atkinson 2002;Choi and Clark 2006;Domagk 2010;Frechette and Moreno 2010;Moreno et al 2000;Moreno et al 2001;Moreno et al 2010;Moundridou and Virvou 2002;Plant et al 2009). …”