The Pedagogical Agent in Online Learning: The Effect of the Degree of Realism on Achievement in Terms of Gender

Öz

This paper describes the impact of the degrees of realism (unrealistic, moderately realistic and highly realistic) of the pedagogical agent on student’s achievement during online learning in terms of gender. Three modes of the e-learning portal with appropriate degrees of realism, namely, Online Learning with a Cartoon Pedagogical Agent (OLCPA), Online Learning with a Moderately Realistic Pedagogical Agent (OLMRPA) and Online Learning with a Highly Realistic Pedagogical Agent (OLHRPA) were developed and implemented. A quasi-experimental 3x2 factorial design was employed; independent variables were three degrees of realism, the dependent variable was achievement scores, and the moderator variable was gender of students. The subjects were 130 Form Four students (16 years old) from Malaysian secondary schools who were randomly assigned to groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to analyze data. The findings of the study suggest that there was no significant difference in the students’ achievement among the three degrees of realism in terms of their genders; both genders achieved almost the same across different degrees of realism. The reasons for the observed results are discussed and elaborated.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Online learning, Pedagogical agent, Degree of realism, Gender issues

Kaynakça

1. Allen, M. (2003). Guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun and effective learning programs for any company: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Ashcraft, D., Treadwell, T., & Kumar, V. K. (2008). Collaborative online learning: A constructivist example. Malaysian Online Journal of Instructional Technology, 4(1), 109-117.
3. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
4. Baylor, A. L. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. San Diego, CA.
5. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity and instructional role. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Maceio, Brazil.
6. Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambrige University Press.
7. Chen, S.-J. (2007). Instructional design strategies for intensive online course: An objectivist blended approach. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 72-86.
8. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

9. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
10. Debn, D. M., & 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.
11. Dwyer, F. M. (1972). A guide for improving visualized instruction. Learning Services.
12. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2005). Social and visual style in virtual pedagoical agents. Paper presented at the In: Workshop Proceedings: Adapting the Interaction Style to Affective Factors, in conjuction with the 10th International Conference on User Modelling (UM'05), Edinburg, Scotland.
13. 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.
14. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1993). Instructional media and the new technology of instruction. Macmillan.
15. Learnframe. (2001). E-learning vs. online learning. From http://www.learnframe.com/aboutelearning/page4.asp
16. Mohd Feham, M. G. M. Z. (2006). Design, development and evaluation of a web courseware with a pedagogical agent. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia.
17. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (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(2), 177-213.
18. Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 343-382.
19. Rosmayati, M., Zuriana, A. B., & Mohd Sabri, A. (2007). Development of online teaching and learning modules. Paper presented at the 1st International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention.
20. Shea-Schultz, H., & Fogarty, J. (2002). Online learning today strategies that work. Berrett-Koehler.
21. Slater, D. (2000). Interactive animated pedagogical agents: Mixing the best of human and computer-based tutors. From http://ldt.stanford.edu/~slater/media/slater_masters_project_final_report.pdf
22. Stephenson, J. (2001). Teaching and learning online pedagogies for new technologies. Kogan Page.
23. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 9–31
24. Touvinen, J. E. (2001). Implications of discovery learning research for the design of flexible learning. Paper presented at the ASET-HERDSA 2000 Conference, Toowoomba, Qld.
25. Wahyu, I., & Yahya, B. (2006). Aplikasi 'e-learning' dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran di Sekolah- Sekolah Malaysia: Isu dan cadangan perlaksanaanya. Paper presented at the Seminar TVE06.
26. Wang, H., Chignell, M., & Ishizuka, M. (2005). Improving the usability and effectiveness of online learning: How can avatars help? from http://www.noahx.com/resources/wang-HFES05.pdf
27. Correspondence: Hanafi Atan, School of Distance Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800
28. Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.