Eğitsel Videolarda Yapay Zekâ Avatarı Jestlerinin ve Beden Görünürlüğünün Video Etkileşim Davranışları Üzerindeki Rolü

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı eğitsel videolarda yapay zekâ avatarlarının beden görünürlüğü ve jest sergileme özelliklerinin ortaokul öğrenenlerinin video izleme davranışları üzerindeki rolünü incelemektir. Çalışma deneysel yöntem ile 2025-2026 yılı güz döneminde dört haftalık bir süreci kapsayacak şekilde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmaya gönüllü olarak 43 ortaokul öğrencisi katılmıştır. Deney grubunun izlediği videolarda yapay zekâ avatarı tüm bedeniyle yer alarak metaforik ve ritmik jestler sergilerken, kontrol grubunun videolarında yalnızca avatarın kafası yer almış ve jest kullanılmamıştır. Katılımcıların video ile etkileşimleri video izleme takip sistemi aracılığıyla kayıt altına alınmıştır. Bulgular, her iki grubun da eğitsel videoların giriş ve konu anlatımı bölümlerinde özet bölümüne kıyasla daha sık etkileşim gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Kontrol grubunun ilk videoda ileri sarma etkileşimini, video 2’de konu anlatımı sonunda yorum ekleme etkileşimini, video 3’te ise geri sarma etkileşimini daha fazla gerçekleştirdiği görülmüştür. İstatistiksel analizler, deney grubunun birinci ve ikinci videoyu tekrar izleme davranışlarının kontrol grubuna kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir. Kontrol grubunun ikinci videoda deney grubuna göre daha fazla yorum eklediği, üçüncü videoda ise daha sık geri sarma etkileşimi gösterdiği ve bu durumun gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklara yol açtığı saptanmıştır. Sonuç olarak, yapay zekâ avatarlarında kullanılan bedenselleşme özelliğinin tek başına etkileşimi artırmada yeterli olmadığı görülmüş, gelecekte farklı video süreleri ve uzaktan öğrenme ortamlarında bu etkinin incelenmesi önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zeka
• Avatar
• Eğitsel Video
• Video etkileşimi

Use of Artificial Intelligence Avatars in Educational Videos: The Role of Gestures and Body Visibility in Video Interaction Behaviours

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of body visibility and gesture features of artificial intelligence (AI) avatars in educational videos on the video viewing behaviors of middle school students. The study employed an experimental design over a four-week period during the 2025–2026 fall semester. A total of 43 middle school students voluntarily participated. In the experimental group, the AI avatar appeared with its full body and performed gestures, whereas in the control group, only the avatar’s head was shown without gestures. Participants’ interactions with the videos were recorded using a video viewing tracking system. Both groups interacted more during the introduction and content presentation than the summary section. The control group showed more fast-forwarding in Video 1, comment-adding in Video 2, and rewinding in Video 3, whereas the experimental group exhibited significantly higher rewatching behavior in Videos 1 and 2. Conversely, the control group showed more commenting in Video 2 and rewinding in Video 3, resulting in significant group differences. These findings suggest that AI avatar embodiment alone is insufficient to increase interaction in educational videos. Future studies should examine the effects of different video durations and AI avatar embodiment in distance learning environments.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence
• Avatar
• Educational video
• Video interaction

Kaynakça

1. Akcapinar, G. (2015). Profiling students' approaches to learning through Moodle logs. Paper presented at the Multidisciplinary Academic Conference on Education, Teaching and Learning (MAC-ETL 2015), Prague, Czech Republic.
2. Akcapınar, G., & Bayazıt, A. (2018). Investigating video viewing behaviors of students with different learning approaches using video analytics. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.471907
3. Alemdag, E. (2023). A scoping review of the literature on embodied instructional videos. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 18, 029. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18029
4. Arkün-Kocadere, S., & Çağlar-Özhan, Ş. (2024). Video lectures with AI-generated instructors: Low video engagement, same performance as human instructors. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(3), 350-369. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7815
5. Bai, J., Cheng, X., Zhang, H., Qin, Y., Xu, T., & Zhou, Y. (2025). Can AI-generated pedagogical agents (AIPA) replace human teacher in picture book videos? The effects of appearance and voice of AIPA on children's learning. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 12267–12287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13328-8
6. Bosch, N. (2016, July). Detecting student engagement: Human versus machine. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 317–320). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930238.2930371
7. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1
8. Chan, A. H., Kok, E. Y. Y., Razali, M. A. M., Lawrie, G. A., & Wang, J. T. H. (2022). Student perceptions and engagement in video-based learning for microbiology education. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 30(3), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.30722/ijisme.30.03.001

9. Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
10. Crook, C., & Schofield, L. (2017). The video lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.05.003
11. Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.05.002
12. Davis, R. O., Lee, Y. J., Vincent, J., Lee, S., Kim, D., & Kim, J. (2025). Revisiting contextual relevance: Pedagogical agent appearance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 57(3), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2288233
13. Davis, R. O., Park, T., & Vincent, J. (2023). A meta-analytic review on embodied pedagogical agent design and testing formats. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100556
14. Dubovi, I. (2024). Facial expressions capturing emotional engagement while learning with desktop VR: The impact of emotional regulation and personality traits. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(9), 5041–5057. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2208173
15. Fraenkel, J., Wallen, N., & Hyun, H. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
16. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
17. González-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, P., & Roig-Vila, R. (2021). Artificial intelligence for student assessment: A systematic review. Applied Sciences, 11(12), 5467. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125467
18. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004
19. HeyGen. (2023). What is an AI video studio? HeyGen Blog. https://www.heygen.com/blog/what-is-an-ai-video-studio
20. Hew, K. F. (2018). Unpacking the strategies of ten highly rated MOOCs: Implications for engaging students in large online courses. Teachers College Record, 120(1), 1–40. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162815
21. Hsieh, J. K., Huang, H. Y., & Liao, C. H. (2025). How video-viewing behaviours influence learning effectiveness in online video-based platform: A flow theory perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2025.2590085
22. Huang, C.-M., & Mutlu, B. (2013). Modeling and evaluating narrative gestures for humanlike robots. In Robotics: Science and Systems (pp. 57–64). https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2013.IX.026
23. Hung, I. C., & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.005
24. Kim, K., Boelling, L., Haesler, S., Bailenson, J., Bruder, G., & Welch, G. F. (2018, October). Does a digital assistant need a body? The influence of visual embodiment and social behavior on the perception of intelligent virtual agents in AR. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) (pp. 105–114). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2018.00039
25. Kuhlmann, S. L., Plumley, R., Evans, Z., Bernacki, M. L., Greene, J. A., Hogan, K. A., Berro, M., Gates, K., & Panter, A. (2024). Students' active cognitive engagement with instructional videos predicts STEM learning. Computers & Education, 216, 105050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105050
26. Li, W., Kuang, Z., Leng, X., Mayer, R. E., & Wang, F. (2024). Role of gesturing onscreen instructors in video lectures: A set of three-level meta-analyses on the embodiment effect. Educational Psychology Review, 36(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09910-0
27. Li, Y., He, X., Li, Y., Xiao, X., Li, R., Fang, J., & Zhou, R. (2025). Exploring dynamics in learners' cognitive engagement associated with learning activities using EEG microstate approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 101911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101911
28. Lim, F. V. (2021). Designing learning with embodied teaching: Perspectives from multimodality. Routledge.
29. Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2024). Learner perceptions of artificial intelligence-generated pedagogical agents in language learning videos: Embodiment effects on technology acceptance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1606–1627. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2359222
30. Manasrah, A., Masoud, M., & Jaradat, Y. (2021). Short videos, or long videos? A study on the ideal video length in online learning. In K. M. Jaber (Ed.), 2021 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT) (pp. 366–370). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT52682.2021.9491115
31. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037001153
32. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
33. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
34. Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
35. Netland, T., von Dzengelevski, O., Tesch, K., & Kwasnitschka, D. (2025). Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Computers & Education, 224, 105164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164
36. Peñalvo, F. J. G., & Ingelmo, A. V. (2023). What do we mean by GenAI? A systematic mapping of the evolution, trends, and techniques involved in Generative AI. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 8(4), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2023.05.006
37. Pellas, N. (2023). The influence of sociodemographic factors on students' attitudes toward AI-generated video content creation. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00276-4
38. Pi, Z., Deng, L., Wang, X., Guo, P., Xu, T., & Zhou, Y. (2022). The influences of a virtual instructor's voice and appearance on learning from video lectures. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1703–1713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12704
39. Prasongpongchai, T., Pataranutaporn, P., Kanapornchai, C., Lapapirojn, A., Ouppaphan, P., Winson, K., & Maes, P. (2024, July). Interactive AI-generated virtual instructors enhance learning motivation and engagement in financial education. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 217–225). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64299-9_17
40. Pulukuri, S., & Abrams, B. (2020). Incorporating an online interactive video platform to optimize active learning and improve student accountability through educational videos. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(12), 4505–4514. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00855
41. Schneider, S., Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). The impact of video lecturers' nonverbal communication on learning: An experiment on gestures and facial expressions of pedagogical agents. Computers & Education, 176, 104350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104350
42. Schroeder, N. L., Davis, R. O., & Yang, E. (2025). Designing and learning with pedagogical agents: An umbrella review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(8), 1907–1936. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241288476
43. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
44. Struger, P., Brünner, B., & Ebner, M. (2025). Synthetic educators: Analyzing AI-driven avatars in digital learning environments. In B. K. Smith & M. Borge (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies. HCII 2025. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 15807). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93567-1_13
45. Tang, K. S., & Cooper, G. (2025). The role of materiality in an era of generative artificial intelligence. Science & Education, 34(2), 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00508-0
46. Urhan, S., & Arkün-Kocadere, S. A. (2024). The effect of video lecture types on the computational problem-solving performances of students. Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202401_27(1).RP08
47. Van Alten, D. C., Phielix, C., Janssen, J., & Kester, L. (2020). Self-regulated learning support in flipped learning videos enhances learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 158, 104000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104000
48. VideoTracking Sistemi. (t.y.). Video Tracking Sistemi [Web aracı]. https://videoscholar-dh4g.vercel.app/
49. Yoon, M., Lee, J., & Jo, I. H. (2021). Video learning analytics: Investigating behavioral patterns and learner clusters in video-based online learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 50, 100806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100806