Effect of levels of realism of mobile-based pedagogical agents on health e-learning

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Educational Sciences, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Iran

2 M.A Student, Department of Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background: One of the ways for effective communication between learners and instructional multimedia content in mobile learning systems is taking advantage of characters or pedagogical agents. The present study aimed to investigate the effect of the levels of realism in mobile-based pedagogical agents on health e-learning.
Methods: The study was quasi-experimental with a pretest-posttest design involving three experimental groups. The target population included those participants who themselves or one of their relatives suffered from digestive disorders. The sample consisted of 48 participants selected through a convenience sampling procedure and were randomly assigned to either of the groups. The instruments and materials included instructional multimedia lessons and learning tests (pretest and posttest). The instructional multimedia content consisted of instructional materials related to familiarity with the human digestive system, its function, and relevant disorders. The participants in each group were exposed to the same instructional content but with a different level of realism related to the pedagogical agent (i.e., iconic, semi-iconic, and realistic). The instructional multimedia lessons were delivered through a mobile-based health leaning management system. For the data analysis, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was applied.
Results: The results showed that the group with the realistic pedagogical agent (M = 29.29, SD = 4.20), compared with the iconic pedagogical agent (M = 25.53, SD = 2.99), performed better on learning measurement (p = 0.20).
Conclusion: The employment of pedagogical agents, as one of the influential tools in improving learners' motivation and learning, should receive greater attention in designing and developing instructional multimedia, especially in the field of health learning services.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.   Chang CY, Lai CL, Hwang GJ. Trends and research issues of mobile learning studies in nursing education: A review of academic publications from 1971 to 2016. Comput Educ. 2018;1;116:28-48.
2.   Istepanian RS, Al-Anzi T. M-Health 2.0: new perspectives on mobile health, machine learning and big data analytics. Methods 2018; 151:34-40.
3.   Taylor JD, Dearnley CA, Laxton JC, Coates CA, Treasure‐Jones T, Campbell R, et al. Developing a mobile learning solution for health and social care practice. Distance Education 2010; 31(2):175-92.
4.   Mellow P. The media generation: Maximize learning by getting mobile. Proceedings of Conference of ASCILITE 2005: Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum?; 2005 Dec 4-7; Queensland, Australia. P. 469-76.
5.   Schroeder NL, Adesope OO. How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes?. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology 2013; 11:114-33.
6.   Rosenberg-Kima RB, Baylor AL, Plant EA, Doerr CE. Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Comput Human Behav. 2008; 24(6):2741-56.
7.   Baylor AL, Kim S, Son C, Lee M. Designing effective nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents. In: Looi C-K, McCalla G,  Bredeweg B, Breuker J, editors. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology 2005; Amsterdam. The Netherlands: IOS Press; 2005. P. 744-46.
8.   Holmes J. Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Comput Educ. 2007; 48(4):523-47.
9.   Robertson J, Cross B, Macleod H, Wiemer-Hastings P. Children's interactions with animated agents in an intelligent tutoring system. Int J Artif Intell Educ 2004;14 (3, 4):335-57.
10.    Clark, R.C, Mayer, R.E. E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
11.   Mayer RE, DaPra CS. An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012; 18(3):239.
12.   Woo HL. Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: factors and issues. J Comput Assist Learn. 2009; 25(3):203-18.
13. Darwish H. The “persona effect”: Shortcomings in the evaluation of pedagogical agents' embodiment. Proceedings of 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL); 2014 Nov 25-27; Dubai, United Arab Emirates. IEEE; P.1-5.
14.   Moreno R, Flowerday T. Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2006; 31(2):186-207.
15.   Mayer, R.E. Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
16.   Louwerse MM, Graesser AC, Lu S, Mitchell HH. Social cues in animated conversational agents. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2005;19 (6):693-704.
17.   Atkinson RK. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002; 94(2):416.
18.   Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory. In: Mestre JP, Ross BH, editors. The psychology of learning and motivation:Cognition in education. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press; 2011. P. 37-76. (The psychology of learning and motivation; Vol. 55). 
19.   Dunsworth Q, Atkinson RK. Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Comput Educ. 2007; 49(3):677-90.
20.   Yılmaz R, Kılıç-Çakmak E. Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Comput Educ. 2012;59(2):828-38.
21.   Clark RC, Mayer RE. Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence‐based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement 2008; 47(9):5-13.
22.   Domagk S. Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes? J Media Psychol. 2010; 22(2):84-97.
23.   Baylor AL, Kim S. Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Comput Human Behav. 2009; 25(2):450-57.
24.   Baylor AL, Kim Y. Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In: Lester J.C., Vicari R.M., Paraguaçu F, editors. Proceedings of 7th International conference on intelligent tutoring systems; 2004 Aug 30-Sep 3; Maceio, Alagoas, Brazil. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3220. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; P. 592-603.
25.   Baylor A, Kim Y. Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, motivator, and mentor.  In: Lassner D, McNaught C, editors. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA + Innovate Learning 2003--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); P. 463-66.
26.   Baylor A, Ebbers S. The pedagogical agent split-persona effect: When two agents are better than one. In: Lassner D, McNaught C, editors. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA + Innovate Learning 2003--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); P. 459-62.
27.  Merrill MM. The role of animated pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environments. [PhD thesis]. Mississippi State University; 2003.
28. Baylor A, Ryu J, Shen E. The effects of pedagogical agent voice and animation on learning, motivation and perceived persona. In: Lassner D, McNaught C, editors. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA + Innovate Learning 2003--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); P. 452-58.
29.   Moundridou M, Virvou M. Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. J Comput Assist Learn. 2002;18(3):253-61.
30.   Kim Y, Baylor A, Reed G. The impact of image and voice with pedagogical agents. In: Rossett A, editor. Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2003; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE); P. 2237-240.
31.  Gharabaghi S. The effect of pedagogical agent roles on learning, facilitating learning and learning motivation in Science course [MSc thesis]. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University, 2010. Persian.
32.   Gulz A, Haake M. Social and visual style in virtual pedagogical agents. Proceedings of the Workshop on Adapting the Interaction Style to Affective Factors, 10th International Conference on User Modelling, (UM’05); 2005 Jul 24-27; Edinburgh, Scotland. Lund University; 2005.
33.   Kim Y, Baylor AL. Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology 2007; 1:23-28.
34.  Craig SD, Gholson B, Driscoll DM. Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002; 94(2):428.
35.   Kim Y, Wei Q. The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Comput Educ. 2011; 56(2):505-14.
36.   Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Future of Medical Education Journal
Volume 9, Issue 2
Summer
June 2019
Pages 40-45

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics