과제정보
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A5A2A01017333)
참고문헌
- Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.416
- Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R., & Merrill, M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent?s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001
- Bakdash, J. Z., Augustyn, J. S., & Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Large displays enhance spatial knowledge of a virtual environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization.
- Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291-300. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3
- Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008
- Bergmann, K., Eyssel, F., & Kopp, S. (2012). A second chance to make a first impression? How appearance and nonverbal behavior affect perceived warmth and competence of virtual agents over time. Paper presented at the Intelligent Virtual Agents.
- Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Danforth, D. R., Procter, M., Chen, R., Johnson, M., & Heller, R. (2009). Development of virtual patient simulations for medical education. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 2(2).
- de Melo, C. M., Carnevale, P., & Gratch, J. (2011). The Impact of Emotion Displays in Embodied Agents on Emergence of Cooperation with People. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 20(5), 449-465.
- Dehn, 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. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1999.0325
- Domagk, S. (2010). Do Pedagogical Agents Facilitate Learner Motivation and Learning Outcomes? Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84-97. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000011
- Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers & Education, 49(3), 677-690. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.010
- Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents' presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61-72. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000009
- Guadagno, R. E., Swinth, K. R., & Blascovich, J. (2011). Social evaluations of embodied agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2380-2385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.017
- 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.08.006
- Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2009). A look at the roles of look & roles in embodied pedagogical agents - A user preference perspective. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(1), 39-71.
- Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27-54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004
- Heller, R., & Procter, M. (2011). Animated pedagogical agents: The effect of visual information on a historical figure applicationdoi. In E. Ng, N. Karacapilidis, & M. Raisinghani (Eds.), Dynamic advancements in teaching and learning based technologies: New concepts (pp. 66-78).
- Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., & Lee, K. M. (2012). Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players' immersion tendencies on game experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 617-623. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.007
- Johnson, A. M., DiDonato, M. D., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Animated agents in K-12 engineering outreach: Preferred agent characteristics across age levels. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1807-1815. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.023
- Kartiko, I., Kavakli, M., & Cheng, K. (2010). Learning science in a virtual reality application: The impacts of animated-virtual actors' visual complexity. Computers & Education, 55(2), 881-891. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.019
- Kim, C., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11(2), 309-321.
- Kim, Y., Baylor, A., & PALS group. (2006). Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Role of Agent Competency and Type of Interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223-243. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-8805-z
- Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.
- Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agent-based environment. Computers & Education, 56(2), 505-514. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.016
- Kuk, K., Milentijevic, I., Rancic, D., & Spalevic, P. (2012). Pedagogical agent in Multimedia Interactive Modules for Learning - MIMLE. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8051-8058. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.138
- Lee, J.-E. R., & Nass, C. (2010). Trust in computers: The computersare-social-actors (casa) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. In D. Latusek & A. Gerbasi (Eds.), Trust and technology in a ubiquitous modern environment: Theoretical and methodological perspectives (pp. 1-15). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.
- Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50.
- Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Christopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67(0), 239-249. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.017
- 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. doi: 10.1037/a0028616
- Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419
- Mazikowski, A., & Lebiedz, J. (2014). Image Projection in Immersive 3D Visualization Laboratory. Procedia Computer Science, 35(0), 842-850. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.08.251
- Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999-2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769-780. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020
- Miksatko, J., Kipp, K., & Kipp, M. (2010). The Persona Zero-Effect: Evaluating Virtual Character Benefits on a Learning Task with Repeated Interactions. In J. Allbeck, N. Badler, T. Bickmore, C. Pelachaud, & A. Safonova (Eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents (Vol. 6356, pp. 475-481): Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
- Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students' choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 186-207. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.002
- Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598-610. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.598
- Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81-103.
- Novielli, N., de Rosis, F., & Mazzotta, I. (2010). User attitude towards an embodied conversational agent: Effects of the interaction mode. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(9), 2385-2397. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.016
- Osman, K., & Lee, T. (2013). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students' understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-27. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y
- Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67(0), 36-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.006
- Qu, C., Brinkman, W.-P., Ling, Y., Wiggers, P., & Heynderickx, I. (2014). Conversations with a virtual human: Synthetic emotions and human responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 34(0), 58-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.033
- Ruotolo, F., Maffei, L., Di Gabriele, M., Iachini, T., Masullo, M., Ruggiero, G., & Senese, V. P. (2013). Immersive virtual reality and environmental noise assessment: An innovative audio-visual approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 10-20.
- Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2, 291-314.
- Sahimi, S. M., Zain, F. M., Kamar, N. A. N., Samar, N., Rahman, Z. A., Majid, O., . . . Luan, W. S. (2010). The pedagogical agent in online learning: Effects of the degree of realism on achievement in terms of gender. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 175-185.
- Schonbrodt, F. D., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2011). The challenge of constructing psychologically believable agents. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 23(2), 100-107. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000040
- Stern, S. E. (2008). Computer-synthesized speech and perceptions the social influence of disabled users. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 254-265. doi:10.1177/0261927X08318035
- Stern, S. E., Chobany, C. M., Patel, D. V., & Tressler, J. J. (2014). Listeners' preference for computer-synthesized speech over natural speech of people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(3), 289-297. doi:10.1037/a0036663
- Tien, L. T., & Osman, K. (2010). Pedagogical agents in interactive multimedia modules: Issues of variability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 605-612. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.082
- Traphagan, T. W., Chiang, Y.-h. V., Chang, H. M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M. C., . . . Resta, P. E. (2010). Cognitive, social and teaching presence in a virtual world and a text chat. Computers & Education, 55(3), 923-936. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.003
- van der Meij, H. (2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845-857. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.018
- van Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., Hoorn, J. F., Keur, I., & Eliens, A. (2007). Realism is not all! User engagement with task-related interface characters. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 267-280. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2006.08.005
- Veletsianos, G. (2012). How do learners respond to pedagogical agents that deliver social-oriented non-task messages? Impact on student learning, perceptions, and experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 275-283. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.010
- Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2013). What Do Learners and Pedagogical Agents Discuss When Given Opportunities for Open-Ended Dialogue? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 381-401.
- Wolff, S., & Brechmann, A. (2015). Carrot and stick 2.0: The benefits of natural and motivational prosody in computer-assisted learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 76-84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.015
- Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 25(3), 203-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00299.x
- Zhao, G., Ailiya, & Shen, Z. (2012). Learning-by-Teaching: Designing Teachable Agents with Intrinsic Motivation. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 62-74.