CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Artificial Intelligence-Powered Virtual Agents on Learning Outcomes in Computer-Based Simulations: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Dai, Chih-Pu, Ke, Fengfeng, Pan, Yanjun, Moon, Jewoong, Liu, Zhichun·2024·Educational Psychology Review
DOI 10.1007/s10648-024-09855-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-024-09855-4

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 100

  1. Al-Elq, A. H. (2010). Simulation-based medical teaching and learning. Journal of family and Community Medicine, 17(1), 35–40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195067/pdf/JFCM-17-35.pdf · DOI
  2. Alinier, G. (2007). A typology of educationally focused medical simulation tools. Medical Teacher, 29(8), e243–e250. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701551185 · DOI
  3. Araujo, T. (2018). Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.051 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008 · DOI
  6. *Beidel, D. C., Tuerk, P. W., Spitalnick, J., Bowers, C. A., & Morrison, K. (2021). Treating childhood social anxiety disorder with virtual environments and serious games: a randomized trial. Behavior Therapy, 52(6), 1351-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2021.03.003 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on your-self, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). Worth Publishers.
  8. Byrne, J., Heavey, C., & Byrne, P. J. (2010). A review of Web-based simulation and supporting tools. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 18(3), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2009.09.013 · DOI
  9. *Carlotto, T., & Jaques, P. A. (2016). The effects of animated pedagogical agents in an English-as-a-foreign-language learning environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 95, 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.06.001 · DOI
  10. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816306400801 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cassell, J. (2001). Embodied conversational agents: Representation and intelligence in user interfaces. AI Magazine, 22(4), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v22i4.1593 · DOI
  12. Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Sweller, J. (2022). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 261–267). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.026 · DOI
  13. 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 · DOI
  14. *Chen, C.-H., & Chou, M.-H. (2015). Enhancing middle school students' scientific learning and motivation through agent‐based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 481-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12094 · DOI
  15. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002 · DOI · Paper page
  16. *Cheng, Y. M., Chen, L. S., Huang, H. C., Weng, S. F., Chen, Y. G., & Lin, C. H. (2009). Building a general purpose pedagogical agent in a web-based multimedia clinical simulation system for medical education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.18 · DOI
  17. Chernikova, O., Heitzmann, N., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Seidel, T., & Fischer, F. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544 · DOI · Paper page
  18. *Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2006). Open learning environments and the impact of a pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.2190/3UL1-4756-H837-2704 · DOI
  19. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  20. * D'Mello, S., Olney, A., Williams, C., & Hays, P. (2012). Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Human-computer studies, 70(5), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.004 · DOI
  21. Dai, C.-P. (2023). Enhancing learning achievements and self-efficacy for preservice teachers using model-based support in simulation-based learning with artificial intelligence-powered virtual agents. Doctoral dissertation. Florida State University.
  22. Dai, C.-P. (2024). Applying machine learning to augment the design and assessment of immersive learning experience. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Machine learning in educational sciences: Approaches, applications and advances. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9379-6_12 · DOI
  23. Dai, C.-P., & Ke, F. (2022). Educational applications of artificial intelligence in simulation-based learning: A systematic mapping review. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100087 · DOI
  24. Dai, Z., Ke, F., Dai, C.-P., Pachman, M., & Yuan, X. (2021). Role-play in virtual reality: A teaching training design case using OpenSimulator. In G. Akcayir & C. D. Epp (Eds.), Designing, deploying, and evaluating virtual and augmented reality in education (pp. 143–163). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-5043-4.ch007 · DOI
  25. Dai, C.-P., Ke, F., Dai, Z., & Pachman, M. (2023). Improving teaching practices via virtual reality-supported simulation-based learning: Scenario design and the duration of implementation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 836–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13296 · DOI
  26. Dai, C-P., Ke, F., Zhang, N., Barrett, A., West, L., Bhowmik, S., Southerland, S. A., & Yuan, X. (2024). Designing conversational agents to support student teacher learning in virtual reality simulation: A case study. In Proceedings of The ACM CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (ACM CHI EA ‘24), Honolulu. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3637145 · DOI
  27. Daradoumis, T., & Arguedas, M. (2020). Cultivating students’ reflective learning in metacognitive activities through an affective pedagogical agent. Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 19–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26921131
  28. 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 · DOI
  29. Decker, S., Sportsman, S., Puetz, I., & Billings, I. (2008). The evolution of simulation and its contribution to competency. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20080201-06 · DOI
  30. *Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005 · DOI
  31. Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes?: The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000011 · DOI
  32. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Elkot, M. A. (2019). Embedding adaptation levels within intelligent tutoring systems for developing programming skills and improving learning efficiency. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(12), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0101211 · DOI
  34. *Frechette, M. C. (2008). Animated pedagogical agents: How the presence and nonverbal communication of a virtual instructor affect perceptions and learning outcomes in a computer-based environment about basic physics concepts [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of New Mexico.
  35. Gibbons, A. S. (2020). What is instructional strategy? Seeking hidden dimensions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 2799–2815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09820-2 · DOI
  36. *Goldberg, B., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2015). Feedback source modality effects on training outcomes in a serious game: Pedagogical agents make a difference. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.008 · DOI
  37. Gorbunova, A., van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Costley, J. (2023). Are inductive teaching methods compatible with cognitive load theory?. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09828-z · DOI
  38. Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0086-4 · DOI
  39. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., & Dufty, D. (2008). Agent technologies designed to facilitate interactive knowledge construction. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 298–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145395 · DOI
  40. *Gulz, A., Haake, M., & Silvervarg, A. (2011). Extending a teachable agent with a social conversation module–effects on student experiences and learning. In International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 106–114). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2026506.2026524 · DOI
  41. Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H. L. (2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115588774 · DOI
  42. Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 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 · DOI
  44. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hwang, G. J., Xie, H., Wah, B. W., & Gašević. (2020). Vision, challenges, roles and research issues of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100001 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Jackson, G. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Motivation and performance in a game-based intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1036–1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032580 · DOI
  47. Johnson, W. L. (2003). Interaction tactics for socially intelligent pedagogical agents. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 251–253). https://doi.org/10.1145/604045.604090 · DOI
  48. *Johnson, E. (2021). An intelligent tutoring system’s approach for negotiation training. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Southern California.
  49. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.336 · DOI
  50. Ke, F., Dai, Z., Dai, C.-P., Pachman, M., Chaulagain, R., & Yuan, X. (2020). Designing virtual agents for simulation-based learning in virtual reality. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education (pp. 151–170). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3250-8.ch008 · DOI
  51. Kim, S. (2005). The effect of multimedia design elements on learning outcomes in pedagogical agent research: a meta-analysis. In M. Grandbastien (Ed.), Young Research Track Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education: Supporting Learning through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology (pp. 69–76).
  52. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y · DOI
  53. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
  54. Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00155578 · DOI
  55. *Kron, F. W., Fetters, M. D., Scerbo, M. W., White, C. B., Lypson, M. L., Padilla, M. A., ... & Becker, D. M. (2017). Using a computer simulation for teaching communication skills: A blinded multisite mixed methods randomized controlled trial. Patient education and counseling, 100(4), 748-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.024 · DOI
  56. Lane, H. C., Cahill, C., Foutz, S., Auerbach, D., Noren, D., Lussenhop, C., & Swartout, W. (2013). The effects of a pedagogical agent for informal science education on learner behaviors and self-efficacy. In Proceedings of International conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 309–318). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_32 · DOI
  57. *Le, N. T., & Wartschinski, L. (2018). A cognitive assistant for improving human reasoning skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 117, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.02.005 · DOI
  58. *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, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.017 · DOI
  59. Lippert, A., Shubeck, K., Morgan, B., Hampton, A., & Graesser, A. (2020). Multiple agent designs in conversational intelligent tutoring systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09431-8 · DOI
  60. Luck, M., & Aylett, R. (2000). Applying artificial intelligence to virtual reality: Intelligent virtual environments. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 14(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/088395100117142 · DOI
  61. Maroengsit, W., Piyakulpinyo, T., Phonyiam, K., Pongnumkul, S., Chaovalit, P., & Theeramunkong, T. (2019). A survey on evaluation methods for chatbots. In Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (pp. 111–119). https://doi.org/10.1145/3323771.3323824 · DOI
  62. Mascarenhas, S., Guimarães, M., Prada, R., Dias, J., Santos, P. A., Star, K., Hirsh, B., Spice, E., & Kommeren, R. (2018). A virtual agent toolkit for serious games developers. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIG.2018.8490399 · DOI
  63. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 · DOI · Paper page
  64. McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E. (2006). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, August 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27(4), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v27i4.1904 · DOI
  65. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 · DOI · Paper page
  67. *Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00237.x · DOI
  68. Nye, B. D., Graesser, A. C., & Hu, X. (2014). AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(4), 427–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0029-5 · DOI
  69. Pavlik Jr., P. I., Brawner, K., Olney, A., & Mitrovic, A. (2013). A review of student models used in intelligent tutoring systems. In R. A. Sottilare, A. Graesser, X. Hu, & H. Holden (Eds.), Design recommendations for intelligent tutoring systems: Learner modeling (Vol. 1, pp. 39–67). U.S. Army Research Laboratory. Retrieved from: https://gifttutoring.org/documents/42
  70. Peng, T. H., & Wang, T. H. (2022). Developing an analysis framework for studies on pedagogical agent in an e-Learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211041701 · DOI
  71. Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41(1), 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109355684 · DOI
  72. Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the modality effect exist? And if so, which modality effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9180-4 · DOI
  73. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
  74. Rickel, J. (2001). Intelligent virtual agents for education and training: Opportunities and challenges. In de Antonio, A., Aylett, R., Ballin, D. (Eds). Intelligent Virtual Agents. IVA 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2190 (pp. 15–22). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44812-8_2 · DOI
  75. Roll, I., & Wylie, R. (2016). Evolution and revolution in artificial intelligence in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0110-3 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Rosé, C. P., McLaughlin, E. A., Liu, R., & Koedinger, K. R. (2019). Explanatory learner models: Why machine learning (alone) is not the answer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2943–2958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12858 · DOI
  77. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological bulletin, 86(3). · DOI · Paper page
  78. *Rosenthal-von der Pütten, A. M., Straßmann, C., & Krämer, N. C. (2016, September). Robots or agents–neither helps you more or less during second language acquisition. In Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (Eds). Proceedings of International conference on intelligent virtual agents (pp. 256–268). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_23 · DOI
  79. Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47(3), 537–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01736.x · DOI · Paper page
  80. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (Ed.). (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th edition). Pearson.
  81. Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467 · DOI
  82. Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597625 · DOI
  83. Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a · DOI
  84. Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2014). Attention, working memory, and long-term memory in multimedia learning: An integrated perspective based on process models of working memory. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9242-2 · DOI
  85. Seshia, S. A., Sadigh, D., & Sastry, S. S. (2022). Toward verified artificial intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 65(7), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503914 · DOI · Paper page
  86. *Shiban, Y., Schelhorn, I., Jobst, V., Hörnlein, A., Puppe, F., Pauli, P., & Mühlberger, A. (2015). The appearance effect: Influences of virtual agent features on performance and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.077 · DOI
  87. Sinatra, A. M., Pollard, K. A., Files, B. T., Oiknine, A. H., Ericson, M., & Khooshabeh, P. (2021). Social fidelity in virtual agents: Impacts on presence and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106562 · DOI
  88. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x\ · DOI
  89. Spronck, P., Ponsen, M., Sprinkhuizen-Kuyper, I., & Postma, E. (2006). Adaptive game AI with dynamic scripting. Machine Learning, 63(3), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-006-6205-6 · DOI
  90. *Thompson, N., & McGill, T. J. (2017). Genetics with Jean: The design, development and evaluation of an affective tutoring system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9470-5 · DOI
  91. Tun, J. K., Alinier, G., Tang, J., & Kneebone, R. L. (2015). Redefining simulation fidelity for healthcare education. Simulation & Gaming, 46(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115576103 · DOI
  92. *van der Meij, H. (2013). Do pedagogical agents enhance software training?. Human–Computer Interaction, 28(6), 518–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2013.789348 · DOI
  93. 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. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.3.e · DOI
  94. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of statistical software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.
  96. Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09.003 · DOI
  97. *Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250-268. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000221 · DOI
  98. *Ward, W., Cole, R., Bolaños, D., Buchenroth-Martin, C., Svirsky, E., & Weston, T. (2013). My science tutor: A conversational multimedia virtual tutor. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031589 · DOI
  99. Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1798995 · DOI · Paper page
  100. Woolf, B. P., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI grand challenges for education. AI Magazine, 34(4), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v34i4.2490 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dai, C.-P., Ke, F., Pan, Y., Moon, J., & Liu, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • Southern Methodist University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Dai, Chih-Pu
ORCID
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-03
Volume
36
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
DOI
10.1007/s10648-024-09855-4
OpenAlex
W4392356798
Cited by
116
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 9
FWCI
2.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2110777)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
computer simulation, learning outcomes, adaptive learning, personalized learning, agent representation, intervention duration, AI technologies, educational technology effectiveness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review