CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 255Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningSocial Robot Interaction and HRIVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Face-to-Face Interaction with Pedagogical Agents, Twenty Years Later

Open access
Johnson, W. Lewis, Lester, James C.·2016·International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
DOI 10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Johnson et al. ( International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 11 , 47–78, 2000 ) introduced and surveyed a new paradigm for interactive learning environments: animated pedagogical agents. The article argued for combining animated interface agent technologies with intelligent learning environments, yielding intelligent systems that can interact with learners in natural, human-like ways to achieve better learning outcomes. We outlined a variety of possible uses for pedagogical agents. But we offered only preliminary evidence that they improve learning, leaving that to future research and development. Twenty years have elapsed since work began on animated pedagogical agents. This article re-examines the concepts and predictions in the 2000 article in the context of the current state of the field. Some of the ideas in the paper have become well established and widely adopted, especially in game-based learning environments. Others are only now being realized, thanks to advances in immersive interfaces and robotics that enable rich face-to-face interaction between learners and agents. Research has confirmed that pedagogical agents can be beneficial, but not equally for all learning problems, applications, and learner populations. Although there is a growing body of research findings about pedagogical agents, many questions remain and much work remains to be done.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 37 references

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Johnson, W.L. (2015b). Constructing Virtual Role-Play Simulations. in R Sottilare, A. Graesser, X. Hu, K. Brawner (Eds.), Design Recommendations for Adaptive Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Authoring Tools, 3, 211-226. Orlando: US Army Research Laboratory.
  2. Johnson, W.L., Friedland, L., Schrider, P., Valente, A., & Sheridan, S. (2011). The Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT): Joint Knowledge Online’s (JKO’s) Solution to the Individual Operational Culture and Language Training Gap. In Proceedings of ITEC 2011. London: Clarion Events.
  3. Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Stone, B.A., Kahler, S.E., & Barlow, S.T. (1997b). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness: A large-scale empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the Eighth World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 23–30). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  4. Rickel, J., & Johnson, W.L. (1999). Virtual humans for team training in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–255 of 255

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Alelo (United States) (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, W. Lewis
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
25-36
ISSN
1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9
OpenAlex
W2171876690
Cited by
255
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5
FWCI
11.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1321056, 1409639, 1138497, 1344803, 0822200, 1020229)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
educational agents, animated agents, face-to-face interaction, smart learning environments, game-based learning, immersive interfaces, educational robotics, human-agent interaction, learning outcomes

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