The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Empathic pedagogical conversational agents: A systematic literature review
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing technologies have fuelled the growth of Pedagogical Conversational Agents (PCAs) with empathic conversational capabilities. However, no systematic literature review has explored the intersection between conversational agents, education and emotion. Therefore, this study aimed to outline the key aspects of designing, implementing and evaluating these agents. The data sources were empirical studies, including peer‐reviewed conference papers and journal articles, and the most recent publications, from the ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library. The remaining papers underwent a rigorous quality assessment. A filter study meeting the objective was based on keywords. Comparative analysis and synthesis of results were used to handle data and combine study outcomes. Out of 1162 search results, 13 studies were selected. The results indicate that agents promote dialogic learning, proficiency in knowledge domains, personalized feedback and empathic abilities as essential design principles. Most implementations employ a quantitative approach, and two variables are used for evaluation. Feedback types play a vital role in achieving positive results in learning performance and student perceptions. The main limitations and gaps are the time range for literature selection, the level of integration of the empathic field and the lack of a detailed development stage report. Moreover, future directions are the ethical implications of agents operating beyond scheduled learning times and the adoption of Responsible AI principles. In conclusion, this review provides a comprehensive framework of empathic PCAs, mostly in their evaluation. The systematic review registration number is osf.io/3xk6a . Practitioner notes: What is already known about this topic: Emotions play a pivotal role in shaping the interaction process, making it essential to consider them when designing methodological strategies or learning tools. Empathic Pedagogical Conversational Agents (PCAs) have emerged as a crucial approach for enhancing and personalizing the learning experience (24/7) for pupils and supporting human teachers in their teaching process. Despite the creation of numerous empathic PCAs, there is a scarcity of Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) on their application in the educational field, particularly concerning the integration of emotional abilities in combination with the competencies of each subject. What this paper adds: It offers new insights into the design principles underlying the integration of the empathic field. It reviews different approaches for incorporating students' prior knowledge in real time. It provides a comprehensive and up‐to‐date overview of the research designs used for implementation, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. It examines the factors that influence the effectiveness of empathic PCA in teaching and learning. It evaluates the types of feedback that enhance the impact of the empathic field on learning outcomes. Implications for practice and/or policy: It is crucial to grasp the topics that this paper introduces in order to effectively integrate new learning tools into any context. Techno‐pedagogical designers seeking to gain insights into empathic PCAs will find immense value in this SLR, as it comprehensively covers each stage of the process. For future research endeavours, this study offers a wealth of ideas to draw upon, enabling researchers to address the challenges outlined and explore new avenues of investigation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine
Weizenbaum, J. (1966) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/365153.365168 · Cited by 4,452
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 · Cited by 993
Interacting with educational chatbots: A systematic review
Kuhail, M. A., Alturki, N., Alramlawi, S., & Alhejori, K. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11177-3 · Cited by 841
An analysis of children’ interaction with an AI chatbot and its impact on their interest in reading
Liu, C.-C., Liao, M.-G., Chang, C.-H., & Lin, H.-M. (2022) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104576 · Cited by 240
Kumar, J. A. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00302-w · Cited by 183
AI-based conversational agents: A scoping review from technologies to future directions
Kusal, S., Patil, S., Choudrie, J., Kotecha, K., Mishra, S., & Abraham, A. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3201144 · Cited by 140
Ayedoun, E., Hayashi, Y., & Seta, K. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2020.2989776 · Cited by 24
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1111/jcal.12556 · DOI
- 10.1155/2022/9601630 · DOI
- 10.1145/3308532.3329421 · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.4018/978-1-59140-562-7.ch047 · DOI
- 10.1111/jcal.12610 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10209‐017‐0524‐1 · DOI
- Johnson W. L., 2000, Animated pedagogical agents: Face‐to‐face interaction in interactive learning environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47
- Kitchenham B. A., 2007, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering
- 10.1109/TSE.2002.1027796 · DOI
- 10.4324/9780429329067-10 · DOI
- Long Z., 2019, Approaches and challenges in team tutoring workshop, 77
- 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3209219.3209241 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10639‐020‐10123‐5 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 · DOI · Paper page
- OpenAI, 2022, ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue
- Ortega‐Ochoa E., 2023, Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium of the 18th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning co‐located with the 18th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC‐TEL 2023), 18
- 10.1002/9780470754887 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/08839510590910174 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630 · DOI
- Research and Markets, 2022, Size of the chatbot market worldwide from 2021 to 2030 (in million U.S. dollars)
- Santos K.‐A., 2020, IDC ‘20: Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, 483
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01063 · DOI
- Tegos S., 2017, Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20, 99
- 10.1007/s11042‐018‐5942‐4 · DOI
- 10.24251/HICSS.2021.007 · DOI
- 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988252 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106397 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI-Assisted Classroom Interaction Analysis for Enhancing Teaching Effectiveness in Higher Education
Wang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Digital Media and Education · doi:10.1145/3839592.3839666
Metadata
- Authors
- Ortega‐Ochoa, E., Arguedas, M., & Daradoumis, T.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-12-06
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 886-909
- ISSN
- 0007-1013
- 1467-8535
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empathic pedagogical conversational agents: A systematic literature review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjet.13413
- The paper
- Ortega‐Ochoa, E., Arguedas, M., & Daradoumis, T. (2024). Empathic pedagogical conversational agents: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13413