Cited by 61

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

Ortega‐Ochoa, Elvis, Arguedas, Marta, Daradoumis, Thanasis·2024·British Journal of Educational Technology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.13413

Cites

7 of 7 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 10.1111/jcal.12556 · DOI
  2. 10.1155/2022/9601630 · DOI
  3. 10.1145/3308532.3329421 · DOI
  4. 10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001 · DOI
  5. 10.4018/978-1-59140-562-7.ch047 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/jcal.12610 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1007/s10209‐017‐0524‐1 · DOI
  8. Johnson W. L., 2000, Animated pedagogical agents: Face‐to‐face interaction in interactive learning environments, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47
  9. Kitchenham B. A., 2007, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering
  10. 10.1109/TSE.2002.1027796 · DOI
  11. 10.4324/9780429329067-10 · DOI
  12. Long Z., 2019, Approaches and challenges in team tutoring workshop, 77
  13. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1145/3209219.3209241 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s10639‐020‐10123‐5 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033 · DOI · Paper page
  17. OpenAI, 2022, ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue
  18. 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
  19. 10.1002/9780470754887 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1080/08839510590910174 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630 · DOI
  22. Research and Markets, 2022, Size of the chatbot market worldwide from 2021 to 2030 (in million U.S. dollars)
  23. Santos K.‐A., 2020, IDC ‘20: Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, 483
  24. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01063 · DOI
  25. Tegos S., 2017, Conversational agents improve peer learning through building on prior knowledge, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20, 99
  26. 10.1007/s11042‐018‐5942‐4 · DOI
  27. 10.24251/HICSS.2021.007 · DOI
  28. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988252 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106397 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 61

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