Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 59Social Robot Interaction and HRIIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Look at the Roles of Look & Roles in Embodied Pedagogical Agents – A User Preference Perspective

Haake, Magnus, Gulz, Agneta·2009·International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education

Abstract

. The paper presents a theoretical framework addressing three aspects of embodied pedagogical agents: visual static appearance, pedagogical role, and communicative style. The framework is then applied to a user study where 90 school children (age 12 15) in a dummy multimedia program were presented with either an instructor or a learning companion condition. They were then to choose between eight visually different embodied pedagogical agents: four more naturalistic (detailed & 3D-rendered) and four more stylized (simplified & cartoonish). Finally the participants were to choose between a strictly task-oriented versus a task- and relation-oriented pedagogical agent. The goal of the study was to explore possible relations between the three aspects mentioned above with respect to user preferences. Results were: (i) When the agent was introduced as a learning companion, female students displayed a significant tendency to choose a more stylized visual character, (ii) When the agent was introduced as a learning companion, female students displayed a significant tendency to choose a task- and relation-oriented agent, (iii) In the case when students had chosen a more stylized character, there was a significant tendency to choose a task- and relational-oriented agent. The paper also discusses limitations and strengths of the study, and advocates careful descriptions in studies of this kind – especially regarding the notion of visual realism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/irg-2009-19(1)03

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

See all 59

Metadata

Authors
Haake, M., & Gulz, A.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Venue
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Publisher
IOS Press
Published
2009-02
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
39-71
ISSN
  • 1560-4292 (ISSN-L)
  • 1560-4306
OpenAlex
W4413847327
Cited by
59
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
user preferences, visual appearance, pedagogical role, communication styles, learning companions, gender differences, elementary school students, visual realism, 3D rendering, cartoon characters

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: A Look at the Roles of Look & Roles in Embodied Pedagogical Agents – A User Preference Perspective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3233/irg-2009-19(1)03
The paper
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. https://doi.org/10.3233/irg-2009-19(1)03

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.