Animated Agents: Motivational Consequences

IEEE SoutheastCon 2004March 26 - 28, 2004

John Ventura And

Matthew Ventura

Animated Agents

• Computer-generated image • Convey information • Lifelike facial features and body

movements • Function in a knowledge-based learning

environment • Non-verbal expressions

Multimedia Instruction

• Presentation that use verbal and visual tools to promote learning

• Convey visual and aural information.

Emotion and Learning

• Learners interpret the emotional expressions• Learners afford animated agents human-

like characteristics • Animated agents can possess attributes that

express an emotional state that enhances the motivational level of learners

Animated Agents

Paul Janet

Peedy Scientist

Vox Proxy

• PowerPoint tutorials • Animated agents that speak, move, and

gesture. • 29 characters that include Microsoft

Agent™• 40 gestures ranging from idle, to greeting,

to congratulations • Voice engine

Research Questions

1.Will there be a significant difference in students’ perceptions of four different animated agents?

2.Will there be significant differences in the learning gains of students due to the different agents?

Four Presentation

• Counterbalance Agents• Agents rated as Excellent, Good, Fair, and

Poor• Twenty true/false questions on the four

engineering principles

Electrical Engineering Principles

• Kirchhoff’s Current Law• Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law • Passive Sign Convention• Ohm’s Law/Power Absorption

Participants

• Thirty-nine students at Christian Brothers University

• One Java programming class• Two circuit analysis classes• One electronics class

Kirchhoff’s Current Law using Scientist

Four Instruments

• Emulate lecture-based presentations • Perceptions measured were enjoyment, teaching

ability, teaching style, entertainment, stimulus, focus on topic by agents, pride of agents, and usability

• Five questions on each of the four electrical engineering principles

• Gestures and locomotion used were entrance, greeting, wave, explain, point, and exit

Results

• No difference in learning gains between the four agents

• Preference ratings - there was a significant between the four agents: Scientist and Peedy, then Paul, and then Janet

• No significant correlations between preference ratings and learning gains among any of the agents

Conclusion

• Novelty of these agents• Preferences for animated agents used in this

study have no relationship to learning• latitude in choosing types of animated

agents• Java class received a class average score of

70 and the overall average score of the other three classes was 80

Further Research

• Agents’ gaze, gesture, locomotion, and voice quality

• Interactive tutorials in which animated agents respond to input from learners based on level of knowledge and prior instruction

Animated Agents (Used with permission by Vox Proxy)

• Paul – Copyright by La Cantoche Productions 1999-2003. All Rights Reserved.

• Janet – Copyright 2002 by Bob Norris. All Rights Reserved.

• Peedy – Copyright 1996-1998 by Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

• Scientist – Copyright 2002 by Children Free Technology Group. All Rights Reserved.