In educational research the relationship between affect/emotion and performance on cognitive tasks is well documented in both the neuroscience and psychology literatures. Researchers have claimed that emotions play a vital role in perception, learning, decision making, rational thinking and other cognitive functions. At the same time some others have added that both the positive and negative affective states are equally important in the learning process. In the real-life physical learning environment students’ affective feedback is a major cue that human tutors use to constantly adapt their teaching strategies, so that learning would be most effective and efficient for each individual learner. Thus, in e-learning environment it’s a research issue to think about how to design an artificial affective tutor or pedagogical agent, who can respond to students’ emotion and accordingly guide and motivate them for better learning. However, for post-secondary learners it may be relevant, but for secondary level Indian students can it be feasible and cost-effective ICT learning tools. This raises many more questions about content, pedagogy, software designing and implementation of affective pedagogical agents as ICT learning tools in Indian school education system.
References
[1]
Alexander, S. T. V. (2007). An Affect-Sensitive Intelligent Tutoring System with an Animated Pedagogical Agent that Adapts to Student Emotion like a Human Tutor. Doctoral Thesis in Computer Science, Albany, New Zealand: Massey University.
[2]
Alexander, S. T. V., Sarrafzadah, A., & Hill, S. (2006). Easy with Eve: A Functional Affective Tutoring System. Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Jhongli.
[3]
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working Memory. Science, 255, 556-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359
[4]
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[5]
Barrett, L. F., & Salovey, P. (2002). The Functional Utility of Negative Emotions (p. 467). Handbook of Emotions. Google Books. https://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=1609180445
[6]
Baylor, A. L. (1999). Intelligent Agents as Cognitive Tools. Educational Technology, 39, 36-40.
[7]
Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating Instructional Roles through Pedagogical Agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 95-115.
[8]
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2003). Role of the Amygdala in Decision-Making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 356-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2003.tb07094.x
[9]
Ben Ammar, M., & Neji, M. (2007). EMASPEL (Emotional Multi-Agents System for Peer-to-Peer E-Learning). The 1st International Conference on Information and Communication Technology and Accessibility. Hammamet, Tunisia, April 12-14.
[10]
Burleson, W. (2006). Affective Learning Companions: Strategies for Empathetic Agents with Real-Time Multimodal Affective Sensing to Foster Meta-Cognitive and Meta-Affective Approaches to Learning, Motivation, and Perseverance. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[11]
Chen, G.-D., Lee, J.-H., Wang, C.-H., Chao, P.-Y., Li, L.-Y., & Lee, T.-Y. (2012). An Empathic Avatar in a Computer-Aided Learning Program to Encourage and Persuade Learners. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 62-72.
[12]
Chou, C., Chan, T., & Lin, C. (2003). Redefining the Learning Companion: The Past, Present, and Future of Educational Agents. Computers in Education, 40, 255-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00130-6
[13]
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2007). In Search of Pedagogical Agents’ Modality and Dialogue Effects in Open Learning Environments. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 10, 1-15.
[14]
Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five Design Principles for Experiments on the Effects of Animated Pedagogical Agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 209-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/7LRM-3BR2-44GW-9QQY
[15]
Conati, C. (2002). Probabilistic Assessment of User’s Emotions in Educational Games. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16, 555-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08839510290030390
[16]
D’Mello, S., Picard, R., & Graesser, A. (2007). Toward an Affect-Sensitive Auto Tutor. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 22, 53-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2007.79
[17]
Damasio, A. R., Grabowski, T. J., Bechara, A., Domasio, H., Panto, L. L. B., Parizi, J., & Hichwa, R. D. (2000). Sub-Cor- tical and Cortical Brain Activity during the Feeling of Self-Generated Emotions. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 1049-1056.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/79871
[18]
De Vicente, A. (2003). Towards Tutoring Systems That Detect Students’ Motivation: An Investigation. PhD Thesis, Edinburgh: School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh.
[19]
Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. (2007). Fostering Multimedia Learning of Science: Exploring the Role of an Animated Agent’s Image. Computers in Education, 49, 677-690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.010
[20]
Fox, B. (1991). Cognitive and Interactional Aspects of Correction in Tutoring. In P. Goodyear (Ed.), Teaching Knowledge and Intelligent Tutoring. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
[21]
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century (292 p). New York: Basic Books.
[22]
Go Animate (2013). Go Animate (Computer Software). http://goanimate.com
[23]
Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Auto Tutor: A Tutor with Dialogue in Natural Language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 180-193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195563
[24]
Graesser, A., Jeon, M., & Dufty, D. (2008). Agent Technologies Designed to Facilitate Interactive Knowledge Construction. Discourse Processes, 45, 298-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145395
[25]
Gulz, A. (2004). Benefits of Virtual Characters in Computer Based Environments: Claims and Evidence. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 14, 313-334.
[26]
Gulz, A. (2005). Social Enrichment by Virtual Characters: Differential Benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 405-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00147.x
Isen, A. M. (1999a). Positive Affect. In T. Dalgleish, & M. Power (Eds.), The Handbook of Cognition and Emotion (pp. 521-539). Sussex: Wiley.
[29]
Isen, A. M. (1999b). Positive Affect and Creativity. In S. Russ (Ed.), Affect, Creative Experience, and Psychological Adjustment (pp. 3-17). Philadelphia, PA: Bruner/Mazel.
[30]
Isen, A. M. (2000). Some Perspective on Positive Affect and Self-Regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 184-187.
[31]
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The Influence of Positive Affect on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Facilitating Enjoyment of Play Responsible Work Behavior, and Self-Control. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 295-323.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9019-8
[32]
Kim, C., & Baylor, A. (2008). A Virtual Change Agent: Motivating Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate Technology in Their Future Classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 11, 309-321.
[33]
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A Socio-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54, 569-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3
[34]
Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The Impact of Learner Attributes and Learner Choice in an Agent-Based Environment. Computer in Education, 56, 505-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.016
[35]
Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions: The Impact of Agent Emotion and Gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 220-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00210.x
[36]
Kinard, T. A. (2001). The Potential of Affective Computing in E-Learning. In Chapter 14: The Journey from Theory to Practice in the “Myself” Project. www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/40562
[37]
Kort, B., Riley, R., & Picard, R. W. (2001). An Affective Model of Interplay between Emotions and Learning: Reengineering Educational Pedagogy Building a Learning Companion. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Madison, 6-8 August 2001, 0043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2001.943850
[38]
Kramer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010). Personalizing E-Learning: The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 71-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x
[39]
Lane, L. A., Ayres, J. F., & Lovett, J. V. (1997). A Review of the Introduction and Use of White Clover (Trifolium repens L.) in Australia—Significance for Breeding Objectives. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 37, 831-839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EA97044
[40]
Lepper, M. R., Aspinwall, L., Mumme, D., & Chabay, R. W. (1990). Self-Perception and Social Perception Processes in Tutoring: Subtle Social Control Strategies of Expert Tutors. In J. M. Olsen, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Self-Inference and Social Inference: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[41]
Lisetti, C. (1999). Modeling Cognition-Emotion of Users for Improved Interaction with Software Systems. In J. Kay (Ed.), UM99 User Modeling (pp. 307-309). Vienna: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-2490-1_33
[42]
Litman, D. J., & Riley, F. K. (2006). Recognizing Student Emotions and Attitudes on the Basis of Utterances in Spoken Tutoring Dialogues with Both Human and Computer Tutors. Speech Communication, 48, 559-590.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.09.008
[43]
Mantovani, F. et al. (2010). Cognitive Constructor: An Intelligent Tutoring System Based on a Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architecture (BICA). In Conversational Agents and Natural Language Interaction: Techniques and Effective Practices. https://books.google.co.in/book?isbn=1609606183
[44]
Mayor, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An Embodiment Effect in Computer-Based Learning with Animated Pedagogical Agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 239-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
[45]
Merrill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Ranney, M., & Trafton, J. G. (1992). Effective Tutoring Techniques: A Comparison of Human Tutors and Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Learning Sciences, 2, 277-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0203_2
[46]
Miller, R. H. (2012) Online Ethics Course Aims at Tough Issues.
http://news.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=32496&pageID=on
[47]
Moreno, R. (2004). Animated Pedagogical Agents in Educational Technology. Educational Technology, 44, 23-30.
[48]
Morishima, A. (2006). Digital Libraries: Achievement, Challenges, and Opportunities. 9th International Conference on Asian Digital Libraries (ICADL), Kyoto, 27-30 November 2006.
[49]
Mota, S., & Picard, R. W. (2003). Automated Posture Analysis for Detecting Learner’s Interest Level. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop, 5, 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/cvprw.2003.10047
[50]
Murray, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (2010). Computerized Pedagogical Agents as an Educational Means for Developing Physical Self-Efficacy and Encouraging Activity in Youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 267-283.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.3.b
[51]
Neji, M., Ben Ammar, M., & Gouarderes, G. (2007). Affective Communication for Peer-to-Peer E-Learning. International Conference on Computing and E-Systems, Hammamet, 12-14 March 2007, 252-268.
[52]
Oddcast Inc. (2013a). SitePal (Computer Software). http://sitepal.com/
[53]
Oddcast Inc. (2013b). Voki (Computer Software). http://www.voki.com/
[54]
Payr, S. (2003). The Virtual University’s Faculty: An Overview of Educational Agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17, 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713827053
[55]
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic Emotions in Students’ Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91-106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
[56]
Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[57]
Picard, R. W. (1998). Towards Agents That Recognize Emotion. In IMAGINA, Monaco.
[58]
Picard, R., & Burleson, W. (2004). Affective Agents: Sustaining Motivation to Learn through Failure and a State of “Stuck”. The 7th Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Workshop on Social and Emotional Intelligence in Learning Environments, Maceio, Brasil.
[59]
Picard, R., Reilly, R., & Kart, B. (2004). An Affective Model of Interplay between Emotions and Learning. In P. Exman, R. Levenson, & W. Friesen (Eds.), Autonomic Nervous System Activity Distinguishes among Emotions, Science, 221, Citeseer.
Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (Eds.) (2004). Life-Like Characters: Tools, Affective Functions, and Applications. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-08373-4
[62]
Prendinger, H., Mori, J., & Ishikreza, M. (2005). Using Human Physiology to Evaluate Subtle Expressivity of a Virtual Quizmaster in a Mathematical Game. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 231-245.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.11.009
[63]
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[64]
Rosenberg-Kima, R., Baylor, A., Plant, E., & Doerr, C. (2008). Interface Agents as Social Models for Female Students: The Effects of Agent Visual Presence and Appearance on Female Students’ Attitudes and Beliefs. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24, 2741-2756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.017
[65]
Sarrafzadeh, A. F., Dadgostar, F., Alexander, S., & Messom, C. (2004). Frown Gives Game Away: Affect Sensitive Tutoring Systems for Elementary Mathematics. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1, 13-18.
[66]
Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2013). How Does a Contextually-Relevant Peer Pedagogical Agent in a Learner-Atte- nuated System-Paced Learning Environment Affect Cognitive and Affective Outcomes? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2, 114-133.
[67]
Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (2007). Introduction to Emotion in Education. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in Education: A Volume in Educational Psychology (pp. 3-10). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, Elsevier Inc.
Sklar, E., & Richards, D. (2010). Agent-Based Systems for Human Learners. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25, 111- 135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269888910000044
[70]
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty and Instructional Design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295- 312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
[71]
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional Design Consequences of an Analogy between Evolution by Natural Selection and Human Cognitive Architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d
[72]
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Qttenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Integrate Technology in Education: A Synthesis of Qualitative Evidence. Computers and Education, 59, 134-144.
[73]
Veletsianos, G. (2010). Contextually Relevant Pedagogical Agents: Visual Appearance, Stereotypes, and First Impressing and Their Impact on Learning. Computers in Education, 55, 576-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.019
[74]
Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2013). Pedagogical Agents. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
[75]
Wang, C.-Y., Ke, S.-Y., Chuang, H.-C., Tseng, H.-Y., & Chen, G.-D. (2010). E-Learning System Design with Humor and Empathy Interaction by Virtual Human to Improve Students’ Learning. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education, Putrajaya.
[76]
Woo, H. L. (2008).Designing Multimedia Learning Environments Using Animated Pedagogical Agents: Factors and Issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 203-218.
