Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personalizing e-Learning. The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerous studies have evaluated the effects of pedagogical agents on students’ learning outcomes, but so far, beneficial effects have not been consistently demonstrated. The ambiguous results might partly be due to the strong emphasis on cognitive outcomes, which is characteristic for research in teaching and learning. The paper suggests a shift of attention to socio-emotional and relational variables, which might be considered as relevant moderator variables in learning or even as learning outcomes per se, for example, in social learning. In order to achieve this goal, we suggest a systematic account of the results from social psychology and in particular from nonverbal communication research, and findings from studies on the social effects of embodied agents in general. This perspective will include (1) a distinction between static and dynamic aspects of embodiment, such as the visual appearance of agents and their nonverbal behavior, and (2) a more systematic approach concerning the functions of embodiment and nonverbal behavior, such as modeling, discourse and dialogue functions, and socio-emotional effects. A further argument addresses the necessity of complementing outcome measures by process measures, which are sensitive to the tasks and the changing situational demands that occur during learning processes and tutor-learner interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2007). Teachers’ gestures as a means of scaffolding students’ understanding: Evidence from an early algebra lesson. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video Research in the Learning Sciences (pp. 349–365). Mah Wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. Communication Yearbook, 3, 543–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 102–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailenson, J. N., Patel, K., Nielsen, A., Bajcsy, R., Jung, S., & Kurillo, G. (2008). The effect of interactivity on learning physical actions in virtual reality. Media Psychology, 11, 354–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Scrull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Vol. 1, Basic processes (pp. 1–40). Hillsdale: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive considerations for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A.L. & Ebbers, S. (2003a). Evidence that Multiple Agents Facilitate Greater Learning. Paper presented at the International Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED), Sydney, Australia.

  • Baylor, A. L., & Ebbers, S. (2003b). The pedagogical agent split-persona effect: When two agents are better than one. Honolulu, Hawaii: Paper presented at ED-MEDIA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). Does the presence of image and animation enhance pedagogical agent persona? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A., & Kim, S. (2008). The effects of agents’ nonverbal communication on procedural and attitudinal learning outcomes. In H. Prendinger, J. Lester, & M. Ishizuka (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents 2008, LNAI 5208 (pp. 208–214). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., & Breuer, J. (2009). Making the Implicit Explicit: Embedded Measurement in Serious Games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), The social science of serious games: Theories and applications. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge/LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., Krämer, N. C., Petersen, A., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2001). Computer animated movement and person perception. Methodological advances in nonverbal behavior research. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(3), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Is There Anybody Out There? Analyzing the Effects of Embodiment and Nonverbal Behavior in Avatar-Mediated Communication. In E. Konijn, S. Utz, M. Tanis, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Mediated interpersonal communication (pp. 131–157). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-assisted net-working. Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & Teachable Agents Group at Vanderbilt (TAG-V). (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 71–98). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., & Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 103–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, R. K., & Weisbuch, M. (2004). Predicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 683–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R., Losow, J. I., Murphy, M. M., & Constanzo, P. (1992). Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 962–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., & Bickmore, T. (2000). External manifestations of trustworthiness in the interface. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjálmsson, H. & Yan, H. (1999). Embodiment in conversational interfaces: Rea. CHI'99 Conference Proceedings (pp. 520-527). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Chovil, N. (1991). Discourse oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 163–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents. An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Graesser, A. C., & the TRG. (2000). Overhearing dialogues and monologues in a virtual tutoring session: Effects on questioning and vicarious learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 242–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. D., Graesser, A. C., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning. Journal of Educational Media, 29, 241–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S., D'Mello, S., Witherspoon, A., & Graesser, A. (2007). Emote-aloud during learning with AutoTutor: Applying the facial action coding system to cognitive–affective states during learning. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 777–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 52, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domagk, S. (2008). Pädagogische Agenten in multimedialen Lernumgebungen. Empirische Studien zum Einfluss der Sympathie auf Motivation und Lernerfolg [Pedagogical agents in multimedia learning environments. Empirical studies on the influence of likability on motivation and learning]. Berlin: Logos.

  • Elliott, C., Rickel, J. & Lester, J. C. (1997). Integrating affective computing into animated tutoring agents. Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Animated Interface Agents: Making Them Intelligent, 113-121.

  • Elliott, C., Rickel, J., & Lester, J. (1999). Lifelike Pedagogical Agents and Affective Computing: An Exploratory Synthesis. In M. Wooldridge & M. Veloso (Eds.), Artificial intelligence today. Lecture notes in computer science 1600 (pp. 195–212). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essa, I. A. (1995). Analysis, interpretation and synthesis of facial expressions. PHD-Thesis, MIT.

  • Fairclough, S. H., Venables, L., & Tattersall, A. (2005). The influence of task demand and learning on the psychophysiological response. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 56(2), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, S., Hirsbrunner, H.-P., Florin, A., Daw, W., & Crawford, R. (1983). A unified approach to the investigation of nonverbal and verbal behavior in communication research. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European Social Psychology (pp. 143–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2006). Views from a cognitive scientist: Cognitive representations underlying discourse are sometimes social. Discourse Studies, 8, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & the Tutoring Research Group. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D., & TRG (2000). Teaching tactics in AutoTutor. Paper presented at the workshop on tutorial dialogue at the Intelligent Tutoring Systems 2000 Conference, Montreal, Canada.

  • Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., Harter, D., Person, N., et al. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., & McDaniel, B. (2007). AutoTutor holds conversations with learners that are responsive to their cognitive and emotional states. Educational Technology, 47, 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., D’Mello, S. K., Craig, S. D., Witherspoon, A., Sullins, J., McDaniel, B., et al. (2008). The relationship between affect states and dialogue patterns during interactions with AutoTutor. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19, 293–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grammer, K., Honda, M., Jütte, A., & Schmitt, A. (1999). Fuzziness of nonverbal courtship communication unblurred by motion energy detection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 487–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jucks, R., Bromme, R., & Runde, A. (2003). Audience Design von Experten in der netzgestützten Kommunikation: Die Rolle von Heuristiken über das geteilte Vorwissen [Audience design of experts in net-based communication: the role of heuristics on shared prior knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 211(2), 60–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1997). “Social” Human-Computer Interaction. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 191–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The effects of agent affect and gender on learning, interest, self-efficacy, and agent persona. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social–cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(6), 569–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. J. (1985). Framework for a theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & Anderson, J. R. (1997). Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 8, 30–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopp, S., Gesellensetter, L., Krämer, N. C., & Wachsmuth, I. (2005). A conversational agent as museum guide – design and evaluation of a real-world application. In R. Aylett et al. (Eds.), IVA 2005, International Working Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C. (2001). Bewegende Bewegung. Sozio-emotionale Wirkungen nonverbalen Verhaltens und deren experimentelle Untersuchung mittels Computeranimation. [Moving movements. Socio-emotional effects of nonverbal behaviour and its experimental analysis using computer animation]. Lengerich: Pabst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C. (2005). Social communicative effects of a virtual program guide. In T. Panayiotopoulos et al. (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents 2005 (pp. 442–543). Hamburg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C. (2008a). Soziale Wirkungen virtueller Helfer. Gestaltung und Evaluation von Mensch-Computer-Interaktion [Social effects of virtual assistants. Design and evaluation of human-computer interaction]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C. (2008b). Theory of Mind as a theoretical prerequisite to model communication with virtual humans. In I. Wachsmuth & G. Knoblich (Eds.), Modeling communication with robots and virtual humans (pp. 222–240). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C. (2008c). Nonverbal Communication. In J. Blascovich & C. Hartel (Eds.), Human behavior in military contexts (pp. 150–188). Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C., Bente, G. & Piesk, J. (2003a). The ghost in the machine. The influence of Embodied Conversational Agents on user expectations and user behaviour in a TV/VCR application. In G. Bieber & T. Kirste (eds)., IMC Workshop 2003, Assistance, Mobility, Applications (pp. 121-128). Rostock.

  • Krämer, N. C., Tietz, B., & Bente, G. (2003). Effects of embodied interface agents and their gestural activity. In R. Aylett, D. Ballin, T. Rist, & J. Rickel (Eds.), 4th International Working Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 292–300). Hamburg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N. C., Simons, N., & Kopp, S. (2007). The effects of an embodied agent’s nonverbal behavior on user’s evaluation and behavioural mimicry. In C. Pelachaud et al. (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents 2007 (pp. 238–251). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bogal, R. S. (1997). The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. In S. Pemberton (Ed.), Human factors in computing systems: CHI'97 Conference proceedings (pp. 59–366). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Voerman, J. L., Towns, S. G., & Callaway, C. B. (1999). Deictic believability: coordinating gesture, locomotion, and speech in lifelike pedagogical agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 383–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & FitzGerald, P. J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123–154). Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D. (2004). Instructional-design principles for adaptivity in open learning environments. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans and processes of instructional design: international perspectives (pp. 289–307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & den Elzen-Rump, V. (2007). Self-regulated learning with a text-highlighting strategy: A training experiment. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 215, 174–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuiggan, S., & Lester, J. (2007). Modeling and evaluating empathy in embodied companion agents. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65(4), 348–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2001). Software agents in multimedia: An experimental study of their contributions to students’ learning. Human-Computer Interaction Proceedings (pp. 275-277), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Moreno, R. (2003). The Role of Software Agents in Multimedia Learning Environments: When Do They Help Students Reduce Cognitive Load? Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Annual Conference, Padova, Italy.

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Special issue on interactive learning environments: contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C., Moon, Y., Morkes, J., Kim, E.-Y., & Fogg, B. J. (1997). Computers are social actors: A review of current research. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Moral and ethical issues in human–computer interaction (pp. 137–162). Stanford, CA: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okita, S. Y., Bailenson, J., & Schwartz, D. L. (2008). Mere Belief of Social Action Improves Complex Learning. In S. Barab, K. Hay, & D. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parise, S., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., & Waters, K. (1999). Cooperating with life-like interface agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partala, T., & Surakka, V. (2003). Pupil size variation as an indication of affective processing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 59(1–2), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Person, N. K., Graesser, A. C., Bautista, L., Mathews, E., & TRG. (2001). Evaluating student learning gains in two versions of AutoTutor. In J. D. Moore, C. L. Redfield, & W. L. Johnson (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: AI-ED in the wired and wireless future (pp. 286–293). Amsterdam: OIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, S., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Person, N. K., Graesser, A. C., & TRG. (2001). AutoTutor: Incorporating backchannel feedback and other human-like conversational behaviors into an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Speech Technology, 4, 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (1999). Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13, 343–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (2000). Task oriented collaboration with embodied agents in virtual worlds. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 95–122). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickenberg, R. & Reeves, B. (2000). The effects of animated characters on anxiety, task performance, and evaluations of user interfaces. Letters of CHI 2000, April 2000, 49–56.

  • Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning (TICL), 2(4), 291–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilbach, L., Wohlschlaeger, A., Krämer, N. C., Newen, A., Zilles, K., Shah, J. N., et al. (2006). Being with virtual others: Neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia, 44, 718–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Animations of Thought: Interactivity in the Teachable Agent Paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design (pp. 114–140). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), The social science of serious games: Theories and applications. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge/LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, L., Subramani, M., Kiesler, S., Walker, J. H., & Waters, K. (1996). When the interface is a face. Human Computer Interaction, 11(2), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traum, D. & Rickel, J. (2002). Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 766-773). ACM.

  • Van Vugt, H. C., Konijn, E. A., Hoorn, J. F., Keur, I., & Eliens, A. (2007). Realism is not all! User engagement with task-related interface characters. Interacting with Computers, 19, 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehrle, T., Kaiser, S., Schmidt, S., & Scherer, K. R. (2000). Studying the dynamics of emotional expression using synthesized facial muscle movements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(19), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social Psychology – Media and Communication, University of Duisburg-Essen, Forsthausweg 2, 47057, Duisburg, Germany

    Nicole C. Krämer

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Straße 2, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Gary Bente

Authors
  1. Nicole C. Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary Bente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole C. Krämer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krämer, N.C., Bente, G. Personalizing e-Learning. The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents. Educ Psychol Rev 22, 71–87 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation