An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Using Pedagogical Agents for Teaching in Inclusive Ways

  • Maggi Savin-BadenEmail author
  • Roy Bhakta
  • Victoria Mason-Robbie
  • David Burden
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)


This chapter presents research on the use of pedagogical agents as a tool to support the learning of skills related to the transposition of formulae. Participants from diverse backgrounds were recruited from those being taught on a compulsory mathematics course and allocated to one of three conditions. Each undertook a one-hour training session on mathematical transposition appropriate to their group allocation. The Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students (ASSIST) questionnaire and Technology Acceptance using a questionnaire based on the Technology Acceptance Model Framework (TAM) were administered. Interviews and focus groups were undertaken to explore their experiences. The pedagogical agent provided a positive learning experience that enabled learners to achieve the same levels of attainment as those who undertook human teaching. There is a need to improve techniques for designing and encoding the database of responses to natural language inputs and to make more use of automated strategies for acquiring and constructing databases. However, it is evident that this model of learning can be used to increase access to mathematics learning across sectors and devices. Such agents can be used with diverse learners, enabling them to personalise their learning and thereby improve the possibility for teaching in inclusive ways.


Autonomous agent Conversational agents Pedagogical agents Virtual human interaction Voice font 


  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84,191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Baylor, A. (2009). Promoting motivation with virtual agent and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 3559–3565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman, C. D. D. (2012). Student use of animated pedagogical agents in a middle school science inquiry program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, D., Oliver, M., & Burn, A. (2010). Learning, teaching and ambiguity in virtual worlds. In A. Peachey, J. Gillen, D. Livingstone & S. Smith-Robbins (Eds.), Researching learning in virtual worlds. UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, D. Z., & Chansiri, K. (2018). Digital identities—Overcoming visual bias through virtual embodiment. Information, Communication & Society, 22(4), 491–505. Scholar
  9. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  10. Florian, L. (2008). Inclusion: Special or inclusive education: Future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh, S. (2018). Facebook’s AI boss described Sophia the robot as ‘complete b—–t’ and ‘Wizard-of-Oz AI’. Business Insider UK. Retrieved from
  12. Graesser, A. C., Li, H., & Forsyth, C. (2014). Learning by communicating in natural language with conversational agents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 374–380. Scholar
  13. Griffin, A. (2017). Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to a robot for the first time ever. The Independent. Retrieved from
  14. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, R. (2016). Technology-enhanced learning and co-operative practice against the neoliberal university. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(5), 1004–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison, R., Flood, D., & Duce, D. (2013). Usability of mobile application: Literature review and rationale for a new usability model. Journal of Interaction Science, 1(1).Google Scholar
  17. Hasler, B. S., Tuchman, P., & Friedman, D. (2013). Virtual research assistants: Replacing human interviewers by automated avatars in virtual worlds. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1608–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. KiK Interactive Inc. (2016). KiK Bot shop—Lifestyle. (viewed August 1, 2016).
  19. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2015). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenzo, C. M., Lezcano, L., & Alonso, S. S. (2013). Language learning in educational virtual worlds—A TAM based assessment. Journal of UCS, 19(11), 1615–1637.Google Scholar
  21. Matthews, J. N. S. (1988). Recent developments in crossover designs. International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, 56(2), 117–127.Google Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193–203.Google Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Rickel, J., Marsella, S., Gratch, J., Hill, R., Traum, D., & Swartout, W. (2002). Toward a new generation of virtual humans for interactive experiences. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 17(4), 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savin-Baden, M. (2015). Rethinking learning in an age of digital fluency is being digitally tethered a new learning nexus?. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Savin-Baden, M., Tombs, G., Burden, D., & Wood, C. (2013). It’s almost like talking to a person: Student disclosure to pedagogical agents in sensitive settings. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tait, H., Entwistle, N. J., & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A re-conceptualisation of the approaches to studying inventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving students as learners (pp. 262–271). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Centre for Staff and Learning Development.Google Scholar
  32. Thrift, N. (2006). Space: Special issue on problematizing global knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 23, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trewin, S. (2018). AI fairness for people with disabilities: Point of view. Retrieved January 7, 2019, from
  34. United Nations. (2017). At UN, robot Sophia joins meeting on artificial intelligence and sustainable development. UN News. Retrieved from
  35. van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. (2013). What do learners and pedagogical agents discuss when given opportunities for open-ended dialogue? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(3), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang, M., & Stufken, J. (2008). Optimal and efficient crossover designs for comparing test treatments to a control treatment under various models. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138(1), 278–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maggi Savin-Baden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roy Bhakta
    • 2
  • Victoria Mason-Robbie
    • 1
  • David Burden
    • 3
  1. 1.University of WorcesterWorcesterUK
  2. 2.Capp & Co. Ltd.BirminghamUK
  3. 3.Daden LimitedBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations