Virtual Characters Help K–12 Students Learn and Improve Motivation: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Pedagogical agents, conversational agents, motivational agents, and other virtual characters have long been used in educational technologies. We built and analyzed the most comprehensive dataset to date of studies examining how virtual characters influence K–12 students’ learning and learning-related outcomes using three-level meta-analytic procedures. The results from five three-level meta-analyses indicate that virtual characters helped K–12 students learn (g = 0.42, p < .001, k = 70) and improved their motivation (g = 0.48, p = .001, k = 47) but did not have any significant effects on emotions (g = 0.60, p = .20, k = 15), perceptions (g = 0.05, p = .88, k = 34), or cognitive load (g = −0.09, p = .84, k = 5) compared to systems without a virtual character present. We conclude that virtual characters can provide a meaningful addition to learning environments for K–12 learners.

Keywords

instructional technologies instructional design/development computers and learning pedagogical agent K–12 education human-computer interaction virtual human conversational agent meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Indicates study included in the meta-analyses

*André

Jost

Hausberger

Le Pévédic

Jubin

Duhaut

Lemasson

(2014). Ethorobotics applied to human behaviour: Can animated objects influence children’s behaviour in cognitive tasks? Animal Behaviour, 96, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.07.020

*Arguedas

Daradoumis

(2021). Analysing the role of a pedagogical agent in psychological and cognitive preparatory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1167–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12556

Assink

Wibbelink

C. J. M.

(2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(3), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154

Atkinson

R. K.

Mayer

R. E.

Merrill

M. M.

(2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001

Baylor

A. L.

Kim

(2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.3233/irg-2005-15(2)02

Beege

Schneider

(2023). Emotional design of pedagogical agents: The influence of enthusiasm and model-observer similarity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 859–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10213-4

*Bøg Petersen

Klingenberg

Makransky

(2022). Pipetting in virtual reality can predict real-life pipetting performance. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000076

Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Wong

R. M.

Adesope

O. O.

Paas

(2021). Effectiveness of multimedia pedagogical agents predicted by diverse theories: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1

10.

*Chen

Chou

(2015). Enhancing middle school students’ scientific learning and motivation through agent-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12094

11.

*Chen

Z.-H.

Chen

S. Y.

(2014). When educational agents meet surrogate competition: Impacts of competitive educational agents on students’ motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 75, 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.014

12.

Chiou

E. K.

Schroeder

N. L.

Craig

S. D.

(2020). How we trust, perceive, and learn from virtual humans: The influence of voice quality. Computers & Education, 146, 103756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103756

13.

Clarebout

Elen

Johnson

W. L.

Shaw

(2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267–286.

14.

Clark

R. E.

Choi

(2007). The questionable benefits of pedagogical agents: Response to veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 379–381. https://doi.org/10.2190/2781-3471-67MG-5033

15.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.

16.

Cowan

(2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01003922

17.

Cowan

(2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277

18.

Craig

S. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.003

19.

*Daradoumis

Arguedas

(2020). Cultivating students’ reflective learning in metacognitive activities through an affective pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(2), 19–31.

20.

Davis

R. O.

Park

Vincent

(2021). A systematic narrative review of agent persona on learning outcomes and design variables to enhance personification. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1830894

21.

Davis

R. O.

Park

Vincent

(2023). A meta-analytic review on embodied pedagogical agent design and testing formats. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 30–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100556

22.

De Jong

(2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0

23.

Deepbrain AI. (2023). Best ai video generator | deepbrain ai. Best Ai Video Generator | Deepbrain Ai. https://www.deepbrain.io/

24.

*Dincer

Doganay

(2015). The impact of pedagogical agent on learners’ motivation and academic success. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education, 10(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1515/ptse-2015-0032

25.

*Dinçer

Doğanay

(2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.005

26.

Fernández-Castilla

Declercq

Jamshidi

Beretvas

S. N.

Onghena

Van den Noortgate

(2020). Visual representations of meta-analyses of multiple outcomes: Extensions to forest plots, funnel plots, and caterpillar plots. Methodology, 16(4), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.4013

27.

*Genova

H. M.

Lancaster

Morecraft

Haas

Edwards

DiBenedetto

Krch

DeLuca

Smith

M. J.

(2021). A pilot RCT of virtual reality job interview training in transition-age youth on the autism spectrum. Research In Autism Spectrum Disorders, 89, 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101878

28.

Gladstone

J. R.

Cimpian

(2021). Which role models are effective for which students? A systematic review and four recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of role models in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00315-x

29.

Gladstone

J. R.

Schroeder

N. L.

Heidig

Zhang

Palaguachi

Pitera

(2025). Do pedagogical agents enhance student motivation? Unraveling the evidence through meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 37(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10050-2

30.

*Govindasamy

M. K.

(2013). Embodied agent in tutor role: Effects on field dependent and independent low achiever’s retention and perceived science self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 22(3), 273–297.

31.

*Grynszpan

Bouteiller

Grynszpan

Martin

J.-C.

Nadel

(2022). Social gaze training for Autism Spectrum Disorder using eye-tracking and virtual humans. Interaction Studies, 23(1), 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.21022.gry

32.

Guo

Y. R.

Goh

D. H.-L.

(2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115588774

33.

Hartholt

Traum

Marsella

S. C.

Shapiro

Stratou

Leuski

Morency

L.-P.

Gratch

(2013). All together now. In Aylett

Krenn

Pelachaud

Shimodaira

(Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents. IVA 2013. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8108, pp. 368–381). Springer.

34.

Hattie

(2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021

35.

Heidig

Clarebout

(2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004

36.

*Holmes

(2007). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers & Education, 48(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.007

37.

*Hong

Z.-W.

Chen

Y.-L.

Lan

C.-H.

(2014). A courseware to script animated pedagogical agents in instructional material for elementary students in English education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.733712

38.

*Jaques

P. A.

Lehmann

Pesty

(2009). Evaluating the affective tactics of an emotional pedagogical agent [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 104–109. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1529282.1529304

39.

*Jing

Liu

Gong

Zhang

Wang

(2022). Pedagogical agents in learning videos: Which one is best for children? Interactive Learning Environments. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2141787

40.

Johnson

A. M.

Ozogul

Moreno

Reisslein

(2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20009

41.

Johnson

W. L.

Rickel

(1997). Steve: An animated pedagogical agent for procedural training in virtual environments. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 8(1–4), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/272874.272877

42.

*Kim

(2009). The role of learner attributes and affect determining the impact of agent presence. International Journal of Learning Technology, 4(3/4), 2–2. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2009.028808

43.

*Kizilkaya

Askar

(2008). The effect of an embedded pedagogical agent on the students’ science achievement. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(4), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415650810930893

44.

*Lee

T. T.

Mustapha

N. H.

(2017). Who is more efficient: Teacher or pedagogical agents? In Puteh

AbdHamid

Adenan

(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Mathematics, and Science 2016 (Vol. 1847). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4983903

45.

*Lee

T. T.

Osman

(2012). Interactive multimedia module in the learning of electrochemistry: Effects on students’ understanding and motivation. In Baskan

Ozdamli

Kanbul

Ozcan

(Eds.), 4th World Conference on Educational Sciences (Vol. 46, pp. 1323–1327). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.295

46.

Lester

J. C.

Converse

S. A.

Kahler

S. E.

Barlow

S. T.

Stone

B. A.

Bhogal

R. S.

(1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents [Conference session]. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 359–366, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

47.

Lin

Ginns

Wang

Zhang

(2020). Using a pedagogical agent to deliver conversational style instruction: What benefits can you obtain? Computers & Education, 143, 103658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103658

48.

López

A. A.

Guzman-Orth

Zapata-Rivera

Forsyth

C. M.

Luce

(2021). Examining the accuracy of a conversation-based assessment in interpreting English learners’ written responses. ETS Research Report Series, 2021(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12315

49.

Mayer

R. E.

(2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer

R. E.

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.

50.

Mayer

R. E.

(2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In Mayer

R. E.

(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.017

51.

Mayer

R. E.

(2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1

52.

Mayer

R. E.

Sobko

Mautone

P. D.

(2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.419

53.

*Mohammadhasani

Fardanesh

Hatami

Mozayani

Fabio

R. A.

(2018). The pedagogical agent enhances mathematics learning in ADHD students. Education & Information Technologies, 23(6), 2299–2308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9710-x

54.

*Moreno

Mayer

R. E.

Spires

H. A.

Lester

J. C.

(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(2), 177–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02

55.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Education indicators: An international perspective / indicator 1 side bar. ISCED Levels of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/eiip/eiip1s01.asp

56.

*Nielen

T. M. J.

Smith

G. G.

Sikkema-de Jong

M. T.

Drobisz

van Horne

Bus

A. G.

(2018). Digital guidance for susceptible readers: Effects on fifth graders’ reading motivation and incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(1), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117708283

57.

*Okita

S. Y.

(2008). Learn wisdom by the folly of others: Children learning to self correct by monitoring the reasoning of projective pedagogical agents (PQDT:64921281) [Doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University.

58.

*Okita

S. Y.

(2014). Learning from the folly of others: Learning to self-correct by monitoring the reasoning of virtual characters in a computer-supported mathematics learning environment. Computers & Education, 71, 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.018

59.

*Osman

Lee

(2014). Impact of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of electrochemistry. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 12(2), 395–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9407-y

60.

Paas

Sweller

(2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.

61.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71.

62.

Pekrun

(2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

63.

Pekrun

Frenzel

A. C.

Goetz

Perry

R. P.

(2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions. In Schutz

P. A.

Pekrun

(Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 13–36). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372545-5/50003-4

64.

Pekrun

Goetz

Frenzel

A. C.

Barchfeld

Perry

R. P.

(2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002

65.

Peng

T.-H.

Wang

T.-H.

(2022). Developing an analysis framework for studies on pedagogical agent in an e-learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(3), 547–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211041701

66.

Pintrich

P. R.

Marx

R. W.

Boyle

R. A.

(1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170472

67.

*Plant

E. A.

Baylor

A. L.

Doerr

C. E.

Rosenberg-Kima

R. B.

(2009). Changing middle-school students’ attitudes and performance regarding engineering with computer-based social models. Computers & Education, 53(2), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.013

68.

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/

69.

Rehm

Nakano

Koda

Winschiers-Theophilus

(2012). Culturally aware agent communication. In Zacarias

de Oliveira

J. V.

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction: The agency perspective (pp. 411–436). Springer.

70.

Rodgers

M. A.

Pustejovsky

J. E.

(2021). Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000300

71.

Ryu

Baylor

A. L.

(2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 291–315.

72.

Schneider

Beege

Nebel

Schnaubert

Rey

G. D.

(2022). The cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5

73.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2017). The influence of a pedagogical agent on learners’ cognitive load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 138–147.

74.

Schroeder

N. L.

(2024). A beginner’s guide to systematic review and meta-analysis. https://noah-schroeder.github.io/reviewbook/

75.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265

76.

Schroeder

N. L.

Adesope

O. O.

(2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401–411.

77.

Schroeder

N. L.

Adesope

O. O.

Gilbert

R. B.

(2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a

78.

Schroeder

N. L.

Cenkci

A. T.

(2020). Do measures of cognitive load explain the spatial split-attention principle in multimedia learning environments? A systematic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000372.

79.

Schroeder

N. L.

Gotch

C. M.

(2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597625

80.

Schroeder

N. L.

Romine

W. L.

Craig

S. D.

(2017). Measuring pedagogical agent persona and the influence of agent persona on learning. Computers & Education, 109, 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.015

81.

Schroeder

N. L.

Yang

Banerjee

Romine

W. L.

Craig

S. D.

(2018). The influence of learners’ perceptions of virtual humans on learning transfer. Computers & Education, 126, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.005

82.

Siegle

R. F.

Schroeder

N. L.

Lane

H. C.

Craig

S. D.

(2023). Twenty-five years of learning with pedagogical agents: History, barriers, and opportunities. TechTrends, 67(5), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00869-3

83.

Sinatra

G. M.

(2005). The “warming trend” in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5

84.

*Sinoo

van der Pal

Henkemans

O. A. B.

Keizer

Bierman

B. P. B.

Looije

Neerincx

M. A.

(2018). Friendship with a robot: Children’s perception of similarity between a robot’s physical and virtual embodiment that supports diabetes self-management. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(7), 1248–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.02.008

85.

Sweller

(2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

86.

Sweller

(2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

87.

van der Meij

(2013). Motivating agents in software tutorials. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.018

88.

*van der Meij

van der Meij

Harmsen

(2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(3), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9378-5

89.

van Lissa

(n.d.). Doing Meta-Analysis in R and exploring heterogeneity using metaforest. https://cjvanlissa.github.io/Doing-Meta-Analysis-in-R/index.html

90.

Van Mulken

Andre

Müller

(1998). The persona effect: How substantial is it? In Johnson

Nigay

Roast

(Eds.), People and computers XIII (pp. 53–66). Springer.

91.

Veletsianos

(2010). Contextually relevant pedagogical agents: Visual appearance, stereotypes, and first impressions and their impact on learning. Computers & Education, 55(2), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.019

92.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

93.

Viechtbauer

(2022). Package “metafor.” https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/metafor/metafor.pdf

94.

Viechtbauer

(n.d.). Model diagnostics for “rma.mv” objects—Influence.rma.mv. https://wviechtb.github.io/metafor/reference/influence.rma.mv.html

95.

Viechtbauer

Cheung

M. W.-L.

(2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11

96.

Wang

Feng

Guo

Gong

Wang

(2022). Benefits of affective pedagogical agents in multimedia instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 797236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797236

97.

Wang

Gong

Cao

Lang

(2023). The effects of affective pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 38, N.PAG-N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100506

98.

Jing

Gong

(2023). The zoomorphic effect: A contribution to the study of images of pedagogical agents for children’s learning in instructional videos. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1620–1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12822

99.

Yilmaz

F. G. K.

Olpak

Y. Z.

Yilmaz

(2018). The effect of the metacognitive support via pedagogical agent on self-regulation skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117707696

100.

*Yılmaz

Kılıç-Çakmak

(2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 828–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.020

101.

*Yung

H. I.

Paas

(2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153–160.

102.

Zhang

Jaldi

C. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

Gladstone

J. R.

(2024). Pedagogical agents in K–12 education: A scoping review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2381229

103.

Zhang

Jaldi

C. D.

Schroeder

N. L.

López

A. A.

Gladstone

J. R.

Heidig

(2024). Pedagogical agent design for K–12 education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 223, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105165