| Literature DB >> 35795011 |
Marjorie Armando1,2,3, Magalie Ochs1, Isabelle Régner2.
Abstract
Virtual learning environments often use virtual characters to facilitate and improve the learning process. These characters, known as pedagogical agents, can take on different roles, such as tutors or companions. Research has highlighted the importance of various characteristics of virtual agents, including their voice or non-verbal behaviors. Little attention has been paid to the gender-specific design of pedagogical agents, although gender has an important influence on the educational process. In this article, we perform an extensive review of the literature regarding the impact of the gender of pedagogical agents on academic outcomes. Based on a detailed review of 59 articles, we analyze the influence of pedagogical agents' gender on students' academic self-evaluations and achievements to answer the following questions: (1) Do students perceive virtual agents differently depending on their own gender and the gender of the agent? (2) Does the gender of pedagogical agents influence students' academic performance and self-evaluations? (3) Are there tasks or academic situations to which a male virtual agent is better suited than a female virtual agent, and vice versa, according to empirical evidence? (4) How do a virtual agent's pedagogical roles impact these results? (5) How do a virtual agent's appearance and interactive capacities impact these results? (6) Are androgynous virtual agents a potential solution to combatting gender stereotypes? This review provides important insight to researchers on how to approach gender when designing pedagogical agents in virtual learning environments.Entities:
Keywords: gender; gender stereotypes; learning environment; pedagogical agent; systematic review; virtual agent
Year: 2022 PMID: 35795011 PMCID: PMC9251372 DOI: 10.3389/frai.2022.862997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Artif Intell ISSN: 2624-8212
Summary of articles on perceptive studies of virtual agents depending on their gender, regardless of the application domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee ( | • 1 MA | • 28 MP | Playing a multiple-choice game with an agent. Participants could change their answer after they were told the agent's answer. It was specified that the agent's answer might not be correct. | • Masculinity | • |
| Zanbaka et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 41 MP | Listening to agents deliver a message to change participants' attitudes about university-wide comprehensive exams. | • Persuasiveness | • |
| Guadagno et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 37 MP | Listening to agents talk about changes to university security policy. | • Likeability | • |
| Guadagno et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 85 MP | Listening to agents talk about changes to university security policy. | • Likeability | • |
| Gulz et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 72 MP | Listening to agents present university program engineering. | • Favorite agent | • |
| Dill et al. ( | • 16 MA | • 61 MP | Watching a PowerPoint presentation opposing still pictures of video game characters and male or female US senators. Reading a real-life story about the sexual harassment of a female student by a male professor. | • Tolerance for | • |
| Rosenberg-Kima et al. ( | • 4 MA | • 111 FP | Listening to an agent describe four female engineers and the benefits of engineering, with or without the agent present. | • Interest | • Self-efficacy and Interest |
| Niculescu et al. ( | • 3 MA | • 24 MP | Interacting with agents about medical queries, evaluating an androgynous agent's gender either after or before rating non-androgynous agents. | • Androgynous agent's | • |
| McDonnell et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 22 MP | Watching a video of agents walking. | • Agents' perceived | • |
| McDonnell et al. ( | • 3 MA | • 33 MP | Watching a video of agents walking. | • Agents' perceived | • |
| Fox and Bailenson ( | • 4 FA | • 43 MP | Participants encountered an agent (low gaze (LG) or high gaze (HG), masculine or feminine clothes) | • Rape myth acceptance | • |
| Cloud-Buckner et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 19 MP | Watching an agent introducing a college campus as an online tour guide. | • Friendliness | • |
| Niculescu et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 4 MP | Asking an agent medical questions. | • Comfortable | • |
| Rosenberg-Kima et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 119 FP | Listening to an agent describe four female engineers and the benefits of engineering. | • Interest | • |
| Astrid et al. ( | • 1 FA | • 41 MP | Answering personal questions from an agent. | • Weak | • |
| Nunamaker et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 53 MP | Answering questions from an agent simulating an airport screening. | • Power | • |
| Kulms et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 32 MP | Answering casual questions asked by an agent, either in a low gaze (LG) or a high gaze (HG) condition. | • Masculinity | • |
| Brahnam and De Angeli ( | • 8 MA | • 127 MP | Chatting over text with a chatbot. | • Sexual discourse | • |
| Ozogul et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 35 MP | Rating pictures of agents. | • Gender preference | • |
| Payne et al. ( | • 4 MA | • 220 MP | Choosing an agent to assist in self-service checkouts. | • Preferred agent | • |
| Lunardo et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 107 MP | Interacting with an agent over text at fnac.com. | • Attractiveness | • |
| van der Lubbe and Bosse ( | • 2 MA | • 55 MP | Interacting with an agent employee to negotiate the agent's salary (assertive agent or non-assertive agent). | • Appropriate language | • |
| Feng et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 31 MP | Acting out a scene in presence of an agent giving negative feedback. | • Inspiration | • |
| Mell et al. ( | • 1 FA | • 241 MP | Answering questions from a chatbot about sensitive information, either with a picture of a real woman, a picture of a female virtual agent, or no picture. | • Reported lies | • |
| par Khashe et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 98 MP | Requested to switch off the lights and open the window by a manager, either voice only, text only, or a virtual agent). | • Affectionate | • |
| Kantharaju et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 113 MP | Listening to a persuasive conversation about cinema between agents. | • Distant | • |
| Akbar et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 158 MP | Interviewed by an agent over text for a job in a financial firm. | • Agreeableness | • |
| Mousas et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 56 MP | Answering questions about the agents (e.g., "Would you feel uneasy if this virtual character communicated with you?") by the experimenter while the agent walked toward the participant. | • Easiness | • |
| Ait Challal and Grynszpan ( | • 1 MA | • 12 MP | Watched virtual agents sit in front of them (in gaze following, gaze avoidance, high direct gaze, and low direct gaze conditions). Judging their personalities. | • Neuroticism | • |
| ter Stal et al. ( | • 4 MA | • 67 MP | Observing and rating 8 agents. | • Friendliness | • |
| ter Stal et al. ( | • 4 MA | • 35 MP | Observing and rating 8 agents. | • Friendliness | • |
| Zibrek et al. ( | • 2 neutral | • 10 MP | Pressing a button as soon as they felt uncomfortable with the distance between themselves and an agent walking toward them. | • Genderless agents' | • |
| Richards et al. ( | • 6 MA | • 43 MP | Watching 12 videos of 12 different agents introducing themselves. | • Favorite agent | • |
| Nag and Yalçın ( | • 1 MA | • 41 MP | Looking at pictures of agents and rating them. | • Communion | • |
| Esposito et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 22 MP | Watching a video of an agent talking about daycare facilities for the elderly. | • Willingness to interact | • |
| Esposito et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 20 MP | Watching a video of an agent talking about daycare facilities for the elderly. (2nd experiment). | • Willingness to interact | • |
| Vilaro et al. ( | • 3 FA | • 53 FP | Watching an agent deliver colorectal cancer screening messages. | • Trustworthiness | • |
| Antonio Gómez-Jáuregui et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 16 MP | Introducing themselves to a blurred-face virtual agent for a job interview. | • Dominance | • |
| Świdrak et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 15 MP | Playing a negotiation/ decision-making game with a female and a male agent. | • Touch pleasantness | • |
| Świdrak et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 40 MP | Playing a negotiation/ decision-making game with two female and two male agents. | • Masculinity | • |
Articles are listed from oldest to most recent. FA, female agent; MA, male agent; FP, female participants; MP, male participants. The agents' column describes the number of agents depending on their gender, their dimension (2-D or 3-D), their appearance (realist or cartoon), and their role. The participants' column describes the number of men and women who participated in the study and the average age. In the result(s) column, “MP > FP” means it impacted more the male participants than the female participants. “FA > MA” means the female agent has more impact than the male agent. Explanations are in Section 3.4.
Summary of research studies on the impact of gendered virtual agents in the context of a learning task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moreno et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 12 MP | Watching a video of a virtual agent giving a course, taking a multiple-choice test. | • Performance | • |
| Baylor and Kim ( | • 4 MA | • 94 MP | Creating an instructional schedule with a virtual agent's help. | • Self-efficacy | • |
| Baylor and Kim ( | • 6 MA | • 89 MP | Creating an instructional planning with a virtual agent's help. | • Knowledgeability | • |
| Moreno and Flowerday ( | • 5 MA | • 21 MP | Watching a video of a course taught by a virtual agent, taking a test. | • Helpfulness | • |
| Kim et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 11 MP | Creating a course on economic concepts with a virtual agent's help. | • Facilitating learning | • |
| Plant et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 45 MP | Listening to a story about four female engineers and the benefits of engineering, either delivered by an agent or voice-only. Taking a math test. | • Interest | • |
| Hayes et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 35 MP | Controlling an avatar (1st or 3rd person view) while taking a math test, in the presence of a male or female agent, or without an agent. | • Social presence | • |
| Kim and Wei ( | • 2 MA | • 110 MP | Taking a math test without an agent, watching an agent explaining the lessons, resolving math problems with the agent (training), taking a 2nd math test without an agent. | • Selected agent | • |
| Silvervarg et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 46 MP | Interacting with an androgynous virtual tutee on a math lesson, then with either a female or a male virtual tutee. | • Perceived androgyny | • |
| Kim and Lim ( | • 2 FA | • 64 MP | Taking a math test without an agent, learning lessons with or without an agent, resolving math problems with or without an agent (training), taking a 2nd math test without an agent. | • Performance | • |
| Kim ( | • 1 MA | • 68 MP | Answering questions about a text asked by a virtual agent. | • Text comprehension | • |
| Krämer et al. ( | • 2 MA | • 60 MP | Taking a math test without an agent, then taking a math test with an agent present explaining the procedure. | • Motivation | • |
| Li et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 20 MP | Watching an agent present slides on courses about Human-Computer Interaction. | • Learning | • |
| Jeong et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 54 MP | Listening to negative feedback from an instructor agent while acting out a scene. Reproducing the scene with the instructor agent and a student agent (no feedback). | • Moving forward | • |
| Pezzullo et al. ( | • 1 FA | • 54 MP | Playing a game about biology courses with a virtual agent's help. | • Mental demand | • |
| Wirzberger et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 27 MP | Memorizing a word list after taking a memory training course led by an agent. | • Learning (recall) | • |
| Makransky et al. ( | • 1 FA | • 33 MP | Watching a virtual agent teaching laboratory safety, taking tests. | • Social presence | • |
| Chang et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 76 FP | Controlling either a male or a female avatar, learning how to solve arithmetic problems from a male agent (either a dominant or a non-dominant agent, based on his body posture), solving problems without the agent present. | • Learning (recall | • |
| Sajjadi et al. ( | • 1 MA | • 8 MP | Observing geologic formations in a virtual environment, answering questions asked by an agent. | • Perceived learning | • |
| Spilioto-poulos et al. ( | • 1 FA | • 24 MP | Learning how to use argumentation, how to be empathetic to the needs of others, how to reach agreements through negotiation with a virtual agent. | • Self-efficacy | • |
Articles are listed from oldest to most recent. FA, female agent; MA, male agent; FP, female participants; MP, male participants. The agents' column describes the number of agents depending on their gender, their dimension (2-D or 3-D), their appearance (realist or cartoon), and their role. The participants' column describes the number of men and women who participated in the study and the average age. In the result(s) column, “MP > FP” means it impacted more the male participants than the female participants. “FA > MA” means the female agent has more impact than the male agent. Explanations are in Section 3.5.
Figure 1PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews.