教學代理（Pedagogical Agent）是多媒體學習中的一個重要主題，其定義為「一種呈現在介面上的虛擬角色，旨在促進學生學習。」重點元素在於虛擬角色、介面以及促進學習三者。教學代理在國外的期刊被廣泛地討論；然而，由於教學代理本身的多樣與複雜，尚待整理出一個完整的分析架構。本研究因此回顧了相關的文獻，提出一個相關線索架構表，其包括：環境線索、學習者線索、角色線索、外觀線索與社會線索。由於文化差異，我們以此表檢視台灣教學代理的實際研究情況，分析其學習成效（以理解測驗為指標）。以教學代理作為主要關鍵字，本研究利用「Airiti Library華藝線上圖書館」及「Web of Science」等資料庫搜尋2009-2018年的相關論文，並以「Google學術搜尋」進行補足。總共得到76篇相關論文，經條件篩選後得到9篇論文共15個實驗，以隨機效果模型進行後設分析（效果量選擇Hedges’s g）。結果指出：第一，敘述統計顯示教學代理研究減少的趨勢；第二，根據Cohen（1980）的效果量分類，平均效果量的結果顯示，教學代理的學習成效接近中效果量（g = 0.453），達顯著差異（p < 0.001）。第三，次群組分析（Hedges’s g）的結果顯示教學代理對學習成效的影響：學科、年級、角色、外觀型態及表情變化皆有顯著的調節作用。此外，在相同環境比較教學代理的有無與不同環境比較教學代理的有無為兩個概念。研究討論了台灣教學代理研究的概況以及相關線索的調節作用，並指出教學代理的優勢輔以相關理論。文末，反思了本文的限制並提出未來的研究方向。

The Pedagogical Agent (PA) is an important topic in the e-learning environment. It’s defined as a virtual character presented on the interface to promote student learning. The key elements are the virtual character, the interface, and promoting learning. PA is widely discussed in academic papers; however, a complete analysis framework is not yet to be proposed owing to the diversity and complexity of the PA. This study, therefore, reviews the literature and proposes a list of related cues that include: environmental cues, learner cues, role cues, appearance cues, and social cues. Owing to culture difference, we use this list to review the actual research situation of PA in Taiwan and analyze their learning effectiveness (using achievement test as an indicator). Using "Pedagogical Agent" as the main keywords, this research uses the "Airiti Library", "Web of Science", and other databases to search for related papers from 2009 to 2018, and supplement them with "Google Scholar Search." A total of 76 related Taiwanese papers were obtained. After the preliminary screening, 9 papers and 15 treatment designs were selected. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effect model (Hedges's g as the effect size). The results indicate that: First, narrative statistics show a decreasing trend in the studies of PA; second, the results of the average effect (Hedges's g) show that the effectiveness of the PA for learning is a small to medium effect (g = 0.453); third, the results of subgroup analysis (Hedges's g) show that regarding the impact of PA on learning effectiveness: subject, grade, role, appearance style and facial expression changes all have significant moderating effects. In addition, comparing the existence of PA in the same environment and the existence of PA in different environments are two concepts. The study discussed the general situation of PA research in Taiwan and the moderating effect of related cues and pointed out that the advantages of PA are supplemented by related theories. At the end of the article, I reflect on the limitations of this article and suggest future research directions.

謝辭‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧I
摘要‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧II
ABSTRACT‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧III
目錄‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧IV
圖目錄‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧VI
表目錄‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧VII
第壹章‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧引言 1
第貳章 教學代理‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧3
第一節 教學代理‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧3
第二節 教學代理的相關線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧5
（一）教學代理的環境線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧7
（二）教學代理的學習者線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧7
（三）教學代理的角色線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧8
（四）教學代理的外觀線索線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧10
（五）教學代理的社會線索‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧14
第三節 教學代理研究分析架構‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧16
（一）百合圖‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧16
（二）相關線索架構百合圖‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧16
第參章 2009-2018台灣教學代理論文分析‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧22
第一節 搜尋與篩選方法‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧22
第二節 隨機效果模型的選用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧24
第三節 次群組分析‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧24
第四節 結果‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧28
（一）平均效果量‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧28
（二）學科的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧30
（三）年級的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧31
（四）教學代理角色的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧31
（五）教學代理外觀型態的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧32
（六）教學代理表情變化的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧33
（七）學習環境的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧33
第肆章 討論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧37
第一節 台灣的教學代理研究概況‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧37
第二節 學科對教學代理的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧38
第三節 年級對教學代理的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧40
第四節 角色對教學代理的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧40
第五節 外觀型態對教學代理的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧47
第六節 表情變化對教學代理的調節作用‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧47
第七節 考慮學習環境的一致性‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧48
第伍章 教學代理的優勢以及相關理論‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧49
第陸章 結論、限制與未來研究方向‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧51
第一節 教學代理的智慧問題‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧52
第二節 教學代理的介面問題‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧52
第三節 教學代理的細節問題‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧53
第四節 教學代理的生態效度問題‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧53
第五節 教學代理的生理測量問題‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧54
第六節 認知承載效應（COGNITION AFFORDANCE EFFECT）‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧54
參考文獻‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧55
中文部分‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧55
英文部分‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧56
附錄‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧65
附錄一 教學代理相關線索架構表（以本研究納入後設分析之文獻為例）‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧65

一、中文部分

1. 王俊仁（2009）。一個可支援動畫教學代理人導向之數位教材的學習系統對國小學童數位學習之影響。亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ur58m3
2. 王姵婷（2013）。認同感與教學代理人融入模擬式遊戲對平行四邊形面積概念之影響。佛光大學學習與數位科技學系碩士論文，宜蘭縣。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/849r6r
3. 王福兴、李文静、谢和平、刘华山（2017）。多媒体学习中教学代理有利于学习吗？——一项元分析研究。心理科学进展，25(1)，12-28。
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.00012
4. 吳佩芸（2013）。幻境與教學代理人融入模擬式遊戲之設計對國小五年級學生數學學習成效、認知負荷與動機之影響。佛光大學學習與數位科技學系碩士論文，宜蘭縣。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/t22258
5. 何金璇（2011）。電腦輔助教學中課程教材的呈現方式對學習成效影響之研究-以中區某大學為例。國立中央大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/72y5ps
6. 周明勳（2013）。探討教學代理人在教學形式對學習成就與動機的影響：以國中自然與生活科技為例。國立彰化師範大學工業教育與技術學系碩士論文，彰化縣。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7h57na
7. 林昆達（2009）。探討應用故事敘述及情節流程於數位學習教材製作來增進國小學童學習成效之研究。亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/23236w
8. 胡哲豪（2011）。設計一問題本位學習小組討論之智慧型代理人─以資料庫管理課程為例。中原大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文，桃園縣。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/h8u7xe
9. 金凱儀（2011）。支援電腦輔助學習之IDML為基礎動畫及實體教學代理人。逢甲大學資訊工程所博士論文，台中市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/374mnd
10. 林慧君（2009）。即時通訊代理人「MSN助教」軟體之開發與教師端評估。國立臺北科技大學技術及職業教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3dpvyq
11. 陳盈諭（2011）。探討魚類教學代理人設計之研究 ─以擴增實境立體書為例。國立臺北教育大學數位科技設計學系(含玩具與遊戲設計碩士班)碩士論文， 台北市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/jhdb7n
12. 曾郁茹（2010）。以智慧型代理人為基礎之美工設計配色概念學習系統初探。臺北市立教育大學資訊科學系碩士班碩士論文，臺北市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ad32eh
13. 劉英男（2011）。標籤示動作合成法應用於虛擬舞蹈教練開發研究。南台科技大學多媒體與電腦娛樂科學系碩士論文，台南市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7up536
14. 藍千賀（2011）。應用動畫代理人輔助國小英語教學對學生學習動機與學習成效影響之研究。亞洲大學資訊工程學系碩士在職專班碩士論文，台中市。
取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/dcfp2e

二、英文部分

1. 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
2. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis. Research synthesis methods, 1(2), 97-111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
3. Bringula, R. P., Fosgate Jr, I. C. O., Garcia, N. P. R., & Yorobe, J. L. M. (2018). Effects of Pedagogical Agents on Students’ Mathematics Performance: A Comparison Between Two Versions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(5), 701-722.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117722494
4. Chang, C. W., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2010). Improving the authentic learning experience by integrating robots into the mixed-reality environment. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1572-1578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.023
5. Chang, Y. H., Lin, Y. K., Fang, R. J., & Lu, Y. T. (2017). A situated cultural festival learning system based on motion sensing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(3), 571-588.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00633a
6. Chen, C. H., & Chou, M. H. (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
7. Chen, G. D., Lee, J. H., Wang, C. Y., Chao, P. Y., Li, L. Y., & Lee, T. Y. (2012). An empathic avatar in a computer-aided learning program to encourage and persuade learners. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 62-72.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1631111.1631117
8. Cheng, Y. M., Chen, L. S., Huang, H. C., Weng, S. F., Chen, Y. G., & Lin, C. H. (2009). Building a general purpose pedagogical agent in a web-based multimedia clinical simulation system for medical education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(3), 216-225.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.18
9. Cheng, Y. M., & Chen, P. F. (2012). Autonomous pedagogical agents to e-learning in elementary school. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing, 3(4), 370-380.
10. 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
11. Chen, Z. H., Chou, C. Y., Tseng, S. F., & Su, Y. C. (2018). Feedback of interface agents on student perception: Level, dialogue, and emotion. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 82-90.
12. Chen, Z. H., Liao, C., Chien, T. C., & Chan, T. W. (2011). Animal companions: Fostering children's effort‐making by nurturing virtual pets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 166-180.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01003.x
13. Chen, Z. H., & Wang, S. C. (2018). Representations of animal companions on student learning perception: Static, animated and tangible. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 124-133.
14. Chin, K. Y., Chen, Y. L., Chen, J. S., Hong, Z. W., & Lin, J. M. (2011). Exploring the teaching efficiency of integrating an animated agent into web-based multimedia learning system. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 94(4), 754-762.
https://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.E94.D.754
15. Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115585927
16. 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
17. Davis, R. O., Vincent, J., & Park, T. J. (2019). Reconsidering the Voice Prinicple with Non-native Language Speakers. Computers & Education, 140, 103605.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103605
18. Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (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
19. Dow, C. R., & Huang, L. H. (2014). Context‐aware and LBS learning systems using ubiquitous teaching assistant (u‐TA): A case study for service‐learning courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22(4), 604-616.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21552
20. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322-339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.08.006
21. 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
22. Haake, M., & Gulz, A. (2008). Visual stereotypes and virtual pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 1-15.
23. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (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
24. 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
25. Huang, C. C., Yeh, T. K., Li, T. Y., & Chang, C. Y. (2010). The idea storming cube: Evaluating the effects of using game and computer agent to support divergent thinking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 180-191.
https://doi.org/10.1109/DIGITEL.2007.29
26. Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12078
27. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.
28. Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G., Olpak, Y. Z., & Yılmaz, R. (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
29. Keeley, J. W., English, T., Irons, J., & Henslee, A. M. (2013). Investigating halo and ceiling effects in student evaluations of instruction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(3), 440-457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412475300
30. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-Based based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160-169.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y
31. Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., & Gratch, J. (2016). Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education, 99, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.002
32. Lane, H. C. (2016). Pedagogical agents and affect: Molding positive learning interactions. In Emotions, Technology, Design, and Learning (pp. 47-62). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801856-9.00003-7
33. Lei, P. L., Lin, S. S., Wang, D. Y., & Sun, C. T. (2013). The design of social agents that introduce self-reflection in a simulation environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 152-166.
34. Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., & Jayothisa, C. (2013). The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners' agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 275-286.
35. Liew, T. W., Zin, N. A. M., Sahari, N., & Tan, S. M. (2016). The effects of a pedagogical agent’s smiling expression on the learner’s emotions and motivation in a virtual learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2350
36. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997, March). The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. In CHI (Vol. 97, pp. 359-366). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.8779&rep=rep1&type=pdf
37. Lin, H. C. K., Wang, C. H., Chao, C. J., & Chien, M. K. (2012). Employing Textual and Facial Emotion Recognition to Design an Affective Tutoring System. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4), 418-426.
38.Lin, H. C. K., Chen, N. S., Sun, R. T., & Tsai, I. H. (2014a). Usability of affective interfaces for a digital arts tutoring system. Behaviour & information technology, 33(2), 105-116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.702356
39. Lin, H. C. K., Wu, C. H., & Hsueh, Y. P. (2014b). The influence of using affective tutoring system in accounting remedial instruction on learning performance and usability. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 514-522.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.052
40. Lin, H. C. K., Su, S. H., Chao, C. J., Hsieh, C. Y., & Tsai, S. C. (2016). Construction of multi-mode affective learning system: taking affective design as an example. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 132-147.
41. Lin, H. C. K., Su, S. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Tsai, S. C. (2014c). Impacts of Affective Tutoring System on the Academic Achievement of Primary School Students with Different Cognitive Styles--An Example of Marine Education. The New Educational Review, 38(4), 248-260.
42. Lin, L., Ginns, P., Wang, T., & Zhang, P. (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
43. Liu, M. T., & Yu, P. T. (2011). Aberrant learning achievement detection based on person-fit statistics in personalized e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 107-120.
44. Makransky, G., Wismer, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 349-358.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335
45. Martha, A. S. D., & Santoso, H. B. (2019). The Design and Impact of the Pedagogical Agent: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1), n1.
https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.8
46. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An Embodiment Effect in Computer-Based Learning With Animated Pedagogical Agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
47. 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.345-370). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
https://www.cambridge.org/tw/academic/subjects/psychology/cognition/cambridge-handbook-multimedia-learning-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781107035201
48. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43-71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
https://www.cambridge.org/tw/academic/subjects/psychology/cognition/cambridge-handbook-multimedia-learning-2nd-edition?format=HB&isbn=9781107035201
49. Nielen, T. M., Smith, G. G., Sikkema-de Jong, M. T., Drobisz, J., van Horne, B., & 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
50. Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.006
51. Park, S. (2015). The effects of social cue principles on cognitive load, situational interest, motivation, and achievement in pedagogical agent multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 211-229.
52. Richards, D., & Dignum, V. (2019). Supporting and challenging learners through pedagogical agents: Addressing ethical issues through designing for values. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2885-2901.
53. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological bulletin, 86(3), 638.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638
54. 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
55. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2015). Impacts of pedagogical agent gender in an accessible learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 401-411.
56. Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2017). The effect of pacing on learners’ perceptions of pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7), 937-950.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116689790
57. 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
58. Shiban, Y., Schelhorn, I., Jobst, V., Hörnlein, A., Puppe, H., Pauli, P., Mühlberger, A. (2015). The appearance effect: Influences of virtual agent features on performance and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.077
59. Shih, Y. C. (2015). A virtual walk through London: culture learning through a cultural immersion experience. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(5), 407-428.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.851703
60. Veletsianos, G. (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
61. Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. S. (2014). Pedagogical agents. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 759-769). Springer, New York, NY.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_61
62. Wang, C. C., & Yeh, W. J. (2013). Avatars with sex appeal as pedagogical agents: Attractiveness, trustworthiness, expertise, and gender differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 403-429.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.4.a
63. Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated Pedagogical Agents as Aids in Multimedia Learning: Effects on Eye-Fixations During Learning and Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250–268.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000221
64. Yılmaz, R., & Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (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
65. Yung, H. I., & Paas, F. (2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153.