The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes

By Ning Wang, W. L. Johnson, Richard E. Mayer, P. Rizzo, Erin Shaw, Heather Collins. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 2008

301 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e9a35442fae761a84c417b5d02e6d6b83a17822b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis (2014, methodology): “Also, the reference sections of review articles on Intelligent Tutoring Systems were manually searched to add studies to the selection pool (Arnott, Hastings, & Allbritton, 2008; Conati, 2009; Steenbergen-Hu & Cooper, 2013, 2014; VanLehn, 2011; N. Wang et al., 2008).”
Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning (2011, background): “Authors (year) Participants (N, kind, age, gender), topic Independent variables Results [39] Wang et al. (2008) N = 37 social intelligence of the PA (polite feedback that promotes learner face and mitigates face threat vs. direct feedback that disregards learner face) Motivation (self-efficacy): M…”
Gaze tutor: A gaze-reactive intelligent tutoring system (2012, background): “In lieu of the rather direct gazereactive dialog, the tutor could have used less direct and more polite statements (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Wang et al., 2008).”
AutoTutor and Family: A Review of 17 Years of Natural Language Tutoring (2014, result): “Similar results have been found for factors such as politeness of animated agents (Wang et al. 2008).”
AutoTutor and affective autotutor: Learning by talking with cognitively and emotionally intelligent computers that talk back (2012, background): “…were considered included attribution theory [Batson et al. 1995; Heider 1958; Weiner 1986], empathy [Dweck 2002; Lepper and Chabay 1988], cognitive disequilibrium during learning [Festinger 1957; Graesser and Olde 2003; Piaget 1952], and politeness [Brown and Levinson 1987; Wang et al. 2008].”
Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. (2008, background): “received words in conversational style performed better on transfer tests than did learners who received words in formal style (Mayer, Fennell, Farmer, & Campbell, 2004, Experiments 1, 2, and 3; Moreno & Mayer, 2000b, Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; Moreno & Mayer, 2004, Experiments 1a and 1b; Wang e”
An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning (2017, background): “Over the last two decades, researchers from various disciplines have examined the impact of embodied agents on learners’ affect and learning gains (Atkinson, 2002; Baylor & Kim, 2005; Dunsworth & Atkinson, 2007; Kim & Wei, 2011; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001; Wang et al., 2008).”
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2011, background): “The situated nature of the catchable passing task enhances learners’ understandings not only of how to perform a throw and a catch, but also when and where to pass, increasing students’ opportunities for success in complex game situations (Rink, 2014).”
The instructor’s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. (2015, methodology): “Numerous studies provide evidence for this positive effect on learning, for example, as a result of changing text or narration from formal to conversational style (Kartal, 2010; Moreno & Mayer, 2000), using a human voice rather than a computer-generated voice (Atkinson, Mayer, & Merrill, 2005; Mayer”