Estudando o Impacto das Atitudes de Agentes Pedagógicos em Ambientes de Aprendizagem: um Mapeamento Sistemático
Resumo
As atitudes afetivas dos professores podem ter um impacto positivo ou negativo na aprendizagem dos alunos. Assim sendo, é uma boa prática considerá-las na concepção de agentes pedagógicos animados. Entretanto, ainda não existem estudos que apresentam uma visão geral sobre a influência das atitudes (por exemplo, rude, empática, etc) dos agentes nos alunos. Dessa maneira, um mapeamento sistemático foi conduzido com o objetivo de fornecer uma visão geral de quais são as principais atitudes dos agentes pedagógicos afetivos e os seus efeitos nos estudantes. Foram coletados 62 artigos das principais bases de dados internacionais, dos quais 15 foram selecionados para a análise completa. Como resultado, foram apresentados os artigos científicos do atual estado da arte dos Agentes Pedagógicos Animados que estabelecem relações de empatia, polidez, rudeza e rapport com os seus alunos. A maioria dos estudos concentra-se em maximizar a aprendizagem e o engajamento a partir de agentes empáticos que criam relações afetivas com os alunos.
Palavras-chave:
Atitudes, Agentes Pedagógicos, Aprendizagem, Relações Afetivas, Mapeamento Sistemático
Referências
Albuquerque, C. (2010). Processo ensino-aprendizagem: características do professor eficaz. Millenium, pages 55–71.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., and Rosenthal, R. (1987). Nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool, remedial, and elementary school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3):405–415.
Cooper, B., Brna, P., and Martins, A. (1999). Effective affective in intelligent systems – building on evidence of empathy in teaching and learning. In International Workshop on Affective Interactions, pages 21–34. Springer.
Dinçer, S. and Do?anay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111:74–100.
Eisenberg, N. and Strayer, J. (1990). Empathy and its development. CUP Archive.
Ferguson, I. A. (1992). Touring machines: Autonomous agents with attitudes. Computer, 25(5):51–55.
Garay, N., Cearreta, I., López, J. M., and Fajardo, I. (2006). Assistive technology and affective mediation. Human Technology: an Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments.
Gratch, J., Okhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Marsella, S., Morales, M., van der Werf, R. J., and Morency, L.-P. (2006). Virtual rapport. In International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pages 14–27. Springer.
Hoy, M. B. (2018). Alexa, siri, cortana, and more: An introduction to voice assistants. Medical reference services quarterly, 37(1):81–88.
Jaques, P. A., Lehmann, M., and Jaques, K. S. F. (2008). Avaliando a efetividade de um agente pedagógico animado emocional. In Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação - SBIE), volume 1, pages 145–154.
Jaques, P. A. and Vicari, R. M. (2005). Estado da arte em ambientes inteligentes de aprendizagem que consideram a afetividade do aluno. Revista informática na educação: teoria & prática, 8(1):15–38.
Karacora, B., Dehghani, M., Kramer-Mertens, N., and Gratch, J. (2012). The influence of virtual agents’ gender and rapport on enhancing math performance. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 34.
Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., and 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.
Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., and Fitzgerald, P. J. (1998). Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10:278–291.
Maes, P. (1995). Agents that reduce work and information overload. In Readings in human–computer interaction, pages 811–821. Elsevier.
Mohanty, A. (2016). Affective pedagogical agent in e-learning environment: A reflective analysis. Creative Education, 7(04):586.
Morreale, S. P. and Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57(2):224–240.
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., and Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Ease, volume 8, pages 68–77.
Picard, R. W. (2000). Affective computing. MIT press.
Pretorius, R. and Budgen, D. (2008). A mapping study on empirical evidence related to the models and forms used in the UML. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, pages 342–344. ACM.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Social science information, 44(4):695–729.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.
Terzidou, T., Tsiatsos, T., and Apostolidis, H. (2018). Architecture and interaction protocol for pedagogical-empathic agents in 3D virtual learning environments. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(20):27661–27684.
Wang, C.-Y., Ke, S.-Y., Chuang, H.-C., Tseng, H.-Y., and Chen, G.-D. (2010). E-learning system design with humor and empathy interaction by virtual human to improve students’ learning. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (ICCE), pages 615–622.
Wang, N. and Gratch, J. (2009). Can virtual human build rapport and promote learning? In AIED, pages 737–739.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., and Rosenthal, R. (1987). Nonverbal and verbal behavior of preschool, remedial, and elementary school teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 24(3):405–415.
Cooper, B., Brna, P., and Martins, A. (1999). Effective affective in intelligent systems – building on evidence of empathy in teaching and learning. In International Workshop on Affective Interactions, pages 21–34. Springer.
Dinçer, S. and Do?anay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners’ academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111:74–100.
Eisenberg, N. and Strayer, J. (1990). Empathy and its development. CUP Archive.
Ferguson, I. A. (1992). Touring machines: Autonomous agents with attitudes. Computer, 25(5):51–55.
Garay, N., Cearreta, I., López, J. M., and Fajardo, I. (2006). Assistive technology and affective mediation. Human Technology: an Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments.
Gratch, J., Okhmatovskaia, A., Lamothe, F., Marsella, S., Morales, M., van der Werf, R. J., and Morency, L.-P. (2006). Virtual rapport. In International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pages 14–27. Springer.
Hoy, M. B. (2018). Alexa, siri, cortana, and more: An introduction to voice assistants. Medical reference services quarterly, 37(1):81–88.
Jaques, P. A., Lehmann, M., and Jaques, K. S. F. (2008). Avaliando a efetividade de um agente pedagógico animado emocional. In Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação - SBIE), volume 1, pages 145–154.
Jaques, P. A. and Vicari, R. M. (2005). Estado da arte em ambientes inteligentes de aprendizagem que consideram a afetividade do aluno. Revista informática na educação: teoria & prática, 8(1):15–38.
Karacora, B., Dehghani, M., Kramer-Mertens, N., and Gratch, J. (2012). The influence of virtual agents’ gender and rapport on enhancing math performance. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 34.
Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., and 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.
Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., and Fitzgerald, P. J. (1998). Achieving affective impact: Visual emotive communication in lifelike pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (IJAIED), 10:278–291.
Maes, P. (1995). Agents that reduce work and information overload. In Readings in human–computer interaction, pages 811–821. Elsevier.
Mohanty, A. (2016). Affective pedagogical agent in e-learning environment: A reflective analysis. Creative Education, 7(04):586.
Morreale, S. P. and Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57(2):224–240.
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., and Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Ease, volume 8, pages 68–77.
Picard, R. W. (2000). Affective computing. MIT press.
Pretorius, R. and Budgen, D. (2008). A mapping study on empirical evidence related to the models and forms used in the UML. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, pages 342–344. ACM.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? and how can they be measured? Social science information, 44(4):695–729.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (im)politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships.
Terzidou, T., Tsiatsos, T., and Apostolidis, H. (2018). Architecture and interaction protocol for pedagogical-empathic agents in 3D virtual learning environments. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 77(20):27661–27684.
Wang, C.-Y., Ke, S.-Y., Chuang, H.-C., Tseng, H.-Y., and Chen, G.-D. (2010). E-learning system design with humor and empathy interaction by virtual human to improve students’ learning. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (ICCE), pages 615–622.
Wang, N. and Gratch, J. (2009). Can virtual human build rapport and promote learning? In AIED, pages 737–739.
Publicado
11/11/2019
Como Citar
AZEVEDO, Otávio B.; JAQUES, Patrícia A..
Estudando o Impacto das Atitudes de Agentes Pedagógicos em Ambientes de Aprendizagem: um Mapeamento Sistemático. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE INFORMÁTICA NA EDUCAÇÃO (SBIE), 30. , 2019, Brasília/DF.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2019
.
p. 1191-1200.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2019.1191.
