Proactive PALs yielded higher recall than responsive PALs, with the advantage differing by learner academic strength¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students working with a proactive PAL achieved higher recall than students working with a PAL that responded only to requests. → Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor 2006 q2 i? The proactive PAL tended to help academically strong students more, while the responsive PAL tended to help academically weak students more. → Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor 2006 (2)

Evidence¶

Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor 2006¶

Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor. (2006). A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. ETR&D, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The review reports, citing Kim and Baylor (2006), an experiment with 72 male and female college students learning instructional planning comparing proactive versus responsive PAL interaction types. Recall favored the proactive condition; no effect size is printed.

"The results indicated that students who worked with a PAL that proactively provided information achieved higher recall than students who worked with a PAL that responded only to a learner 's requests."

Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor 2006 (2)¶

Yanghee Kim and Amy L. Baylor. (2006). A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. ETR&D, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 569–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

The same reported study's secondary analysis of learner academic strength is described with hedged language: the proactive PAL "tended to have a more positive impact on academically strong stu- dents" while the responsive PAL tended to help weak students. No statistics are printed.

"The study also showed that the proac- tive PAL tended to have a more positive impact on academically strong stu- dents whereas the responsive PAL tended to have a more positive impact on academically weak students."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A proactive PAL improves learners' recall of the agent's ideas more than a responsive PAL (d = 0.78) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• A responsive PAL does not improve learner attitudes toward the agent, and competency and interaction type show no significant interaction — related
• In the responsive condition, learners requested less than half of the information the PAL was designed to deliver — related