Abstract
In this experimental study, 135 preservice teachers developed an instructional plan for a case study within the Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively (MIMIC) computer-based environment. Three-dimensional, animated pedagogical agents, representing constructivist and instructivist approaches to instructional planning, served as instructional mentors within the environment and were available to provide advisements. The research design consisted of two factors, (a) instructivist agent (present, absent) and (b) constructivist agent (present, absent), with two primary groups of dependent measures, (a) metacognitive awareness, and (b) attitude. Regarding metacognitive awareness, when the constructivist agent was present, participants tended to report a change in their perspective of instructional planning, reflected less on their thinking, and developed instructional plans rated as more constructivist in underlying pedagogy. Regarding attitude, when the instructivist agent was present, participants reported a more negative disposition regarding instructional planning. Results are discussed in terms of the impact on teaching instructional planning to preservice teachers.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R.K. (in press). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents.Journal of Educational Psychology.
Bandura, A. (1986).Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 586–598.
Baylor, A.L. (1999).Multiple intelligent mentors instructing collaboratively (MIMIC): Developing a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Technology Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Baylor, A.L. (2000). Beyond butlers: Intelligent agents as mentors.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 373–382.
Baylor, A.L. (2001a).Investigating multiple pedagogical perspectives through MIMIC (Multiple intelligent mentors instructing collaboratively). Paper presented at the Artificial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED) International Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Baylor, A.L. (2001b). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.
Baylor, A.L. (2002). Agent-based learning environments for investigating teaching and learning.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249–270.
Baylor, A.L., & Kitsantas, A. (2001a).A comparison of instructivist and constructivist self-regulatory tools for instructional planning. Paper presented at the International Conference of Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Baylor, A.L., & Kitsantas, A. (2001b).Employing instructivist and constructivist self-reflective tools (IPSRT and CPSRT) for novice instructional planners: A comparative analysis and validation of efficacy for pratice. Manuscript in review.
Baylor, A.L., Kitsantas, A., & Chung, H. (2001) The instructional planning self-reflective tool (IPSRT): A method for promoting effective lesson planning.Educational Technology, 41(2), 56–59.
Baylor, A.L., Kitsantas, A., & Hu, H. (2001).Introducing the IPSRT (instructional planning self-reflective tool) and CPSRT (constructivist planning self-reflective tool): Tools to promote instructivist and constructivist instructional planning for pre-service teachers. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communication and Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Bennett, C., & Spalding, E. (1992) Teaching the social studies: Multiple approaches for multiple perspectives.Theory and Research in Social Education, 20(3), 263–292.
Chi, M.T.H., & VanLehn, K. (1991). The content of physics self-explanations.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 69–105.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Dehn, D.M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1–22.
Dick, D., & Carey, L.M. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Dillenbourg, P., Mendelsohn, P., & Schneider, D. (1994). The distribution of pedagogical roles in a multiagent learning environment. In R. Lewis & P. Mendelsohn (Eds.),Lessons from learning (pp. 199–216): Elsevier.
Driscoll, M.P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction. Allyn & Bacon.
Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Erickson, T. (1997). Designing agents as if people mattered. In J.M. Bradshaw (Ed.),Software agents (pp. 79–96). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
Ertmer, P., & Russell, J. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education.Educational Technology, 23–31.
Grabe, M., & Grabe, C. (2001).Integrating technology for meaningful learning (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hietala, P., & Niemirepo, T. (1998).Multiple artificial teachers: How do learners cope with a multi-agent learning environment? Paper presented at the Workshop Proceedings on Current Trends and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Education at The Fourth World Congress on Expert Systems, Mexico City, Mexico.
Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.W., & Lester, J.C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2000, (11), 47–78.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Jonassen, D., Peck, K.L., & Wilson, B.G. (1999).Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.
Kagan, D. (1990). How schools alienate students at risk: A model for examining proximal classroom variables.Educational Psychologist, 25(2), 105–125.
Kitsantas, A., & Baylor, A.L. (2001). The impact of the IPSRT (instructional planning self-reflective tool) on preservice teachers' performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning.Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(4), 101–110.
Laurel, B. (1990). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In B. Laurel (Ed.),The art of human-computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Laurel, B. (1997). Interface agents: Metaphors with character. In J.M. Bradshaw (Ed.),Software agents (pp. 67–78). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
Laurel, B., Oren, T., & Don, A. (1990).Issues in multimedia interface design: Media integration and interface agents. Paper presented at the CHI'90 Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Lester, J., Stone, B., & Stelling, G.D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments.User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9, 1–44.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997).Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H.A., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 117–213.
Oren, T., Salomon, G., Kreitman, K., & Don, A. (1990). Guides: Characterizing the interface. In B. Laurel (Ed.),The art of human-computer interface design (pp. 367–381). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Perez, R.S., & Emery, C.D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.
Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2001a).Carrying the role-playing metaphor to interactive learning environments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent user Interfaces (IUI-2001).
Prendinger, H., & Ishizuka, M. (2001b).Social role awareness in animated agents. Paper presented at the Agents 2001, Montreal, Canada.
Reiser, R.A., & Dick, W. (1996).Instructional planning: A guide for teachers. Allyn and Bacon.
Roblyer, M.D. (1996). The constructivist/objectivist debate: Implications for instructional technology research.Learning and Leading with Technology, 24(2), 12–16.
Roblyer, M.D., Edwards, J., & Havriluk, M.A. (1997).Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roesler, M.H.D. (1994). Intelligent agents: Software servants for an electronic information world.Online, 18(4), 19–32.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.
Salomon, G., Oren, T., & Kreitman, L. (1989).Using guides to explore multimedia databases. Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Washington, D.C.
Seiker, T. (1994). Coach: A teaching agent that learns.Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 92–99.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R.M., & Chi, M.T.H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–59.
White, B.Y., Shimoda, T.A., & Frederiksen, J.R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 151–182.
White, B.Y., Shimoda, T.A., & Frederiksen, J.R. (2000). Facilitating students' inquiry learning and metacognitive development through modifiable software advisers. In S.P. Lajoie (Ed.),Computers as cognitive tools vol 2: No more walls (pp. 97–132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Wittrock, M.C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension.Educational Psychologist, 27, 531–542.
Yarusso, L. (1992). Constructivism vs. objectivism.Performance and Instruction, 31(4), 7–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baylor, A.L. Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. ETR&D 50, 5–22 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504991
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504991