ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This study investigates the impact of various realism designs of 2D virtual agents on students' grades in a quiz app, focusing on the mediating roles of arousal and valence. A total of 134 electrical engineering students from four Malaysian polytechnics participated in this experiment. Four different types of virtual agents—cartoon-like, stylized, semi-realistic, and realistic—were embedded into the quiz app, each designed to guide students through answering 20 multiple-choice questions. Valence and arousal levels were measured using the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) questionnaire, and the quiz grades were recorded. The findings revealed that virtual agents with higher levels of realism (semi-realistic and realistic) were negatively associated with student grades, while the cartoon-like agent led to better quiz performance. Mediation analysis showed that both arousal and valence significantly influenced the relationship between virtual agent design and grades. The results suggest that overly realistic virtual agents may cause cognitive overload, thus hindering academic performance. In contrast, simpler, cartoon-like agents reduce distractions and improve learning outcomes. These findings have implications for designing virtual agents in educational settings, recommending that simplicity and reduced realism can enhance learning efficiency by minimizing emotional distraction and cognitive load.
Ahmed, H., Smith, J. R., & Lee, K. J. (2023). Emotion regulation in virtual learning environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(2), 302-319.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000698
Anderson, R., & Kim, S. Y. (2022). Social presence in virtual agents: A cognitive perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 853-872.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10011-5
Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Cooper, D. G., Burleson, W., & Muldner, K. (2011). Gender-based emotional differences during intelligent tutoring interactions. Artificial Intelligence in Education, 21(1), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-011-0028-4
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.416
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1999). The structure of current affect: Controversies and emerging consensus. Psychological Science, 8(1), 10-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00003
Baylor, A. L. (2011). The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 291-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9196-3
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. Intelligent Virtual Agents, 3173, 592-604.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28640-5_41
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(2), 95-115.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2008). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 47-58.
Berry, D. C., Butler, L. T., & de Rosis, F. (2005). Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(3), 304-327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.001
Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., & The Teachable Agents Group. (2004). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1
Bradley, M. M., & Vrana, S. R. (1993). On the modulation of startle reflex by affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 370-375.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.370
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1(3), 276-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Losch, M. E., & Kim, H. S. (1986). Electromyographic activity over facial muscle regions can differentiate positive and negative emotional expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 260-268.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.260
Cassell, J. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. MIT Press.
Chen, X., & Baylor, A. L. (2022). Reducing extraneous cognitive load with simplified visual features of pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(4), 983-1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10101-2
Chen, M., Zhang, J., & Li, K. (2023). The impact of poor virtual agent design on learning outcomes: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(1), 22-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10200-2
Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40(3), 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00140-8
Clark, R. C., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the role of instructional games in learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 105-109.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.
Ciechanowski, L., Przegalinska, A., Magnuski, M., & Gloor, P. (2019). In the shades of the uncanny valley: An experimental study of human–chatbot interaction. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 539-548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.055
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2007). In search of pedagogical agents’ modality and dialogue effects in open learning environments. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 10(1). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ846724
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428–434.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.428
De Angeli, A., & Brahnam, S. (2008). I hate you! Disinhibition with virtual partners. Interacting with computers, 20(3), 302-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2008.02.004
Deng, X., & Yu, J. (2023). AI chatbots in higher education: Potential, challenges, and future directions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 128-150.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221142029
Foti, D., & Hajcak, G. (2009). The time course of emotion perception: Event-related potentials (ERPs) in affective picture processing. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2(3), 174-190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015453
Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L. D., & Yew, V. (2008). How people anthropomorphize robots. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Human robot interaction - HRI ’08 (p. 145-152). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1349822.1349842
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Computational technologies for multimodal learning environments: Integrated systems and models for improving teaching and learning. AI in Education, 20(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-010-0145-0
Gulz, A., & Haake, M., (2005). Social and visual style in virtual pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Adaptation to Affective Factors, in conjunction with the 10th International Conference on User Modelling (UM’05). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2f1d/3e844ff966eba82de0a7c4b5a8f0299f112f.pdf
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 447-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9174-5
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, 11(1), 47–78. https://doi.org/10.1.1.7.7812
Johnson, K., & Zhao, H. (2023). Designing effective virtual agents for enhanced learner interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 143-160.
Kaya, N., & Epps, H. H. (2004). Relationship between color and emotion: A study of college students. College Student Journal, 38(3), 396-405.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3
Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & Shen, E. (2007). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The impact of agent emotion and gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00210.x
Kim, C. M., & Baylor, A. L. (2008). A virtual change agent: Motivating pre-service teachers to integrate technology in their future classrooms. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 309–321. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.9861&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Kim, Y., & Wei, L. (2011). Social cognitive factors that influence the relationship between pedagogical agents and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903294611
Kogilathah, P., Ahmad Zamzuri, N. H., & Wee Hoe, T. (2019). Virtual agents in a multimedia learning environment: A study on realism design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 28(2), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0368-7
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x
Lee, A., & Park, B. (2021). The effects of digital media on cognitive development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1234/abcde
Lee, K., & Park, Y. (2023). AI-driven personalization for virtual agents in education: A review and future directions. Computers & Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997a). The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 359-366). https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258797
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Stone, B. A., Kahler, S. E., & Barlow, S. T. (1997b). Animated pedagogical agents and problem-solving effectiveness: A large-scale empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of eight world conference on artificial intelligence in education (pp. 23–30). https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:12221770
Lin, Y. L., Chen, M. C., Wu, T. F., & Yeh, Y. M. (2008). The effectiveness of a pedagogical agent-based learning system for teaching word recognition to children with moderate mental retardation: Colloquium. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00747.x
Lusk, M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Virtual agents in multimedia learning environments: Effects of agent properties on learning and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 238-252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.238
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 486-490. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1967
Mohammadhasani, N., Fardanesh, H., Hatami, J., Mozayani, N., & Fabio, R. A. (2018). The pedagogical agent enhances mathematics learning in ADHD students. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2299–2308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9710-x
Mohanty, A. (2016). Affective Pedagogical Agent in E-Learning Environment: A Reflective Analysis. Creative Education, 7(4), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.74061
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia, 19(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3802_3
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (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), 177–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02
Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook on multimedia learning (pp. 507–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.032
Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00237.x
Nakamura, H., & Harper, T. (2022). The complexity-emotion trade-off in educational technology: A study on virtual agents. Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 433-450.
Nguyen, T., Lewis, R., & White, M. (2023). Cultural considerations in virtual agent design for education. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(1), 102-118.
Nguyen, A., & Robinson, T. (2023). Virtual agents in modern classrooms: Expanding educational capabilities. Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 101-115.
Okonkwo, C. W., & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100033.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033
Patel, S., & Kumar, P. (2022). Virtual agents for sociocultural adaptation in digital education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(1), 67-83.
Patel, R., Chang, M., & Hernandez, T. (2023). Emotional engagement and cognitive processing in learning environments with virtual agents. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 58(1), 25-39.
Payr, S. (2003). The virtual university’s faculty: an overview of educational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 17(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/713827053
Ramirez, F., Clark, D., & Hunter, M. (2022). Visual complexity in virtual agents and its effect on learning outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 25(3), 153-166.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2023). Individual differences and interactions with digital avatars in learning environments. Personality and Individual Differences, 198, 111775.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.111775
Ruiz, D., & Hernandez, T. (2023). The effect of positive affect on student engagement and learning outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 895-913.
Smith, A., Thompson, B., & Nguyen, L. (2023). Simplified versus realistic agent design: Effects on cognitive load and performance. Educational Research Review, 40, 100505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100505
Smith, J. & Lee, C. (2023). Virtual agents as motivators in e-learning: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 210, 104768.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2022). Cognitive load theory in educational practice (3rd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92409-1
Thompson, L., & Nguyen, M. (2023). Physiological markers of emotional response: Arousal and valence dimensions. Journal of Affective Neuroscience, 28(3), 312-327.
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026609
Vicneas, M., & Ahmad Zamzuri, M. A. (2020). The Effect of Valence and Arousal on Virtual Agent's Designs in Quiz Based Multimedia Learning Environment. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 903-920. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13455a
Wang, H., Chignell, M., & Ishizuka, M. (2005). Improving the usability and effectiveness of online learning: how can avatars help. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 49(7), 769–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900706
Wright, E., & Owens, L. (2022). Mediating effects of arousal in virtual learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101531.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101531
Raman, K., Muniady, V., & Samy, K. M. (2024). The Effect of Different Realism Designs of Virtual Agents on Students’ Grades in Quiz App: The Mediating Role of Arousal and Valence. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4), 1612–1630.
Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
2025 © Copyright HRMARS. All rights Reserved.