Impacts of Pedagogical Agent Gender in an Accessible Learning Environment.

Introduction Learning technologies are changing not only way we learn, but also how we engage and communicate with one another (Archembault & Crippen, 2009). Without a doubt, digital media produced by such technologies have significant impacts on modern life (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). While digital media produce new challenges in teaching and learning, technology allows for innovation in classroom (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2011). For example, innovative technologies have given us pedagogical agents, which are virtual characters visually present in multimedia environments for purpose of facilitating learning (Moreno, 2005). While some studies have shown that pedagogical agents hold potential for facilitating learning (Clarebout, Elen, Johnson, & Shaw, 2002; Schroeder, Adesope, & Barouch Gilbert, 2013), their design and implementation must be thoughtfully guided. For instance, Veletsianos, Miller, and Doering (2009) suggested that pedagogical agent implementation should focus on improving the social, pedagogical, and technological opportunities provided to (p. 179). If these considerations remain absent yet an agent is implemented in a learning system, it is possible that a split-attention effect could occur (Moreno, 2005). In other words, a pedagogical agent's presence could be distracting to learner (Moreno, 2005; van Mulken, Andre, & Muller, 1998), thereby inhibiting learning. Hence, it appears that implementing a pedagogical agent effectively is not only a matter of obtaining appropriate software, but also appropriately designing agent to enhance learning. While theoretical implementations of pedagogical agents are appealing, one may wonder what practical use they offer. Researchers have claimed that pedagogical agents can model or demonstrate tasks or skills, help coach students, or even provide scaffolding for learning (Clarebout, Elen, Johnson, & Shaw, 2002). Clearly, when articulated and implemented appropriately pedagogical agents provide a versatility rivaled by few technology tools. Further, as demonstrated by previous research, pedagogical agents can be used in a wide range of instructional domains, including humanities, mathematics, and science (e.g., Atkinson, 2002; Domagk, 2010; Dunsworth & Atkinson, 2007; Johnson, Ozogul, Moreno, & Reisslein, 2013; Kizilkaya & Askar, 2008; Moreno, Mayer, Spires, & Lester, 2001; Ozogul, Johnson, Atkinson, & Reisslein, 2013). Yet, these experiments represent just tip of iceberg. The potential uses of pedagogical agents are what provide most exciting insights. For instance, as technology evolves, pedagogical agents could help learners participate in virtual science experiments in biology or chemistry classrooms, explore virtual environments or museums in history or government classes, or even demonstrate customs of different cultures for those learning a second language or planning to travel abroad. It is plausible that as one technological innovation leads to next, role pedagogical agent plays will be limited only by software's abilities and by designer's imagination. Yet, one aspect of pedagogical agent implementation that deserves thorough investigation is effect of agent's physical appearance (Domagk, 2010; Veletsianos, 2010). Researchers have found that learners stereotype pedagogical agents by their physical appearance and non-verbal cues (Moreno et al., 2002; Veletsianos, 2010). This study investigates one particular facet of this interaction: gender stereotypes and their impact on learning and perceptions. Gender stereotypes are unconscious thought processes that guide expectations of how each gender should look, speak, and behave (Llorente & Morales, 2012; Erdin, 2009). Accordingly, it is easy to see how gender stereotypes could influence an interaction between agent and learner. …