Content uploaded by Gemma Tombs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gemma Tombs on Aug 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
It's almost like talking to a person:
Student disclosure to pedagogical
agents in sensitive settings
Savin-Baden, M. , Tombs, G. , Burden, D. and Wood, C.
Published version deposited in CURVE January 2015
Original citation & hyperlink:
Savin-Baden, M. , Tombs, G. , Burden, D. and Wood, C. (2013) It's almost like talking to a
person: Student disclosure to pedagogical agents in sensitive settings. International Journal
of Mobile and Blended Learning, volume 5 (2): 78-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2013040105
Publisher statement: This paper appears in the International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning edited by David Parsons, Copyright 2013, IGI Global, www.igi-global.com. Posted by
permission of the publisher.
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright
owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study,
without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively
from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The
content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium
without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
CURVE is the Institutional Repository for Coventry University
http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOBILE AND
BLENDED LEARNING
David Parsons, Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University - Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand
Inmaculada Arnedillo-Sánchez, School of Engineering and Advance Technology, Trinity College Dublin, Albany Campus,
Auckland, New Zealand
Olutayo Boyinbode, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Dick Ng’ambi, Centre for Educational Technology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Antoine Bagula, Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Thomas Cochrane, Centre for Learning and Teaching (CfLAT), Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Helen Sissons, School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Danni Mulrennan, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Richard Pamatatau, School of Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Catherine Marinagi, Department of Logistics, Technological Educational Institute of Chalkis, Thiva, Greece
Christos Skourlas, Department of Informatics, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece
Jace Hargis, Abu Dhabi Women’s College (ADWC), Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Cathy Cavanaugh, Abu Dhabi Women’s College (ADWC), Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Tayeb Kamali, Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Melissa Soto, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA
Maggi Savin-Baden, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
Gemma Tombs, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
David Burden, Daden, Birmingham, England, UK
Clare Wood, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
Copyright
The International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL) (ISSN 1941-8647; eISSN1941-8655), Copyright © 2013 IGI
Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this journal may be reproduced
or used in any form or by any means without witten permission from the publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use
including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in this journal are for identification purposes only.
Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or
registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors but not neccessarily of IGI Global.
Table of Contents
April-June 2013, Vol. 5, No. 2
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning is currently listed or indexed in: ACM Digital Libary, Applied
Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Bacon's Media Directory; Cabell's Directories; Compendex (Elsevier
Engineering Index); DBLP; GetCited; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; Library & Information Science Ab-
stracts (LISA); MediaFinder; Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD); PsycINFO®; SCOPUS; The Index of
Information Systems Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
78 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Maggi Savin-Baden, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
Gemma Tombs, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
David Burden, Daden, Birmingham, England, UK
Clare Wood, Coventry University, Coventry, England, UK
Keywords: Disclosure, Engagement, Learning, Pedagogical Agents, Pedagogy, Personalisation
In many ways it would seem that emerging
communication technologies are disrupting
and changing societal norms and conventions
(Turkle, 2011). Whitty and Joinson (2009) have
suggested that central to making sense of the
unique qualities of cyberspace are understand-
ings of such social networks and veracity, and
studies by Yee (2006) and Bailenson, Yee,
Blascovich and Guadagno (2008) also indicate
that issues of online and offline behaviour bear
further exploration. We propose that as peda-
gogical agents are seen to help support and even
improve the level of interactive learning on a
programme or course (Kim & Wei, 2011), it is
essential that these societal norms and behav-
iours are considered within pedagogical agent
learning situations.
Pedagogical agents are characters on
the computer screen with embodied life-like
behaviours such as speech, emotions, locomo-
This paper presents ndings of a pilot study which used pedagogical agents to examine disclosure in educational
settings. The study used responsive evaluation to explore how use of pedagogical agents might affect students’
truthfulness and disclosure by asking them to respond to a lifestyle choices survey delivered by a web-based
pedagogical agent. Findings indicate that emotional connection with pedagogical agents was intrinsic to the
user’s sense of trust and therefore likely to affect levels of truthfulness and engagement. The implications of
this study are that truthfulness, personalisation and emotional engagement are all vital components in using
pedagogical agents to enhance online learning.
DOI: 10.4018/jmbl.2013040105
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 79
tion, gestures, and movements of the head, the
eye, or other parts of the body (Dehn & van
Mulken, 2000). These technologies have been
increasingly adopted and tested in educational
settings, yet little is known about the ways in
which they can be used effectively, and indeed
whether they can provide additional value to
learning experiences. Further, the research
that has been undertaken has not yet drawn
clear distinctions between application across
disciplines and in difficult and sensitive settings
(Heidig & Clarebout, 2011).
Such technologies seem likely to become
a part of students’ daily lives outside of the
educational arena. As consumer access to in-
formation has changed, the technology used to
present chatbots (by our definition, commercial
and business agents as opposed to pedagogical
agents) to the user has reached a level where
interacting with a pedagogical agent seems
both normal and rewarding; this would seem
to be important for a student’s ability to engage
emotionally with a pedagogical agent. Recent
advances in Flash and HTML-5 technology
can be used to deliver dynamic and speaking
chatbots1, offering a richer and more engag-
ing experience than lines of text on a screen.
Whereas early pedagogical agents were simple
command line text interfaces, modern peda-
gogical agents are typically implemented as
head-and-shoulders Flash or video animations,
and often with the addition of text-to-speech
functionality. Indeed pedagogical agents need
not be limited to the web, and companies such
as Daden have implemented pedagogical agents
with IM services such as MSN2, as email and
SMS responders, and even as full body avatars
within virtual worlds such as Second Life.
Further, the integration of web-services into
pedagogical agents means that they can access
live services to provide up-to-date information
in their responses, and prevent the need to
store all knowledge in the pedagogical agent.
Thus whilst pedagogical agents are primarily
utilised in blended contexts at present, as mobile
technology becomes increasingly present in our
daily lives, it is likely that these applications
will transfer to mobile settings.
These technological advances offer new
opportunities to implement pedagogical agent
technology, when provided with pedagogical
underpinning. McWilliam (2005) has argued
that new possibilities for teaching and learning
necessitate a rethinking of curriculum design,
and that new technologies themselves cannot be
relied upon to change anything. It would seem
that the attention of many researchers has cen-
tred on the relationship between the pedagogy
and the technology, whilst the attention of others
has been focussed on the multiple perspectives
that individuals bring to the learning encounter,
based upon prior experience, knowledge, and
the influence of culture and worldview (Gergen,
2003). As Dourish (2006) argues, the growth
of mobility, mobile technology and information
bring to the fore questions about practice and
spatiality and whether technological practices
are in fact spatial practices. In this sense, the
application of pedagogical agents in mobile
and blended settings do not raise technological
questions but rather questions of if, and how,
these technologies in new spaces alter how
pedagogy might be seen. Perhaps what is be-
ing seen is what Thrift has termed ‘‘augmented
existence’, in which it is not just tagging and
integration of new technologies that affects our
lives and practices but the recognition that the
meta systems themselves become a new form
of categorization (Thrift, 2006).
This paper reports on the findings from a
preliminary study of pedagogical agent use in
educational settings, designed to consider stu-
dent reactions to pedagogical agents in sensitive
and research-focused settings. Students were
asked to respond to a web-based lifestyle values
and choices survey delivered by a pedagogical
agent on topics of medium levels of sensitivity.
These topics were: finances, plagiarism, alco-
hol, drugs and sexual health. The intent of the
study was to evaluate the potential influence of
a pedagogical agent in affecting a person’s reac-
tions and responses with regards to truthfulness,
disclosure and personal engagement, and to use
these findings to consider its application in and
beyond educational contexts. We suggest that
any findings are particularly relevant to disci-
plines of a sensitive nature, such as healthcare.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
80 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
The central argument of the paper is that
truthfulness, personalisation and emotional
engagement are all vital components in using
pedagogical agents to enhance online learning.
The paper begins by reviewing the current
literature and knowledge of pedagogical agent
use in blended learning contexts, focusing on
informing theories such as realism, emotional
engagement and immersion. The method and
context of the study is then provided. The
findings are presented and situated within the
relevant body of literature and the paper con-
cludes by offering several recommendations
for practice.
The literature on the use of conversational agents
is small and varied. Themes across the literature
indicate that their use is under researched and
under discussed in terms of the possibilities in
higher education. For example, conversational
agents might be used in libraries as virtual as-
sistants, as mobile campus guides or as mentors
for students in clinical settings as a mobile app.
The literature to date indicates found key foci,
namely technological design, emotional design,
and immersion.
Early work such as that by Santos and Osorio
(2004) used Virtual Agents to assist users and
help them navigate in and interact with the
virtual environment in both e-commerce and
distance learning contexts. Chittaro and Ranon
(2000) have further considered adaptation in the
context of e-commerce. A set of personalization
rules exploits a model of the customer to adapt
the virtual store, such as the display of products,
as well as the navigation and different layouts
of the store. They also applied their techniques
to e-learning (Chittaro & Ranon, 2008) and in-
troduced Adaptive EVE, an e-learning platform
tailored to the knowledge level of the learners
and to their preferred learning style.
In more recent years, improved technical
development and realism of anthromorphic
pedagogical agents has further expanded their
potential for learning (Clark & Mayer, 2008).
Kim and Wei (2011) found that students chose
same gender and same ethnicity pedagogical
agents when provided with the opportunity,
and that this had no impact on their learning
experience and retention. However, audible
realism was found to be particularly important to
positive student perceptions of the pedagogical
agent. Studies and innovations exploring the
influence of voice found that computer-syn-
thesized voices were perceived less favourably
than human voices, with the emphasis placed
on words, and pauses between words, improv-
ing student learning in a pedagogical agent
situation (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Furthermore,
split-attention effect (Garau et al., 2003), in
which students experience a higher cognitive
load due to competing demands for their atten-
tion, occurred when students felt a pedagogical
agent’s voice and appearance did not match
and were therefore distracted from the learning
activity at hand. Even though there are authors
who do not advocate the use of an human-like
agent instead of a simple chat-window (e.g.
Shneiderman & Plaisant, 2004), there is a large
research community attempting to implement
believable and life-like digital agents as user
interfaces with capabilities like gaze or gestures
(e.g. André & Rist, 1996, Cassell et al., 2000).
Such research focuses on the impact of factors
such as appearance (Dunsworth & Atkinson,
2007), dialogue (Veletsianos, 2009), compe-
tency (Kim, 2007), and self-awareness (Ijaz
et al., 2011). It would seem, therefore, that a
lack of a perceived realism can impact students’
willingness to engage with the pedagogical
agent, establishing technical development as
key to the effectiveness of these technologies
in educational settings.
Evidence has shown that many users are not
only comfortable interacting with high-quality
pedagogical agents, but that an emotional con-
nection can be developed between users and
pedagogical agents, resulting in a more positive
engagement experience. These findings should
be considered in relation to the work of Lessler
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 81
and O-Reilly (1997), who, amongst others, have
found that self-administered surveys can yield
more truthful responses than interview methods
and that this is particularly so when respondents
are reporting on sensitive, personal or intricate
information. Hasler, Touchman and Friedman
(2013) found, in a comparison of human in-
terviewees with virtual world chatbots (peda-
gogical agents in non-learning situations), that
chatbots and human interviewees were equally
successful in collecting information about their
participants’ real live backgrounds. Pedagogi-
cal agents, as neither human interviewees nor
text-based surveys, therefore pose an interesting
opportunity for the educator seeking to facilitate
student discussion of sensitive topics.
The disclosure of information, especially of
sensitive information, requires the formation of
a trust relationship (Wheeless & Grotz, 1977).
Corritore, Kracher and Wiedenbeck (2003)
propose that websites can be the objects of
trust, in which trust is ‘an attitude of confident
expectation that one’s vulnerabilities will not
be exploited’ (2003:70). For them, the concepts
of risk, vulnerability, expectation, confidence
and exploitation play a key role in information
disclosure in an online environment. It would
appear that such findings can also be applied
to pedagogical agent situations.
This emotional connection has been found
to be one of the strongest determinants of a
user’s experience, triggering unconscious re-
sponses to a system, environment or interface
(Éthier, Hadaya, Talbot, & Cadieux, 2008).
These feelings strongly influence our percep-
tions, enjoyment, and pleasure, and influence
how we regard our experiences at a later date.
Emotional design at the basic level involves
minimising common emotions related to poor
usability such as boredom, frustration, annoy-
ance, anger and confusion. Dennerlein, Becker,
Johnson, Reynolds and Picard (2003) stated that
during a computer task, systems usability may
play a role in creating stressful situations that
manifest themselves into various exposures to
biomechanical stressors.Thus emotional design
also should also focus on invoking positive
emotions associated with acceptance of the
system and continued usage (such as inspira-
tion, fascination, perception of credibility, trust,
satisfaction, appeal, attachment).
Captivating a user’s attention can also induce
a sense of immersion or presence (Robertson,
Czerwinski & van Dantzich, 1997; Steuer,
1992). This is a complex concept related to
the physical senses and mental processes of the
user, the required tasks within the environment
and the types of interaction and technology
involved (Pausch, Proffitt & Williams, 1997).
This engagement of the student in the learn-
ing experience is argued to focus and improve
learning (Kang, Kim, Choi, & Park, 2008). Dede
(1995) suggests that within learning environ-
ments, immersion can be created through the
capacity to execute actions, through symbology
and semantic associations, and through physical
and sensory provision. Mental and emotional
immersion has to be considered independent
from visual or perceptual immersion (Robertson
et al., 1997). The concept of immersion is closely
related to that of social presence, in which us-
ers might feel ‘present’ in an interaction with
a pedagogical agent. This experience is seen
to be critical to the effectiveness of learning
with a pedagogical agent, and occurs when
a user is immersed in the interaction (Kim &
Baylor, 2006).
A different stance toward immersion is
explored by Slater et al. (2009) who examined
the idea of inducing illusory ownership of virtual
limbs. They presented three experiments that
investigated how virtual limbs and bodies can
come to feel like real limbs and bodies, and
discussed related studies that indicated that
the ownership illusion may be generated for an
entire body. The finding of these studies suggest:
‘that ownership of virtual limbs and bodies may
engage the same perceptual, emotional, and mo-
tor processes that make us feel that we own our
biological bodies’ (p219). Slater (2009) argues
for ‘place illusion’ and ‘plausibility illusion’ as
concepts that are helpful in understanding why
people respond in particular ways in virtual
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
82 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
reality. Place Illusion’ (PI) is used for the type
of presence that refers to the sense of ‘being
there’ in spite of knowing that you are not,
whereas ‘plausibility illusion’ (Psi) is defined
as how the world is perceived: ‘Psi is the illu-
sion that what is apparently happening is really
happening (even though you know for sure that
it is not)’ (p8). What Slater largely seems to be
suggesting is the immersion is related to ‘qualia’,
the illusion of being there, and thus immersion
depends predominantly on the level of qualia,
which is seen to be higher in VR than in desk
top systems, which require more deliberate at-
tention. Yet the sense of immersion does seem
to be affected by emotion that may emerge
directly from immersion or illusion.
The literature discussed above found that
understanding of pedagogical agent applica-
tion, whilst increasing, is inchoate. The realism
and voice of the pedagogical agent is seen to
help shape emotional connection, which is
further informed by concepts of presence and
immersion. Yet this emotional connection and
thus the potential learning application of these
technologies, is determined partially by levels
of trust and risk, as Corritore et al. (2003) noted.
Such findings suggest that the context within
which the student and pedagogical agent are
interacting, whether in an interviewing context
or in discussion of sensitive topics, for example
a counselling module, is critical. This paper
now goes on to present the findings of a study
focused on these issues in particular.
This study adopted an evaluation approach.
Evaluation has been used to study an organisa-
tion or curriculum in such a way as to contribute
to a review of policy and/or decision making
within the organisation. Originally evaluation
was an important part of enabling improvement
to be made in educational curricula. Evaluators
such as Cronbach (1963) and Scriven (1967),
followed by Stufflebeam et al. (1971), devel-
oped the idea of evaluation as a service for
administrators and managers in education. The
work of Stake (1976) was influential in develop-
ing different types of evaluation and pointing out
that evaluation should be seen as both a political
and ethical activity. During the 1960s-1970s,
evaluation involved collecting information to
inform decision making. However, in the late
1970s and early 1980s, a shift occurred and
evaluation came to be seen as something from
which to learn and make changes, rather than a
process of being judged. Simons suggests that
this shift occurred due to:
The realisation of the difficulty of informing
particular decisions, evaluations forming only
one small part of the data that is taken into
account in coming to a decision; over-reliance
on a model of decision making that has little
correspondence with reality; and a reassessment
of the responsibilities of evaluation. (Simons,
1987: 20)
It was thus in the 1980s that evaluation
moved away from being an act of judgment
about the merits of a programme and moved
toward being an exploration of what could be
learned about a programme. It is with this ap-
proach in mind that we adopt Stake’s (1983)
responsive evaluation methodology, a pragmatic
approach in which attention is given to the in-
formation and issues that those involved in the
evaluation want to know about and the questions
to which they want answers. Therefore evalu-
ation here is undertaken in relation to specific
situations, contexts and questions.
Responsive evaluation according to Stake
(1983) is:
• Reliant on natural communication;
• Focused on activities being undertaken
rather than the intentions of those activities;
• Responsive to the stakeholder requirement
for facts and knowledge;
• Considerate towards the different views
and principles of those involved in the
evaluation.
This evaluation therefore explored the
extent to which pedagogical agents may af-
fect a person’s reactions and responses with
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 83
regards to truthfulness, disclosure and personal
engagement. Tourangeau (2004) proposes that
the best solution for data collection combines
a self-administered approach with face-to-face
interviewing, as these typically obtain the high-
est participation rates of all survey methods.
Computer-based interviews in which the indi-
vidual is talking to an avatar (a ‘pedagogical
agent’) rather than to a person may offer an
environment for this. The model of responsive
evaluation takes into account the differences
between what is supposed to happen and what
actually happens, and thus the research team
believed that it would enable the objectives of
evaluation to be met whilst also providing data
which would be useful for a variety of relevant
publics, such as the university, the funder and
the student union.
The specific aim of this research was to exam-
ine the extent to which the use of pedagogical
agents might affect students’ truthfulness and
disclosure about their lifestyle choices and
beliefs. Its intent, therefore, was to consider
the ways in which pedagogical agents might
be used in sensitive educational settings such
as healthcare, as well as within research and
data collection settings.
The literature reviewed in this paper has
shown that responses to pedagogical agents in
sensitive settings are highly individual. Despite
this, we have identified certain patterns which
bear further exploration. As noted earlier, the
realism and voice of the pedagogical agent is
seen to help shape emotional connection, which
is further informed by concepts of presence and
immersion. Yet this emotional connection and
thus the potential learning application of these
technologies, is determined partially by levels
of trust and risk.
The study sought to explore the following
objectives:
1. How do pedagogical agent appearances
affect student perceptions?
2. To what extent do students prefer and
respond to different styles of pedagogical
agent?
3. How much information are users happy to
disclose when engaging with the pedagogi-
cal agent?
4. To what extent might pedagogical agents
influence or affect a person’s reactions
and responses with regards to truthfulness,
disclosure and personal engagement?
These particular research objectives take
note of current research directions and gaps
within the research. Whilst the appearance
(realism) and voices of pedagogical agents have
been addressed as research topics, they have
often been treated separately; this pilot study
aimed to bring together previously disparate
research areas. Further, as we have contended,
prior research into the use of pedagogical agents
has neglected the importance of context in
informing student willingness to engage and
disclose information.
This project was funded as part of a study
into the potential influence of pedagogical
agents (also known as ‘chatbots’ in non-
educational environments) by the Ministry of
Defence. Development work was undertaken
by Daden, and evaluation completed by Cov-
entry University. Ethical clearance was gained
through Coventry University ethics committee.
The development stage of this study involved
the creation and testing of the pedagogical
agents. This involved:
• The creation of a website with information
on sensitive issues (finances, plagiarism,
alcohol, drugs and sexual health) to put the
agent into context;
• The conducting of a trial with 5 users to
find out what visual representation of the
agent is preferable, based on age/gender/
race/authoritativeness;
• The creation of a question and answer data-
base and addition of the pedagogical agent
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
84 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
on the site as a general question-answering
and advice agent.
The chosen questions for this study were
programmed into the pedagogical agent inter-
face, and 6 avatars were selected for the stu-
dents to choose from. Following from research
presented in the literature review, the research
team ensured that the selection of pedagogical
agents represented a range of ethnicities, ages
and genders. The pedagogical agents were then
tested with 5 volunteers to correct any technical
issues and test the wording of the questions.
Twelve students (m=4; f=8, both postgraduate
and undergraduate) were recruited to participate
in the research section of this project.
Data were collected through the following
methods:
1. An online questionnaire with an interactive
pedagogical agent, in which students were
asked questions on sensitive issues includ-
ing financial management, plagiarism,
alcohol, drugs and sexual health.
2. A semi-structured face-to-face interview
on the topic of the student’s experience of
using the interactive pedagogical agent
(average 30 minutes). The interview was
audio recorded and transcribed for data
analysis purposes.
Student responses from the pedagogical
agent questionnaire (Method 1) are not reported
here as these findings are not relevant to our
research objectives. Instead, the questionnaire
provided a testing phase and a means through
which to facilitate student-pedagogical agent
interaction, providing impetus for the inter-
view process in Method 2. This interview was
undertaken to discuss students’ experiences
of engaging with the pedagogical agent and
focused specifically upon the research objec-
tives identified above. The findings from student
interviews are presented in this paper.
Analytical coding was used at the outset to
derive codes based in the thick description of
interview data. Charmaz (2006), for example,
suggests asking the following questions about
the data when engaged in analytical coding:
• What is going on?
• What are people doing?
• What is the person saying?
• What do these actions and statements take
for granted?
• How do structure and context serve to
support, maintain, impede or change these
actions and statements?
Having undertaken this initial phase of cod-
ing data were then analysed. The ultimate goal
of qualitative data analysis is “to make sense
out of the data” (Merriam, 2009: 203), with an
intentional effort toward answering the research
questions. Hatch (2002) describes it this way:
Data analysis is a systematic search for mean-
ing. It is a way to process qualitative data so
that what has been learned can be communi-
cated to others. Analysis means organising
and interrogating data in ways that allow
researchers to see patterns, identify themes,
discover relationships, develop explanations,
make interpretations, mount critiques, or
generate theories. It often involves synthesis,
evaluation, interpretation, categorisation, hy-
pothesising, comparison, and pattern finding. It
always involves what Wolcott calls “mindwork”
... Researchers always engage their own intel-
lectual capacities to make sense of qualitative
data. (Hatch, 2002: 148)
We now turn to findings from the interview
data. In total 3 themes were identified which
were truthfulness, emotional engagement and
personalisation.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 85
Students oriented their discussions of truth and
truthfulness around the realism of the pedagogi-
cal agent. This referred specifically to how par-
ticipants typically responded in correspondent
face-to-face situations, and notions of judge-
ment and acceptance. For some participants,
their awareness that the pedagogical agent was
not real encouraged a sense of disinhibition in
which participants felt emboldened to share
answers to sensitive questions without fear or
awkwardness. For example, Rose commented:
If you do it with a real person then you might
feel a bit scared and awkward. So it’s more
personal but not so personal that you feel a bit
awkward. I think if you were talking to a person
and they were asking those questions you would
feel really embarrassed and you wouldn’t want
to, you wouldn’t want to tell the truth. (Rose,
undergraduate student)
Here, the pedagogical agent was posi-
tioned between two points of comparison – an
online survey, and a face-to-face interview.
The pedagogical agent was seen to provide
an additional level of personalisation but was
still separate from the embodied interaction
between two individuals. The lack of realism
of the pedagogical agent thus provided a safe
space within which the student felt empowered
to share truthful answers.
The pedagogical agent’s lack of memory,
and inability to recall discussions was also
seen as a positive point. In situations where
the pedagogical agent was clearly positioned
as something ‘other’ than human, users were
expected to respond with different emotions.
It is posited by John below that interaction
with a pedagogical agent would not invoke an
emotional response of shame and thus allow
users respond with truthfulness:
Some people might find their behaviour shame-
ful, particularly if they had been cheating in
their degree or something like that, they would
probably lie to a real person, because then they
would know that they cheated on their degree.
But to a bot they’d be more inclined to be honest
about it. (John, undergraduate student)
For others, such as Rachel, this disinhibi-
tion was clearly related to notions of judgement
and fear of reprisal:
It didn’t matter what you said to it, I found that
you could be truthful with it because there was
no-one you were talking to that could judge you.
(Rachel, undergraduate student)
Students here spoke of the pedagogical
agent as though speaking into an ether; the
pedagogical agent was seen as a vacant yet
embodied being to which students were able
to express truth without fear of judgement. For
this student, ‘it didn’t matter’ what you said to
it; truthfulness is revealed only insofar as it has
no consequence.
Conversely, for others, the physical mani-
festation of the pedagogical agent, and its visual
realness in comparison to an online survey,
encouraged them to share the truth:
And I think one of the questions in it was whether
it made me sort of more truthful? And I think
that it does because you feel a bit guiltier, be-
cause it’s almost like talking to a person. (Alice,
undergraduate student)
Alice, above, saw the pedagogical agent
as being almost like a person, and so the emo-
tions she expects to feel are similar to those
in face-to-face interactions. Thus truthfulness
was seen to be essential, or at least preferred,
when interacting with the pedagogical agent;
in comparison to truthfulness and potential
judgement being of little consequence.
For those who related best to the pedagogi-
cal agent, it provided a means through which
students felt able to open up and communicate
truthful answers:
You know when you’re answering questions,
if someone was to give you a questionnaire
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
86 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
sometimes you don’t want to open up or you
don’t want to give the true answers whereas
with this, you feel like you’re communicating
with someone in person. (Mary, undergradu-
ate student)
Unlike Alice, Mary’s willingness to ‘open
up’ to the pedagogical agent did not emerge from
a sense of guilt but rather a genuine emotional
engagement and willingness to share her per-
ceptions and experiences.
These findings closely related to the
concepts of immersion and social presence,
which are seen to be essential to learning us-
ing pedagogical agents (Kim & Baylor, 2006).
This sense of presence can be social, cognitive,
or emotional, and would seem to be vital in
the development of realistic engagement with
pedagogical agents, thereby enhancing and
improving disclosure. This absorption and
engagement is argued to focus and improve
learning (Kang et al., 2008) and therefore
would seem to be central to understanding
the ways in which disclosure can be improved
in the use of pedagogical agents. It is notable
that those participants experiencing a greater
sense of social presence with the pedagogical
agent did not suggest experiencing feelings of
judgement when disclosing sensitive informa-
tion. Whilst for some students the interaction
with a pedagogical agent invoked emotional
responses, these did not parallel expected emo-
tional responses when engaging in face-to-face
interactions. The following theme explores this
in more detail.
Students spoke of emotional engagement
through their sense of personal connection to
the pedagogical agent. The findings from this
theme suggest that the greater the emotional
engagement, the more positive the experience
was. Continuing from Mary’s quote above,
students argued that they felt a sense of being
in a panoptical space: the feeling of someone
‘listening’ or ‘being there’.
It felt, I don’t know, maybe the fact that someone
was there in a sense, you felt a bit more, oh
okay someone’s listening, sort of thing, than
when it’s a questionnaire it’s like oh no one will
really read this. (Sally, undergraduate student)
In comparison to John’s quote in the truth-
fulness theme, for Sally, the pedagogical agent
was anything but an empty vessel. Here, it was
seen as a ‘someone’ who was able to take in
and listen to information, and paid attention to
her thoughts and opinions.
For others, there was also a sense that
there was a lack of emotional connection with
the pedagogical agent, a belief that it was not
‘taking in’ their answers:
And it felt a little impersonal at times because
you know you move from one topic to another
topic, very separate topics, and it was almost
like, you don’t care what I’m telling you do you?
(Claire, undergraduate student)
Here, the pedagogical agent was seen to
be ‘listening’, and when its responses did not
confirm to the expected norms, she was disap-
pointed. The pedagogical agent’s inability to
formulate responses based on Claire’s dialogue
was interpreted as not caring about what she
has to say. In this sense, typical conversational
norms are anticipated and imposed upon the
pedagogical agent. When it failed to fulfil
them, the pedagogical agent was not seen as a
technology but rather a conversational partner
with a lack of investment in the engagement.
For others, the physical appearance and
body language of the pedagogical agent ham-
pered their ability to emotionally engage in the
interaction. For example:
I didn’t think it was like talking to a person at
all really, I found the [pedagogical agents]
very robotic, I mean they sort of moved in a
very robotic, plastic fashion and occasionally
blinked or something, it wasn’t very high fidelity.
(Tom, postgraduate student)
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 87
Here, Tom’s perceptions of the pedagogical
agent’s body language and facial expressions
challenged his ability to perceive it as person-
like. Alternatively, for others these character-
istics did not detract from the realism of the
pedagogical agent but rather emphasised it by
imbuing it with person-like qualities such as
impatience.
The theme of emotional engagement high-
lights the individuality of student responses to
interaction with the pedagogical agent. It also
emphasises that in situations where the student
seemed to experience immersion and presence
in the engagement, the ability of the pedagogical
agent to interact could both improve and detract
from their emotional engagement in the interac-
tion. This sense of emotional engagement could
be improved through personalisation, which is
explored in the following theme.
The use of personalisation here focused on
using pedagogical agent technology to accom-
modate the differences between individuals and
provoke and encourage choice. Here, there were
a wide range of responses in terms of engaging
with the pedagogical agent in relation to body
language and voice. The addition of voice and
lip-syncing, for this student, improved its real-
ism in comparison to an online questionnaire:
It felt more real than just having the words com-
ing up and you know, it just felt like you were
having interaction and sort of engagement with
the [pedagogical agent]. It just gave a bit more
realism to the conversation, whereas, instead
of just reading the words and answering and
looking down and stuff, it was more like watch-
ing her speak, like I said you felt more like you
were actually engaging, talking with someone.
(Beth, undergraduate student)
Another student felt somewhat disarmed
due to the body language of the pedagogical
agent not matching up with the tone of the
question, and offense at certain phrasing.
It made me slightly nervous. And I actually felt
pressured to answer quicker. I thought well yes,
I wanted to be truthful, but I actually wanted to
think about the question, and wanted to answer
it with a bit of a reflection. I thought these
questions were really getting, you know, they
were quite personal, and that is not something
I would like to answer on a surface, so I had a
feeling that they were in a way deep questions
but the body language was like, yeah, come
on, next question. (Pam, postgraduate student)
Pam’s engagement with the pedagogical
agent as a conversational partner challenged her
ability to respond to the questions in what she
considered to be an adequate time period. Like
Claire in the previous theme, she struggled with
the technical characteristics of the pedagogical
agent and specifically the sense that its body
language invoked. By not displaying character-
istics such as leaning forward or demonstrating
investment, instead waiting for her response,
the pedagogical agent suggested a sense of
impatience which she found troublesome.
Students also valued the opportunity to
make choices about who they spoke to. For
example, some students chose a particular face
according to approachability or friendliness.
I find it easier talking to women, so I looked
through the women, and the person, she looked
like a newsreader, a correspondent. (Colin,
undergraduate student)
Colin, whilst choosing a gender he would
typically speak to, focused specifically on the
impression the pedagogical assistant gave. A
newsreader might invoke a sense of profes-
sionalism, authority and, potentially – referring
to the first theme of this study – of trustworthi-
ness. For others, it was more important that the
pedagogical agent appear to be a friend:
I was sort of looking through and he was sort
of, he looked my age. So it wasn’t as threaten-
ing. I don’t know, I felt that if it was someone
my age, I felt it would be like a one to one chat
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
88 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
instead of an interview with someone older
.(Sally, undergraduate student)
This student made a clear decision about
the kind of interaction she would prefer in this
particular context. An older pedagogical agent
might have appeared threatening, whereas a
younger pedagogical agent suggested more of
a casual, intimate atmosphere.
The decision on which pedagogical agent
to use was treated with great consideration:
I was interested in being able to choose the
pedagogical agent, and why I chose who I did.
And I thought it was positive because I liked
the look of the person I chose, and it did make
it more personal, being asked questions by that
pedagogical agent. She looked kind, friendly.
And young, beautiful. And yeah, approachable.
(Claire, undergraduate student)
As with other pedagogical agent choices,
the approachability of the agent was perceived
to be important, taking into account the subject
matter. Claire seemed to identify with her
pedagogical agent, finding the interaction more
personal because of the qualities she observes
and identifies with.
As seen in this theme, different learners
have different characteristics, preferences, prior
knowledge, skills and competences, motivation
or needs, which may influence their learning
process and experience and engagement with
the pedagogical agent. Students’ emotional
engagement in the interaction, and willingness
to disclose truthful information, were thus
informed by their ability to personalise their
pedagogical agent.
The findings of this study suggest that 3 key
issues are important; firstly the pedagogical
appearance of the agent, secondly, the issue of
choice and finally that of disclosure. The appear-
ance of the pedagogical agent and the images
it invoked, determined partially by students’
ability to choose their own pedagogical agent,
were found to play a role in students’ willing-
ness to disclose information. The relationship
between these issues is now addressed.
Pedagogical agent appearance was dis-
cussed in two distinct ways in this project.
Firstly, participants referred to the realism of ap-
pearance. As Clark and Mayer (2008) discussed,
the realism of anthromorphic pedagogical
agents can play a key role in determining student
perspectives of the pedagogical agent experi-
ence. Yet situations in which the realism of the
pedagogical agent was felt to be compromised
could result in entirely different reactions for the
students. For some, it resulted in split-attention
effect (Garau et al., 2003) in which the student
struggled to focus on interaction. For others,
the effect of body language was integrated
into the experience. In this circumstance, the
realism of the pedagogical agent was perceived
to be strong enough to counter split-attention
effect despite its body language. These findings
support those of Woo (2009), which suggests
that body language is critical to the learning
effectiveness of pedagogical agents. Whilst it
may not always result in split-attention effect,
as in face-to-face interactions, it is critical for
assuring student openness and ability to engage
comfortably in the interaction.
The second appearance effect referred to
the physical appearance of the pedagogical
agent when adequate realism has already been
assured. Participants did not identify physical
characteristics but rather the emotions that
these characteristics invoke. Feelings of ap-
proachability, friendliness and professionalism
seemed to be particularly important, along
with ensuring a non-threatening approach. The
physical appearance of the pedagogical agent
thus helped to shape participants’ feelings of
immersion in the engagement and the sense of
social presence they experienced (Robertson
et al., 1997; Kim & Baylor, 2006).
These findings would seem to support those
of Heidig and Clarebout (2011), who suggest
that choice plays a key role in determining stu-
dent reactions to pedagogical agents. This relates
to the fact that student preference differs and, as
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 89
of yet, has proven difficult to predict. It would
seem that a variety of genders and ethnicities
is particularly important for emotional engage-
ment with the pedagogical agent. What seems to
be particularly important is the context within
which the pedagogical agent is placed. In this
study students preferred friendly, approachable
pedagogical agents. It is important to highlight
that these roles are often specific to the context,
discipline and indeed to individual modules,
and thus adaptivity of the system is essential.
Qualitative findings from users also sug-
gested that they may feel comfortable disclos-
ing more sensitive information to pedagogical
agents than to the interviewer. Such findings
support those of Barak and Gluck-Ofri (2007),
who suggest that the social environment of
cyberspace is characterised by more open,
straightforward and candid interpersonal com-
munication, and that a pedagogical agent can
support this. This pattern of communication has
been explained through disinhibition effects
(Joinson, 1998) which are theorised to arise
through deindividuation (Postmes, Spear & Lea,
2000), or the emergence of ‘true self’ (Bargh,
McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002). Of importance
in this study are also situational factors including
anonymity, invisibility, neutralisation of status
and lack of eye contact (Suler, 2004). Although
acknowledged that the protected environment
of cyberspace and its associated sense of pri-
vacy is false (Ben-Ze-ev, 2003), it is suggested
that these attributes contribute to the enhanced
disclosure of often intimate information.
There were a number of limitations identified in
this study. A follow-up study is currently being
undertaken which seeks to examine the issues
raised in this study further. The limitations were:
1. Only 12 students were recruited, meaning
that any findings cannot be generalized. A
larger and more varied sample population
is necessary in any future studies.
2. The study was undertaken over only three
months, explaining the low sample size.
Any further studies should be extended to
at least one year.
3. There were technical difficulties with the
pedagogical agent software, meaning that it
was often difficult for students to manage.
Future studies should pay careful attention
to the user friendliness of technical delivery.
Based upon the findings from this pilot study,
six key implications have been identified:
1. The adaptivity of the system and emotional
connection to the pedagogical agent are
intrinsic to the student’s belief that they
can trust and therefore be more truthful.
By capitalising on an understanding of
user emotions there is an opportunity to
enhance the level of individual connection
with the learning environment and the sense
of immersion offered.
2. The amount of truthful information di-
vulged was dependent on how well the
participant engaged with the pedagogical
agent. For example one student wanted to
divulge more information but felt rushed
by the pedagogical agent body language
and movements. Another did not divulge
as much information as he did in a paper
questionnaire due to associating the peda-
gogical agent with having a real conversa-
tion and ‘boring’ it with talking too much.
3. An emotional design philosophy will ensure
the psychosocial features of the environ-
ments as well as physical and cognitive
requirements. This emotional connection
with the pedagogical agents would seem to
heighten the sense of immersion and there-
fore it is argued, the disclosure potential.
4. Learning and engagement using peda-
gogical agents provides opportunities for
displaying, testing and responding to the
emotions of self and others in a safe and
non-threatening environment. This can
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
90 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
be either subject specific emotional skills
(for example empathy) or non-subject
specific in the general sense of emotional
intelligence.
The intent of this study was to evaluate the
potential influence of a pedagogical agent in
affecting a person’s reactions and responses
with regards to truthfulness, disclosure and
personal engagement, and to use these findings
to consider its application in and beyond educa-
tional contexts. We found that, whilst technical
realism is important to willingness to disclose
information, what one participant experiences
as split-attention affect, can be experienced
by another as a conversational partner’s lack
of engagement. It can be assumed, then, that
the ways in which a participant’s truthfulness
is influenced by using a pedagogical agent
is potentially dependent on skill sets, prior
knowledge of the technology, personal needs
and preferences. Further exploration would be
needed to determine this, as well as the indi-
vidual’s perceptions of truthfulness and trust.
Alongside the findings presented above,
this study has also identified areas which deserve
further consideration in future research; the
authors are presently working on a large-scale
research project designed to build upon these
findings. Future research should also take into
account the future progression of pedagogical
agent application, mindful of Dourish’s (2006)
consideration of practice and spatiality with re-
gard to new technologies. As pedagogical agent
technologies are increasingly integrated into
commercial and educational arenas, it seems
likely that they will transfer to mobile as well
as blended learning settings. It is suggested,
therefore, that such applications require both
pedagogical nuance and further research into
the ways in student perceptions of pedagogi-
cal agents are informed by the context within
which they interact.
André, E., & Rist, T. (1996). Coping with temporal
constraints in multimedia presentation planning. In
B. Clancey, & D. Weld (Eds.) Proceedings of the
Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intel-
ligence (pp.142-147). AAAI Press.
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., & Guad-
agno, R. E. (2008). Transformed social interaction in
mediated interpersonal communication. In E. Konjin,
M., Tanis, S. Utz, & A. Linden (Eds.), Mediated
interpersonal communication (pp. 77-99). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barak, A., & Gluck-Ofri, O. (2007). Degree and reci-
procity of self-disclosure in online forms. Cyberpsy-
chology & Behavior, 10(3), 407–417. doi:10.1089/
cpb.2006.9938 PMID:17594265.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G.
M. (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and
expression of the ‘true self’ on the internet. The Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 58(1), 33–48. doi:10.1111/1540-
4560.00247.
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2003). Privacy, emotional close-
ness, and openness in cyberspace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 19, 451–467. doi:10.1016/S0747-
5632(02)00078-X.
Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Campbell, L., Vilhjalmsson,
H., & Yan, H. (2000). Human conversation as a sys-
tem framework: Designing embodied conversational
agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E.
Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents
(pp. 29–63). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory:
A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London, UK: Sage.
Chittaro, L., & Ranon, R. (2000). Adding adaptive
features to virtual reality interfaces for e-commerce.
In P. Brusilovsky, O. Stock, & C. Strapparava (Eds.),
Proceedings of International Conference on Adaptive
Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-based Systems (AH-
2000) (pp. 86-97). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Chittaro, L., & Ranon, R. (2008). An adaptive 3D
virtual environment for learning the X3D language.
In S. Staab (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp.
419-420). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and
the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 91
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S.
(2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes,
a model. International Journal of Human-Com-
puter Studies, 58, 737–758. doi:10.1016/S1071-
5819(03)00041-7.
Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement
through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64(8),
672–683.
Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist
learning environments: Immersion in distributed, vir-
tual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46–52.
Dehn, D. M., & van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact
of animated interface agents: A review of empirical
research. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 51, 1–22. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0325.
Dennerlein, J., Becker, T., Johnson, P., Reynolds, C.,
& Picard, R. W. (2003). Frustrating computers users
increases exposure to physical factors. In Proceedings
of the International Ergonomics Association, Seoul,
Korea. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://affect.
media.mit.edu/pdfs/03.dennerlein-etal.pdf
Denzin, N. (1989). Interpretative biography. London,
UK: Sage.
Dourish, P. (2006). Re-space-ing place: Place and
space ten years on. In P. Hinds & D. Martin (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (pp. 199-308). New York, NY: ACM.
Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2009). Fostering
multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of
an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education,
49, 677–690. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.010.
Éthier, J., Hadaya, P., Talbot, J., & Cadieux, J. (2008).
Interface design and emotions experienced on B2C
Web sites: Empirical testing of a research model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2771–2791.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.004.
Garau, M., Slater, M., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Brogni,
A., Steed, A., & Sasse, M. A. (2003). The impact of
avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived
quality of communication in a shared immersive
virtual environment. In G. Cockton & P..
Gergen, K. J. (2003). Knowledge as socially con-
structed. In M. Gergen, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.),
Social construction: A reader (pp. 15–17). London,
UK: Sage.
Hasler, B. S., Tuchman, P., & Friedman, D. (2013).
Virtual research assistants: Replacing human in-
terviewers by automated avatars in virtual worlds.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1608–1616.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.004.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in
education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical
agents make a difference to student motivation and
learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.004.
Ijaz, K., Bogdanovych, A., & Simoff, S. (2011). En-
hancing the believability of embodied conversational
agents through environment-, self- and interaction-
awareness. In M. Reynold (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Thirty-Fourth Australian Computer Science
Conference. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://
crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV113Ijaz.pdf
Joinson, A. N. (1998). Causes and implications of
disinhibited behavior on the net. In J. Gackenbach
(Ed.), Psychology of the internet (pp. 43–60). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Kang, M., Kim, J., & Park, M. (2008). Investigating
presence as a predictor of learning outcomes in e-
learning environment. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.),
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
(pp. 4175-4180). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Kays, K., Gathercoal, K., & Buhrow, W. (2012). Does
survey format influence self-disclosure on sensitive
question items? Computers in Human Behavior,
28(1), 251–256. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.007.
Kim, Y. (2007). Desirable characteristics of learn-
ing companions. International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, 17(4), 371–388.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A socio-cognitive
framework for pedagogical agents as learning
companions. ETR&D, 54(6), 569–596. doi:10.1007/
s11423-006-0637-3.
Kim, Y., & Wei, Q. (2011). The impact of learner
attributes and learner choice in an agent-based en-
vironment. Computers & Education, 56, 505–514.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.016.
Korhnonen (Eds). Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2003
Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference
(pp. 529-536). New York, NY: ACM.
Lessler, J. T., & O’Reilly, J. M. (1997). Mode of
interview and reporting of sensitive issues: Design
and implementation of audio computer assisted self-
interviewing. In L. Harrison, & A. Hughes (Eds.),
The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving
the accuracy of survey estimates (pp. 366–382).
Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse.
doi:10.1037/e495622006-018.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
92 International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013
McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Jour-
nal of Learning Design, 1(1), 1–11. doi:10.5204/
jld.v1i1.2.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide
to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pausch, R. Proffitt, D., & Williams, G. (1997). Quan-
tifying immersion in virtual reality. In G. S. Owen,
T. Whitted & B. Mones-Hattal (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 24th International Conference on Computer
Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 13-18).
New York, NY: ACM.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The for-
mation of group norms in computer-mediated com-
munication. Human Communication Research, 26,
341–347. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00761.x.
Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., & van Dantzich, M.
(1997). Immersion in desktop virtual reality. In G.
Robertson & C. Schmandt (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology (pp. 11-19). New York,
NY: ACM.
Santos, D., & Osorio, F. S. (2004). AdapTIVE: An
intelligent virtual environment and its application
in e-commerce. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual
International Computer Software and Applications
Conference (COMPSAC 2004) (pp. 468-473). IEEE
Society.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evalua-
tion. In R. Tyler, M. Gagne & M. Scriven (Eds.),
Perspectives of curriculum evaluation: Vol. 1. Aera
monograph series on curriculum evaluation. Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2004). Designing
the user interface: Strategies for effective human-
computer interaction. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Simons, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a
democracy: The politics and process of evaluation.
Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can
lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual envi-
ronments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences,
364(1535), 3549–3557. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
PMID:19884149.
Slater, M., Perez-Marcos, D., Ehrsson, H. H., &
Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2009). Inducing illusory
ownership of a virtual body. Frontiers in Neurosci-
ence, 3(2), 214–220. doi:10.3389/neuro.01.029.2009
PMID:20011144.
Stake, R. (1967). Toward a technology for the evalu-
ation of educational programs. In R. Tyler, M. Gagne,
& M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum
evaluation (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Stake, R. (1983). Responsive evaluation. In T.
Husén, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International
encyclopedia of education: Research and studies.
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions
determining telepresence. The Journal of Communi-
cation, 42(24), 73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.
tb00812.x.
Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. L., Gephart, W. J.,
Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. E., Merriam, H. O., &
Provus, M. M. (1971). Educational evaluation and
decision making. Itasca, IL: F.E Peacock Publishers.
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition ef-
fect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.
doi:10.1089/1094931041291295 PMID:15257832.
Thrift, N. (2006). Space: Special issue on problema-
tizing global knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society,
23, 139–146. doi:10.1177/0263276406063780.
Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 775–801.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142040
PMID:14744234.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect
more from technology and less from each other. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Veletsianos, G. (2009). The impact and implications
of virtual character expressiveness on learning and
agent-learner interactions. Journal of Computer As-
sisted Learning, 25(4), 345–357. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2009.00317.x.
Wheeless, L., & Grotz, J. (1977). The measure-
ment of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure.
Human Communication Research, 3(3), 250–257.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00523.x.
Whitty, M. T., & Joinson, A. N. (2009). Truth, lies,
and trust on internet. London, UK: Routledge.
Woo, H. L. (2009). Designing multimedia learning
environments using animated pedagogical agents:
Factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(3), 203–218. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2008.00299.x.
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(2), 78-93, April-June 2013 93
Yee, N. (2006). The demographics, motivations
and derived experiences of users of massively
multi-user online graphical environments. Presence
(Cambridge, Mass.), 15(3), 309–329. doi:10.1162/
pres.15.3.309.
1 Anna at the IKEA store is an example of this,
available at: http://193.108.42.79/ikea-us/
cgi-bin/ikea-us.cgi
2 For example, Ask Frank for drug education,
available at: http://www.talktofrank.com/
Please recommend this publication to your librarian. For a convenient easy-
to-use library recommendation for. please visit:
http://www.igi-global.com/IJMBL
All submissions should be mailed to:
David Parsons
Editor-in-Chief, IJMBL
ijmbl@igi-global.com
The International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL) spans theoreti-
cal, technical, and pedagogical issues in mobile and blended learning. These embrace
comprehensive or critical reviews of the current literature, relevant technologies and
applications, and important contextual issues such as privacy, security, adaptivity, and
resource constraints.
Topics to be discussed in the journal include (but are not limited to) the following:
•Comprehensive or critical reviews of the current literature
•Evaluation of mobile or blended learning in practice
•Future of mobile or blended learning
•Knowledge sharing
•Learner interaction/collaborative learning
•Mobile games for learning
•Mobile or blended learning applications
•Mobile or blended learning applied at different levels of education from pre-school to tertiary
and beyond
•Pedagogical and/or philosophical underpinnings of mobile or blended learning
•Privacy and security issues
•Related research in learning, including e-learning and pedagogical approaches
•Resource constraints in the delivery of mobile or blended learning
•Reviews of the application of mobile or blended learning in multiple contexts
•Role of Wikis, blogs, podcasts, messaging, other online tools, and Web 2.0 components in
learning delivery
•Roles of mobile, pervasive, and immersive technologies in education
•Technologies that directly or indirectly support mobile or blended learning systems (devices,
networks, tools etc.)
•Theoretical approaches to mobile or blended learning solutions
•Use of mobile or blended learning in professional environments
The primary mission of the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning
(IJMBL) is to provide comprehensive coverage and understanding of the role of innovative
learning theory and practice in an increasingly mobile and pervasive technological envi-
ronment. As technology enables a more seamless experience of device supported learning
worlds that may integrate mobile, embedded, augmented, and immersive technologies,
we may expect to see increasing interest and activity in blended approaches to learning.
IJMBL brings together researchers at the forefront of this field, in both technology and
pedagogical practice and assists them in the development and dissemination of new ap-
proaches to both mobile and blended learning.
ISSN 1941-8647
eISSN 1941-8655
Published quarterly
An offi cial publication of the Information Resources Management Association
International Journal of Mobile and
Blended Learning
CALL FOR ARTICLES