SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring acceptance of intelligent tutoring system with pedagogical agent among high school students

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An intelligent tutoring system (ITS) provides universal access to education, which is an emerging paradigm of modern education. ITS is an educational tool that provides learners with adaptive and real-time instructional content, wherever they happen to be. Learner acceptance is a critical factor for the success of an ITS. Thus, this study investigated learner acceptance of ITS based on the technology acceptance model. Additionally, this study further investigated the effects of pedagogical agents on learners’ acceptance of ITSs. A total of 102 high school students were recruited to use an ITS that was incorporated as a pedagogical agent in their educational process to learn mathematics over a nine-day period. The results reveal that students’ perceived usefulness had the largest effect on their intentions to use the ITS. Furthermore, the social presence of the pedagogical agent has a significant effect on students’ perceived usefulness. Additionally, interpersonal attraction of the agent has a significant effect on its perceived ease of use. This study’s empirical findings provide implications for both theoretical research and the practical development of ITSs that will help education professionals make full use of ITSs and pedagogical agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Keles, A., Ocak, R., Keles, A., Guelcue, A.: ZOSMAT: web-based intelligent tutoring system for teaching–learning process. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(2), 1229–1239 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bourdeau, J., Grandbastien, M.: Modeling Tutoring Knowledge. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2010)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. E. Mousavinasab, N. Zarifsanaiey, R. N. K. Sharareh, M. Rakhshan, L. Keikha, and M. Ghazi Saeedi, “Intelligent tutoring systems: a systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods,” Interact. Learn. Environ. 1–22, 2018

  4. U. Kose and A. Arslan, Optimization of self-learning in Computer Engineering courses: An intelligent software system supported by Artificial Neural Network and Vortex Optimization Algorithm. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2017

  5. B. Grawemeyer, M. Mavrikis, W. Holmes, S. Gutierrez-Santos, and N. Rummel, “Affecting Off-Task Behaviour: How Affect-aware Feedback Can Improve Student Learning,” 2016

  6. D. P. Vinchurkar and M. Sasikumar, “Intelligent Tutoring System for Voice Conversion in English,” 2015

  7. L. Razzaq et al., “The Assistment Project: Blending Assessment and Assisting,” 2005

  8. Q. Brown, F. Lee, D. Salvucci, and V. Aleven, “The Design of a Mobile Intelligent Tutoring System,” 2009

  9. Motiwalla, L.F.: Mobile learning: a framework and evaluation. Comput. Educ. 49(3), 581–596 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A.: Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. 125, 389–412 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Imtiaz, M.A., Maarop, N.: A review of technology acceptance studies in the field of education. J. Teknol. 69, 2 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Corbett, K. Koedinger, and W. Hadley, “Cognitive Tutors: From the Research Classroom to All Classrooms,” Technol. Enhanc. Learn. Oppor. Change, 2001

  13. Heffernan, N., Heffernan, C.: The ASSISTments ecosystem: building a platform that brings scientists and teachers together for minimally invasive research on human learning and teaching. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0024-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Koedinger, K., Anderson, J., Hadley, W., Mark, M.: Intelligent tutoring goes to school in the big city. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 8, 30–43 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Abdullah, Fazil, Ward, Rupert, Ahmed, and Ejaz, “Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios,” Comput. Hum. Behav., 2016

  16. S. Weerasinghe Mrs and M. Hindagolla Dr, “Technology Acceptance Model in the Domains of LIS and Education: A Review of Selected Literature,” Libr. Philos. Pract., vol. 2017, 2017

  17. Almaiah, M.A., Jalil, M.A., Man, M.: Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. J. Comput. Educ. 3(4), 453–485 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu, I.-F., Chen, M., Sun, Y., Wible, D., Kuo, C.-H.: Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to use an Online Learning Community. Comput. Educ. 54, 600–610 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vaidehi, R., Girija, T.: Factors influencing diffusion and continuance of massive open online course (MOOC). Asian J. Manag. 8(3), 731–733 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Y. M. Huang, “Exploring students’ acceptance of team messaging services: The roles of social presence and motivation,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., 2017

  21. Smith, J.A., Sivo, S.A.: Predicting continued use of online teacher professional development and the influence of social presence and sociability. Br. J. Educ. Technol 43, 871–882 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Y. Song and S. C. Kong, “Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform using technology acceptance model,” J. Educ. Comput. Res. 073563311668832, 2017

  23. Sanchez, R.P., Bartel, C.M., Brown, E., Derosier, M.: The acceptability and efficacy of an intelligent social tutoring system. Comput. Educ 78, 321–332 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Karac, A., Piri, Z.: Halil brahim Akyüz, and Gksal Bilgici, “student perceptions of an intelligent tutoring system: a technology acceptance model perspective.” Int. J. Comput. Appl. 182(22), 31–36 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lane, H.C.: Chapter 3 - Pedagogical Agents and Affect: Molding Positive Learning Interactions. In: Tettegah, S.Y., Gartmeier, M. (eds.) Emotions, Technology, Design, and Learning, pp. 47–62. Academic Press, San Diego (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Pareto, L.: A teachable agent game engaging primary school children to learn arithmetic concepts and reasoning. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ4 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-014-0018-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accep. MIS Q. 13, 319 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. 1975

  29. Andrina Granić and Nikola Marangunić, “Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review,” Br. J. Educ. Technol. 4, 2019

  30. **e, B.: Older adults, computers, and the Internet : future directions. Gerontechnology 2, 289–305 (2003). https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2003.02.04.002.00

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Setyohadi, D.B., Aristian, M., Sinaga, B.L.: Nor Aziati, and Abdul Hamid, “social critical factors affecting intentions and behaviours to use e-learning: an empirical investigation using technology acceptance model.” Asian J. Sci. Res. 10, 4 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schroeder, N., Adesope, O., Gilbert, R.: How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? a meta-analytic review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 49, 1–39 (2013). https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.1.a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Krämer, N., Bente, G.: Personalizing e-Learning. the social effects of pedagogical agents. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 71–87 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. J. Lester, S. Converse, S. Kahler, S. Barlow, B. Stone, and R. Bhogal, The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of Animated Pedagogical Agents. 1997

  35. Johnson, W., Lester, J.: Face-to-face interaction with pedagogical agents, twenty years later. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Amy L. Baylor, “The design of motivational agents and avatars,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 2011

  37. Romine et al., “Measuring pedagogical agent persona and the influence of agent persona on learning,” Comput. Educ., 2017

  38. Steffi and Domagk, “Do Pedagogical Agents Facilitate Learner Motivation and Learning Outcomes?,” J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl., 2010.

  39. Y. Kim and A. L. Baylor, “Research-Based Design of Pedagogical Agent Roles: a Review, Progress, and Recommendations”. 26 160–169, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y

  40. A. S. D. Martha and H. Santoso, “The Design and Impact of the Pedagogical Agent: A Systematic Literature Review,” J. Educ. Online, vol. 16, no. 1, 2019.

  41. A. M. S. A, K. A. P. B, B. T. F. B, A. H. O. C. D, M. E. B, and P. K. B, “Social fidelity in virtual agents: Impacts on presence and learning,” Comput. Hum. Behav., vol. 114, 2020

  42. Frymier, A.B., Houser, M.L.: The teacher:student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Commun. Educ. 49(3), 207–219 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Heyes and C., “Born Pupils? Natural Pedagogy and Cultural Pedagogy,” Perspect. Psychol. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 280–295, 2016.

  44. Guo, Y.R., Goh, D.H.-L.: Affect in Embodied Pedagogical Agents: Meta-Analytic Review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 53(1), 124–149 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim, Y., Baylor, A.: Research-Based Design of Pedagogical Agent Roles: A Review, Progress, and Recommendations. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 26, 160–169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Adalgeirsson and Breazeal, “MeBot: A robotic platform for socially embodied telepresence,” 2010

  47. P. Lowenthal, “The Evolution and Influence of Social Presence Theory on Online Learning,” 2009, pp. 124–139

  48. Dikkers, A.G., Whiteside, A.L., Lewis, S.: Virtual high school teacher and student reactions to the social presence model. J. Interact. Online Learn. 12(3), 156–170 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  49. André Tiago Pereira, R. Prada, and A. Paiva, “Improving social presence in human-agent interaction,” 2014

  50. Boston, W., Diaz, S.R., Gibson, A.M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., Swan, K.: An Exploration of the relationship between Indicators of the community of inquiry framework and retention in online programs. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 13(3), 67–83 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  51. L. Shih and K. Swan, “Fostering social presence in asynchronous online class discussions.,” 2005

  52. Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Riecke, B.E., Hatala, M.: It is the quality not quantity that matters: Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 31(6), 638–654 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Swan, K., Day, S.L., Bogle, L.R., Matthews, D.B.: A collaborative, design-based approach to improving an online program. Internet High. Educ. 21, 74–81 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., Wendt, J., Whighting, M., Nisbet, D.: The predictive relationship among the community of inquiry framework, perceived learning and online, and graduate students’ course grades in online synchronous and asynchronous courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 17, 3 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mayer, R.E., Dapra, C.S.: An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. J Exp Psychol Appl 18(3), 239–252 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. S. Ruan et al., “QuizBot: A Dialogue-Based Adaptive Learning System for Factual Knowledge,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2019, pp. 1–13, doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300587.

  57. Byrne, D.M., Griffitt, W.: Interpersonal attraction. Encycl. Appl. Psychol. 24(1), 379–385 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mccroskey, J.C., Hamilton, P.R., Weiner, A.N.: The effect of interaction behavior on source credibility, homophily, and interpersonal attraction. Hum. Commun. Res. 1(1), 42–52 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Davies, A.P.C., Goetz, A.T., Shackelford, T.K.: Exploiting the beauty in the eye of the beholder: The use of physical attractiveness as a persuasive tactic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 45(4), 302–306 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Myers, S.A., Huebner, A.D.: The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and perceived instructor credibility, attractiveness, and homophily. Coll. Stud. J. 45(1), 84–91 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  61. A. P. D. F. Ü. ÇOLAK, “Determining interpersonal attraction in educational environment and the relation with motivation,” Int. J. New Trends Educ. Their Implic. January Febr., vol. 2, pp. 47–56, 2011.

  62. Liu, J., Tomasi, S.D.: The effect of professor’s attractiveness on distance learning students. J. Educ. Online 12, 142–165 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  63. A. H. Ghapanchi, A. Purarjomandlangrudi, A. Mcandrew, and Y. Miao, “Investigating the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student adoption of learning management systems,” Educ. Inf. Technol., no. 1, 2020.

  64. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. W. Chin and P. A. Todd, “On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research,” Mis Q., 1995.

  66. Šumak, B., Hericko, M., Pušnik, M.: A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: the role of user types and e-learning technology types. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 2067–2077 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Chang, C.T., Hajiyev, J., Su, C.R.: Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? the general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning approach. Comput. Educ. 111, 128–143 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Nikou, S., Economides, A.: Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 83–95 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. L. Briz-Ponce, J. A. Juanes-Méndez, F. J. García-Pe?alvo, and A. Pereira, “Effects of mobile learning in medical education: a counterfactual evaluation,” J. Med. Syst. 40 6 1–6, 2016

  70. Short, J., Williams, E., Christie, B.: Communication modes and task performance. Morgan-Kaufman Publishers, Moutain View, CA (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. Dunlap and P. Lowenthal, “The Power of Presence: Our Quest for the Right Mix of Social Presence in Online Courses,” 2014

  72. A. Baylor and A. Plant, Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The influence of agent appearance on female choice. 2005

  73. Hostetter, C., Busch, M.: Community matters: social presence and learning outcomes. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 13(1), 77–86 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Skrypnyk, O., Joksimovic, S., Kovanovic, V., Gasevic, D., Dawson, S.: Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information of a cMOOC. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 16(3), 188–217 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Kim, Y., Baylor, A.: A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. ITLS Fac. Publ. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. E. Berscheid and W. Graziano, “2–The Initiation of Social Relationships and Interpersonal Attraction 1,” Soc. Exch. Dev. Relatsh., pp. 31–60, 1979

  77. Li, J., Kizilcec, R., Bailenson, J., Ju, W.: Social robots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Comput. Hum. Behav. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. R. Khan and A. Sutcliffe, “Attractive agents are more persuasive,” Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2013.839904

  79. E. Park, K. J. Kim, A. P. del Pobil, The effects of a robot instructor’s positive vs. negative feedbacks on attraction and acceptance towards the robot in classroom. 2011

  80. K. Kumar Bhagat, M. T. Rodrigo, and C.-Y. Chang, “Chapter 36 Current States, Challenges, and Opportunities of the Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) in Develo** Countries in Asianull,” Taylor & Francis, 2018

  81. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lee, K.M., Peng, W., **, S.-A., Yan, C.: Can robots manifest personality?: An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human–robot interaction. J. Commun. 56(4), 754–772 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. D. Byrne, R. W. Byrne, and J. Byrne, The attraction paradigm. Academic Press, 1971

  84. C. Ringle, S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker, SmartPLS 3. 2015

  85. Wynne W. Chin and G. Marcoulides, “The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling,” Adv. Hosp. Leis. 8 2, 1998

  86. Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P.: Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 16(1), 78–117 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Van Raaij, E., Schepers, J.: The acceptance and use of virtual learning environment in China. Comput. Educ. 50, 838–852 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Liu, S.-H., Liao, H.-L., Pratt, J.: Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology acceptance. Comput. Educ. 52, 599–607 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Prasad, P.W.C., Maag, A., Redestowicz, M., Hoe, L.: Unfamiliar technology: reaction of international students to blended learning. Comput. Educ (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Hulland, J.: Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg. Manag. J. 20, 195–204 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199902)20:2%3C195::aid-smj13%3E3.0.co;2-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Hundleby, J.D., Nunnally, J.: Psychometric theory. Am. Educ. Res. J. 5(3), 431 (1968). https://doi.org/10.2307/1161962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981). https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. J. Abramson, M. Dawson, and J. Stevens, “An Examination of the Prior Use of E-Learning Within an Extended Technology Acceptance Model and the Factors That influence the behavioral intention of users to use M-Learning,” Sage Open. 5 4. 5/4/2158244015621114, 2015

  95. I. Esteban-Millat, F. J. Martinez-Lopez, M. Pujol-Jover, J. Carlos Gazquez-Abad, and A. Alegret, “An extension of the technology acceptance model for online learning environments,” Interact. Learn. Environ. 26. 5–8. 895–910, 2018

  96. Mohamed and Yeou: An investigation of students’ acceptance of moodle in a blended learning setting using technology acceptance model. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 44(3), 300–318 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, 350108, China

    Han**g Huang

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Bei**g, China

    Han**g Huang, Youjie Chen & Pei-Luen Patrick Rau

Authors
  1. Han**g Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Youjie Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pei-Luen Patrick Rau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pei-Luen Patrick Rau.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, H., Chen, Y. & Rau, PL.P. Exploring acceptance of intelligent tutoring system with pedagogical agent among high school students. Univ Access Inf Soc 21, 381–392 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00835-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-021-00835-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation