Sanal öğrenme ortamlarında sosyal model olarak eğitsel arayüz ajanları

Öğrenci sayısının artması ve bilgi miktarının çoğalması, içeriğin karmaşıklaşması, yaşamboyu öğrenmenin ve bireysel eğitimin önem kazanması, öğrenenlerin zaman ve mekânkısıtlaması olmadan eğitim almak istemeleri sanal öğrenme ortamlarının yaygınlaşmasınayol açmıştır. Sanal öğrenme ortamlarının birçok avantajı olmasına karşın birtakımdezavantajları da bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan biri de öğrenenlerle sosyal etkileşimi sağlamakonusunda yaşanan sınırlılıklardır. Son yıllarda gerçekleştirilen araştırmalar sanalöğrenme ortamlarında öğrenenlerin sosyal etkileşim sağlama konus unda yaşadığısorunların bir kısmını eğitsel a rayüz a janlarıyla giderilebileceğini öngörmektedir. Bumakalede eğitsel arayüz ajanları ve bunların sanal öğrenme ortamları açısından önemi elealınmaktadır. Makalede sunulan bilgiler alan taraması ile elde e dilmiştir. Makalede eğitselarayüz ajanlarının tanımı, karakteristikleri, rol ve işlevleri ile sanal öğrenme ortamlarındaeğitsel arayüz ajanı kullanımından bahsedilmektedir.

Educational interface agents as social models in virtual learning environments

The increase in the number of students and the amount of information, the complexity ofthe content, lifelong learning‟s and individual education‟s becoming more of an issue,learners‟ desire to receive education without limitation of time and place led virtuallearning environments to become widespread. In spite of the fact that virtual learningenvironments hav e a lot of advantages, there are also some disadvantages. One of them isthe limitations experienced in providing social interaction with the learners. The studiescarried out in recent years predict that some parts of problems the learners experienced invirtual learning environments about social interaction could be resolved by means of educational interface agents . In this article, educational interface agents and theimportance of them in terms of virtual learning environments are dealt. Informationp resented in the article was obtained via field survey. Definition of educational interfaceagents, their characteristics, role and functions, and the use of educational interface agentsin virtual learning environments are mentioned in the article.

PDF

___

Akpınar, R. (2004). Duygusal yüz ifadelerini anlama becerisini geliştirmeye yönelik örnek bir öğretim programı. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1).
Andre´ , E., Rist, T., Van Mulken, S., Klesen, M. and Baldes, S. (2000). The automated design of believable dialogues for animated presentation teams. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 220 -255.
Badler, N., Bindiganavale, R., Allbeck, J., Schuler, W., Zhao, L. and Palmer, M. (2000). Parameterized action representation for virtual human agents. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversatio nal Agents, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 256 -284.
Bacaksız, G. (1986). İki boyutludan üç boyutlu görüntüye. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
Ball, G. and Breese, J. (2000). Emotion and personality in a conver sational agent. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 189 -219.
Baylor, A. L. and Kim, Y. (2003). The role of gender and ethnicity in pedagogical agent perception. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3220(2004), p.268 -270.
Be´cheiraz, P. and Thalmann, D. (1998). A behavioural animation system for autonomous actors personified by emotions. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Embodied Conversational Characters (WECC‟98). AAAI and ACM, Tahoe City, CA, p. 57 - 65.
Brenner, W., Zarnekow, R. and Wittig, H. (1998). Intelligent software agents. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Byl, P. and Taylor, J. (2007). A web 2.0/web3d hybrid platform for engaging students in elearning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education -TOJDE, 8(3), Article:7.
Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chan, T.W. (1995). Artificial agents in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), p. 263 -282.
Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W. and Lin, C. J. (2002). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present, and future of educational agents. Computers & Education, 40, p. 255 -269.
Ch urchill, E., Cook, L., Hodgson, P., Prevost, S. and Sullivan, J. (2000). May I help you?‟‟: Designing embodied conversational agent allies. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 64 -94.
Clark, R. and Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA, Pfeiffer.
Craig, D. S., Gholson, B and Driscoll, M. D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), p. 428 -434.
Dalgarno, B., Hedberg, J. and Harper, B. (2002). The contribution of 3D environments to conceptual understanding. Web: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/051.pdf adresinden 10 Eylül 2009 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fan, W., Ling, A., Li, X., Liu, G., Zhan, J., Li, L., Sha, Y. (2009). Interactive GIS - based interface for time - critical application. In Proceedings of D. GO‟2009.
Franklin, S., and Graesser, A.C. (1996). Is it an agent or just a program? A taxon omy for autonomous agents. Proceedings of the agent theories, architectures, and languages workshop. Berlin: Springer -Verlap.
Ghalib, M.F.M. and Ismail, W.M.F.W. (2004). Personalized web agent character: A cognitive and communicative tool for online learning. Web: http://staff.iiu.edu.my/mfeham/index.php?download=Dsv_03_Mohd%20Feham% 20%20Wan%20Fauzy.pdf adresinden 10 Haziran 2009 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Gulz, A. and Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents - A look at their look. International Journal of Human -Computer Studies, 64(4), p. 322 -339.
Hewett, T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G., and Verplank, W. (2004). Curricula for human -computer interaction. 5 Mayıs 2009 tarihinde http://www.acm.org/sigchi/cdg adresinden alınmştır.
Isbister, K. and Nass, C. (1998). Personality in conversational characters: Building better digital interaction partners using knowledge about human personality preferences and perceptions. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Embodied Conversational Characters (WECC‟98). AAAI and ACM, Tahoe City, CA, p. 105 -113.
Işık, İ., Işık, A. H. ve Güler, İ. (2008). Uzaktan eğitimde 3 boyutlu web teknolojilerinin kullanılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 1(2), s.75 -78.
Kim, Y. (2007). Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Department of ITLS Faculty Publications, Utah State University.
Kızılkaya, G. ve Aşkar, P. (2006). Eğitim yazılımlarında yardımcı kullanımı: Eğitsel ajan.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, s. 25 -31 Web: http://193.140.216.63/200631PETEK%20AŞKAR.pdf adresinden 10 Haziran 2009 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Laurel, B. (1997). Interface agent: Metaphors with character. In: J. M. Bra dshaw (Ed.), Software agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lester, J., Towns, S., Callaway, C. and Fitzgerald, P. (1998). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Embodied Conversational Characters (WECC‟98). AAAI and ACM, Tahoe City, CA, p. 67 -76.
Maes, P. (1995). Artificial life meets entertainment: Life like autonomous agents. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), p. 108 -114.
Massaro, D., Cohen, M., Beskow, J. and Cole, R. (2000). Developing an d evaluating conversational agents. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 287 -318.
McCauley, L., Gholson, B., Xiangen, H. and Graesser, A. (1998). Delivering smooth tutorial dialogue using a talking head. In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Embodied Conversational Characters (WECC‟98). AAAI and ACM, Tahoe City, CA, p. 31 -37.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago, IL: Aldine -Atherton.
Moreno, R. (1999). Introducing social cues in multimedia learning: The role of pedagogic agents‟ image and language in a scientific lesson. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Mørch, A. I., Dolonen, J. A. and Nævdal, J. E. B. ( 2005). An evolutionary approach to prototyping pedagogical agents: from simulation to integrated system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 29(2 -3), p. 177 -199.
Nass, C., Steuer, J. and Tauber, E. (1994). Computers are social actors. In: Procee dings of the CHI 1994 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI‟94), New York: ACM Press, p. 72 -78.
Nass, C. and Gong, L. (1999). Maximized modality or constrained consistency. In: Proceedings of the AVSP‟99 Conference, Santa Cruz, CA, p. 1 -5.
Nwana, H.S. (1996). Software agents: An overview. Knowledge engineering review, Vol.11, No.3, p. 205 -244, Cambridge University Press.
Okonkwo, C. and Vassileva, J. (2001). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion. In: C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access in Human - Computer Interaction (UAHCI). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Human - Computer Interaction, New Orleans, USA, p. 397 -401.
Poggi, I. and Pelachaud, C. (2000). Performative facial expressions in animated faces. In: Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., Churchill, E. (Eds.), Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 155 -188.
Poslad S. J., Buckle S.J., and Hadingham R. (2000). The FIPA -OS agen t platform: Open source for open standards. Proceedings of PAAM 2000, Manchester, England.
Russell S. And Norvig P. (2003). Artificial intelligence - a modern approach. 2nd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Salim, S.S., Marzuki, N. and Kasirun, Z. (2007). Modelling the requirements of an animated pedagogical agent for a web -based learning environment through input- process-output relationships. Conference ICL2007, Austria.
Singh, S., Singh Yadav, R., Patel, J. and Anand Singh, P. (2005). Distanc e education and intelligent agent: Trends, techniques and tools. M.G. Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi, India, ICDE International Conference, 2005.
Shoham, Y. (1998). Agent oriented programming. In reading in agents, M.N. Huhns and M.P. Singh (eds.), Morgan -Kau fmann.
Skaalid, B. (1999). Human computer interface design. University of Saskatchewan, Faculty of Education Web site: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/skaalid/theo ry/interface.htm adresinden 23 ağustos 2009 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Suraweera, P. and Mitrovic, A. (2004). KERMIT: A constraint-based tutor for database modeling. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, p. 377 -387.
Taylor, I., McInnes, F., Love, S., Foster, J. and Jack, M. (1998). Providing animated characters with designated personality profiles. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on embodied conversational characters (WECC‟98), AAAI and ACM, Tahoe City, CA, p. 89 -94.
Türkel, A. (2003). İletişim ve beden dili. Web: http://www.denizce.com/bedendili.asp adresinden 10 Eylül 2009 tarihinde alınmıştır.
Veletsianos, G., Scharber, C. and Doering, A. (2008). When sex, drugs, and violence enter the classroom: Conversations between adolescents and a female pedagogical agent. Interacting with Computers, 20, p. 292 -301.
Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 10(2), p. 115 -152.