Enhancing Public Speaking Practice with Pedagogical Agents in Virtual Learning Environments: A Systematic Review
Keywords:
Virtual learning environment, Pedagogical agents, Public speaking skillsAbstract
This paper presents a systematic literature review on the use of pedagogical agents in virtual learning environments to enhance public speaking skills. The review outlines the search protocol in detail, including the strategy, inclusion, and exclusion criteria that guided the selection of refereed articles. The scope of the review encompasses 42 articles published between 2013 and 2023. These articles explore various public speaking training programs within virtual learning environments and address the limitations of traditional face-to-face training. The findings demonstrate that virtual learning environments allow learners to access content, practice, and assessment, and engage in interactive sessions, regardless of location or time constraints. Three main research areas emerged from the analysis: (1) the components of pedagogical agents in virtual learning environments applicable to public speaking skill training, (2) innovations and features of pedagogical agents that enhance real - life performance, and (3) the integration of teaching and learning theories to develop classroom public speaking skills. Key results indicate that features such as personalized feedback, interactive simulations, and adaptive learning pathways significantly enhance public speaking skills. The analysis also revealed varied results related to the efficacy of pedagogical agents, highlighting an intervention research design approach. This review underscores the potential of pedagogical agents in virtual learning environments to significantly improve public speaking training and contributes to the development of effective educational strategies and practices.
References
Al-Kaisi, A., Arkhangelskaya, A., Rudenko-Morgun, O., & Lopanova, E. (2020). Pedagogical agents in teaching language: types and implementation opportunities. IJAEDU-International E-Journal of Advances in Education, 5(15), 275-285.
Apoki, U. C., Hussein, A. M. A., Al-Chalabi, H. K. M., Badica, C., & Mocanu, M. L. (2022). The role of pedagogical agents in personalized adaptive learning: A review. Sustainability, 14(11), 6442.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Bradley, E. G., & Kendall, B. (2014). A review of computer simulations in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(1), 3–12.
Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2018). Design principles for virtual humans in educational technology environments. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1(20), 416-436.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251-19257.
Dever, D. A., Sonnenfeld, N. A., Wiedbusch, M. D., Chmorrow, G., Amon, M. J., & Azevedo, R. (2023). A complex systems approach to analyzing pedagogical agents’ scaffolding of self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 659-691.
Dwyer, K. K., & Davidson, M. (2021). Take a Public Speaking Course and Conquer the Fear. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 8(2), 255-269.
Frisby, B. N., Kaufmann, R., Vallade, J. I., Frey, T. K., & Martin, J. C. (2020). Using Virtual Reality for Speech Rehearsals: An Innovative Instructor Approach to Enhance Student Public Speaking Efficacy. Basic Communication Course Annual, 32(6).
Grivokostopoulou, F., Kovas, K., & Perikos, I. (2020). The effectiveness of embodied pedagogical agentsand their impact on students learning in virtual worlds. Applied Sciences, 10(5), 1739.
Hixon, E., & So, H. (2009). Technology’s Role in Field Experiences for Preservice Teacher Training. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 294–304.
Hoque, M., Courgeon, M., Martin, J. C., Mutlu, B., & Picard, R. W. (2013). Mach: My automated conversation coach. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 697-706). New York: ACM.
Karl, K. A., & Kopf, J. M. (1993). Guidelines for Using Videotaped Feedback Effectively. Human resource development quarterly, 4(3), 243-256.
Kampmann, I. L., Emmelkamp, P. M., Hartanto, D., Brinkman, W. P., Zijlstra, B. J., & Morina, N. (2016). Exposure to virtual social interactions in the treatment of social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 77, 47–156.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: a review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169.
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Lane, H. C. (2016). Pedagogical Agents and Affect: Molding Positive Learning Interactions. Emotions and Technology, 47-62.
Laureano-Cruces, A. L., Acuña-Garduño, E., Sánchez-Guerrero, L., Ramírez-Rodríguez, J., Mora-Torres, M., & Silva- López, B. R. (2014). A Pedagogical Agent as an Interface of an Intelligent Tutoring System to Assist Collaborative Learning. Scientific Research, 5(8), 619-629.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Liew, T. W., Mat Zin, N. A., & Sahari, N. (2017). Exploring the affective, motivational and cognitive effects of pedagogical agent enthusiasm in a multimedia learning environment. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 7, 1-21.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021). A review of feedback models and theories: Descriptions, definitions, and conclusions. In Frontiers in Education (Vol. 6, p.720195). Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers.
Mabanza, N., & de Wet, L. (2014). Determining the usability effect of pedagogical interface agents on adult computer literacy training. E-Learning Paradigms and Applications: Agent-based Approach, 145-183.
Marinho, A. C. F., de Medeiros, A. M., Gama, A. C. C., & Teixeira, L. C. (2017). Fear of public speaking: Perception of college students and correlates. Journal of Voice, 31(1), 127.e7.
Martha, A. S. D., Santoso, H. B., Junus, K., & Suhartanto, H. (2023). The effect of the integration of metacognitive and motivation scaffolding through a pedagogical agent on self-and co-regulation learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 16(4), 573-584.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 41, 31-48.
McNatt, D. B. (2019). Enhancing public speaking confidence, skills, and performance: An experiment of servicelearning. The international journal of management education, 17(2), 276-285.
van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Educational technology research and development, 63, 381-403.
Munshi, A., Biswas, G., Baker, R., Ocumpaugh, J., Hutt, S., & Paquette, L. (2023). Analysing adaptive scaffolds that help students develop self-regulated learning behaviours. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 351-368.
Nowak, K. L., & Fox, J. (2018). Avatar and Computer-Mediated Communication: A Review of the Definitions, Uses, and Effects of Digital Representation. Review of Communication Research, 6, 30-53.
Putman, A. L. (2019). Reflections on a pedagogical shift: A public speaking for social justice model. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 2, 83-89.
Schneider, J., Börner, D., Van Rosmalen, P., & Specht, M. (2014). Presentation trainer: A toolkit for learning non-verbal public speaking skills. In Open Learning and Teaching in Educational Communities: 9th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2014, Graz, Austria, September 16-19, 2014, Proceedings 9 (pp. 522-525). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Siegle, R. F., Schroeder, N. L., Lane, H. C., & Craig, S. D. (2023). Twenty-five years of learning with pedagogical agents: History, barriers, and opportunities. TechTrends, 67(5), 851-864.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.
Tanveer, M. I., Lin, E., & Hoque, M. E. (2015). Rhema: A Real-Time In-Situ Intelligent Interface to Help People with Public Speaking. In IUI '15: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp.286 – 295). New York: ACM.
Tomaszewski, W., Xiang, N., Huang, Y., Western, M., McCourt, B., & McCarthy, I. (2022). The impact of effective teaching practices on academic achievement when mediated by student engagement: Evidence from Australian high schools. Education Sciences, 12(5), 358.
Wang, I., & Ruiz, J. (2021). Examining the use of nonverbal communication in virtual agents. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(17), 1648-1673.
Zeitlhofer, I., Zumbach, J., & Aigner, V. (2023). Effects of Pedagogical Agents on Learners’ Know Environments. Knowledge, 3(1), 53-67.
Zhou, H., Fujimoto, Y., Kanbara, M., & Kato, H. (2021). Virtual reality as a reflection technique for public speaking training. Applied Sciences, 11(9), 3988.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Suan Dusit University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1 All articles will undergo a formal peer-review. A panel of experts from within or without the university will examine the article; approval from a minimum of two experts is required for publication. Revisions posed by the experts must be completed by the research prior to publication.
2 Once published in the ASEAN Journal of Education, the article becomes intellectual property of Suan Dusit University. Duplication, in full or part, requires permission from Suan Dusit University.
3 Excluding errors incurred during printing, author(s) are responsible for the content of their articles.
