Technological and Classical Pedagogical Agents in Action: How Design Influences Learning in Kenyan Higher Education

https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.6.2.31

Authors

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Classical Agents, Educational Technology, Technological Agents, Student Engagement, Learning Outcomes, Pedagogical Agents

Abstract

This study explores whether classical (classic) or technological pedagogical agents perform better in promoting student interaction and learning outcomes in the Kenyan context.  The study used a mixture of both qualitative and quantitative methods. A total of 200 university students from varying socio-economic backgrounds across Kisumu, Kisii and Homabay counties in Kenya were targeted as the population. A multi-stage stratified random sampling approach was used in order to obtain cases from a range of socio-economic statuses, geographical locations and school types. In addition to pre- and post-test data to measure learning outcomes, focus group data was collected to gain further qualitative insights into student preferences and experiences with the agents. Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and Social Presence Theory provided the theoretical framework for the study, with an emphasis on emotional involvement and the social aspects of learning. Didactic data from the pre- and post-tests were analyzed through paired-samples t-tests to compare the learning outcomes of the experimental and control groups, while measurement of engagement amount was analyzed with an independent t-test to determine the difference between the engagement of those students who interacted with more classical Agents against those who interacted with Technological (Abstract) Agents. Means and standard deviations were calculated using descriptive statistics. Focus group qualitative data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using thematic analysis to extract common themes and insights regarding student preferences and agent efficacy. The findings demonstrate that students engaging with classical agents showed dramatically improved engagement levels (Mean: 4.3, SD = 0.5) and learning outcomes (25% improvement on post-test scores) compared with students using Technological (Abstract) Agents (Mean: 3.5, SD = 0.6; 15% improvement on post-test scores). Similarly, results from inferential statistics bolster these conclusions with a t-test identifying a significant difference in engagement scores (t(198) = 4.82, p < 0.05) and a paired-samples t-test indicating significant gains in learning outcomes associated with classical agents (t(99) = 8.75, p < 0.01). Focus group quantitative data indicated a strong overall preference for classical agents, with emotionally relatable feedback prevalent from qualitative analyses. 70% of urban students preferred classical agents, but rural students preferred both types of agents equally. The results of the study, along with their implications for learning environments in Kenya, suggest there is some promise of classical pedagogical agents enhancing engagement, and hence learning. Further studies are needed to fully understand their long-lasting effects and to better fit them to diverse educational settings to optimize their impact.

Dimensions

Alawneh, Y. J. J., Sleema, H., Salman, F. N., Alshammat, M. F., Oteer, R. S., & ALrashidi, N. K. N. (2024). Adaptive Learning Systems: Revolutionizing Higher Education through AI-Driven Curricula. 2024 International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Communication Systems (ICKECS), 1, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICKECS61492.2024.10616675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICKECS61492.2024.10616675

Alfaro, L., Rivera, C., Luna-Urquizo, J., Castañeda, E., Zuñiga-Cueva, J., & Rivera-Chavez, M. (2020). New trends in pedagogical agents in education. In 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) (pp. 923-928). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI51800.2020.00172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI51800.2020.00172

Baylor, A. L. (2001). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective and motivational outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(5), 713-732. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0464 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0464

Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2021). Malleability, Plasticity, and Individuality: How Children Learn and Develop in Context 1. In The Science of Learning and Development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038016

Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, R. M., Adesope, O. O., & Paas, F. (2021). Effectiveness of Multimedia Pedagogical Agents Predicted by Diverse Theories: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 989-1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2012). Dynamics of affective states during complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 145-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.001

Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J. C., Hernández Alcántara, D., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(3), 909-922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00557-8

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Hobert, S., & Wolff, R. M. von. (2019). Say Hello to Your New Automated Tutor - A Structured Literature Review on Pedagogical Conversational Agents. Wirtschaftsinformatik 2019 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2019/track04/papers/2

Iancu, M. (2014). Socio-cognitive Conflict in Learning Biology-challenge, Solving and Roles. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.214

Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Face-to-Face Interaction with Pedagogical Agents, Twenty Years Later. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0065-9

Jung, I., & Lee, J. (2020). A cross-cultural approach to the adoption of open educational resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12820 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12820

Kibuku, R. N., Ochieng, P. D. O., & Wausi, P. A. N. (2020). e‑Learning Challenges Faced by Universities in Kenya: A Literature Review. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 18(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.004

Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L., & PALS Group. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Education Tech Research Development, 54(2), 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8805-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8805-z

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2007). A theory-based approach for designing distributed learning systems. In Toward a science of distributed learning (pp. 15-39). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11582-002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/11582-002

Kutto, N., & Muchimuti, E. (2024). Equity and Social Inclusion in Higher Education: The Funding Dilemma in Public Universities in Kenya. 10, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.69641/afritvet.2024.91 DOI: https://doi.org/10.69641/afritvet.2024.91189

Kwan, A. (2009). Problem-based Learning. In The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882221-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203882221-8

Lin, C.-C., Huang, A. Y. Q., & Lu, O. H. T. (2023). Artificial intelligence in intelligent tutoring systems toward sustainable education: A systematic review. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00260-y

Lonyangapuo, M. K. (2024). Implication of Language Use in Higher Education Curricula Development and Implementation: A Case of Moi University, Kenya. Research Journal of Education, Teaching and Curriculum Studies, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.58721/rjetcs.v2i2.669 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58721/rjetcs.v2i2.669

Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forrester, G. (2016). Intelligence Unleashed: An Argument for AI in Education. Pearson Education. https://www.pearson.com/uk/educators/subjects/technology/ai-in-education

Lyanda, J. N., Owidi, S. O., & Simiyu, A. M. (2024). Rethinking higher education teaching and assessment in-line with AI innovations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. African Journal of Empirical Research, 5(3), 325-335. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.5.3.30

https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.5.3.30 DOI: https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.5.3.30

Martha, A. S. D., & Santoso, H. B. (2019). The Design and Impact of the Pedagogical Agent: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1204376

https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.8

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Ouyang, F., Zheng, L., & Jiao, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in online higher education: A systematic review of empirical research from 2011 to 2020. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7893-7925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10925-9

Owidi, S. (2023). Artificial intelligence: Reconstructing a new paradigm shift in enhancing ubiquitous learning (U-learning) in higher education. University student's opinion. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSRJRME), 13(4) 01-06. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1304030106

Owidi, S., Omieno, K. K., & Lyanda, J. N. (2024). Exploring the potential of immersive technologies to enhance online learning experiences and engagement: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, 9(9), 2456-2165. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24SEP1144

Owidi, S., Wangila, E., Shiundu, J., & Simiyu, M. (2023). Assessing the prospects and challenges of online learning in Kenyan public universities: A case study of Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology. African Journal of Empirical Research, 4, 1204-1216. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.4.2.122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.4.2.122

Özgür, A., & Altun, A. (2021). Emotional Design and Engagement With Multimedia Learning Materials in E-Learning. In Motivation, Volition, and Engagement in Online Distance Learning (pp. 168-191). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7681-6.ch008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7681-6.ch008

Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective Computing. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001

Popenici, S. A. D., & Kerr, S. (2017). Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(22), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0062-8

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2019). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Salas-Pilco, S. Z., Xiao, K., & Hu, X. (2022). Artificial Intelligence and Learning Analytics in Teacher Education: A Systematic Review. Education Sciences, 12(8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080569 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12080569

Scherer, K. R., Banse, R., & Wallbott, H. G. (2001). Emotion inferences from vocal expression correlate across languages and cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032001009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032001009

Schroeder, N. L. (2017). The Influence of a Pedagogical Agent on Learners' Cognitive Load. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 138-147.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739-755.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12169

Published

2025-05-05

How to Cite

Owidi, S. O., & Lyanda, J. N. (2025). Technological and Classical Pedagogical Agents in Action: How Design Influences Learning in Kenyan Higher Education. African Journal of Empirical Research, 6(2), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.51867/ajernet.6.2.31