1. 1 The Effects of Competency and Type of Interaction of Agent Learning Companion on Agent Value, Motivation, and Learning 指導教授： Chen, Ming-puu 報告者 ： Chang, Chen-Ming 報告日期： 2006. 12. 19 Kim, Y. & Shen, E. (2003). The Effects of Competency and Type of Interaction of Agent Learning Companion on Agent Value, Motivation, and Learning. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 811-814). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

2. 2 Introduction(1/4) The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of competency (high vs. low) and the type of interaction of a learning companion (proactive vs. responsive) on agent value, motivation, and learning. Research has revealed that peer partners are often more effective than adult partners for learning and motivation in various subject areas across age (Griffin & Grinffin, 1998; King, 1998; & Rowell, 2002). Competency referred to how knowledgeable LC was (high vs. low). Interaction referred to who, LC or the learner, would initiate the interaction in performing the tasks (proactive vs. responsive).

3. 3 Introduction(2/4) According to Vygotsky’s concept of a zone of proximal development (1978), learners can grow intellectually beyond the limit of their actual capabilities through collaboration with more capable others. This perspective likely suggests LC’s higher competency and proactive guidance for the learner

4. 4 Introduction(3/4) Piaget (1962) argued that equal power relations with others allow the learner to actively engage in argument and lead to intellectual development. In this perspective, LC may not necessarily command advanced knowledge; instead, bring forth his own ideas to proceed to the learning tasks.

5. 5 Introduction(4/4) The learners in high competency conditions would score higher on agent value than those in low competency conditions. The learners in the high competency and responsive interaction condition would score higher on learning than those in the other three conditions. The learners in responsive interaction conditions would score higher on motivation than those in proactive interaction conditions.

6. 6 Method(1/3) Participants – Participants were 72 undergraduates (29% male and 71% female) Material – MIMIC (Multiple Intelligent Mentors Instructing Collaboratively) – MIMIC was designed to help students develop instructional plans and included three phases of Case Study, Blueprints, and Plan.

7. 7 Method(2/3) Independent Variables – Competency had two levels (High vs. Low), which were operationalized by LC’s comments. – The type of interaction had two levels (Proactive vs. Responsive). Dependent Variables – agent value, motivation, and learning.

8. 8 Method(3/3) Procedure – The participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: High-Proactive, High-Responsive, Low-Proactive, and Low-Responsive. – The participants were given as much time as they needed to finish each phase of the tasks. – The participants answered the post-tests consisting of two sections: Section 1 (recall and transfer) and Section 2 (agent value and motivation).

9. 9 Results(1/3) The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). With alpha set at.05, and with 15 subjects per treatment group.

10. 10 Results(2/3) Agent value – The results revealed a significant main effect for competency F (1, 68) =29.27, p<.000. Students in high competency conditions (M =3.58) scored significantly higher than those in low competency conditions (M = 2.57) on agent value. Learning – The results revealed a significant main effect for competency on recall F (1, 65) =12.6, p<.001. Students in high competency conditions (M =3.57) scored significantly higher on recall than those in low competency conditions (M = 1.86).

11. 11 Results(3/3) Motivation – The statistical results did not support the third hypothesis that the learners in responsive interaction conditions would score higher on motivation than those in proactive interaction conditions. – A significant main effect for competency F (1, 68) =12.74, p<.001. Students in high competency conditions (M =3.14) scored significantly higher than those in low competency conditions (M = 2.53). – There was a significant interaction effect between competency and type of interaction F (1, 68) =6.24, p<.02. The learners in high competency and responsive interaction condition (High- Responsive) scored significantly higher (M = 3.28) than those in other three conditions: High-Proactive (M = 2.99), Low-Proactive (M =2.78), and Low-Responsive(M = 2.13).

12. 12 Discussion The participants perceived that LC with high competency was helpful and valuable for their learning. Overall, the mean scores of high competency and responsive interaction condition was highest on both agent value and motivation. The findings of the study provide an implication that the design of an agent learning companion can be flexible to learning contexts.