情感教学代理的情绪表达和角色对视频学习的影响:学习者经验的调节作用

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2026.01.07

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 情感教学代理的效果是视频学习领域的热点问题之一。研究通过先前知识经验问卷筛选出196名具有高或低知识经验的大学生,操纵情感代理的情绪表达为积极情绪和中性情绪两个水平,操纵情感代理的角色为教师代理和同伴代理两个水平,探究学习者经验和情感教学代理对大学生视频学习效果的影响。结果发现:(1)积极情感代理有利于提高学习者的积极情绪和保持成绩;(2)学习者先前知识经验调节情感代理的特征(情绪表达和角色)对视频学习效果的影响,积极同伴情感代理可以增强低经验者的积极情绪,同伴情感代理可以提高低经验者感知到的代理参与度,积极情感代理可以提升低经验者的保持成绩,但不同特征的情感代理对高经验者的影响较小。研究结果支持社会代理理论和情绪反应理论,进一步明确了高低经验者在不同情感代理条件下的学习差异。

关键词: 情感教学代理, 情绪表达, 代理角色, 先前知识经验, 视频学习, 大学生

Abstract: The effectiveness of affective pedagogical agent (PA) is one of the hot issues in the field of video-based learning. In order to investigate the impact of learners’ experience and affective PA on video-based learning outcomes, this study selected 196 college students with high or low knowledge experience through prior knowledge test. The emotional expression of affective PA was manipulated at two levels: positive and neutral, and the role of affective PA was manipulated at two levels: teacher agent and peer agent. The results showed that: (1) Positive affective PA was beneficial for improving positive emotions and retention performance; (2) Learners’ experience moderated the effects of the affective PA on video-based learning outcomes. Specifically, for low experienced learners, positive peer affective PA could enhance their positive emotions; peer affective PA could increase their perceived agent engaging; positive affective PA could improve their retention performance. However, for high experienced learners, the impact of different characteristics of affective PA was relatively small. The results support the social agency theory and the emotional response theory, and further provide a new perspective for exploring individual differences in the context of affective PA.

Key words: affective pedagogical agent, emotional expression, role of agent, prior knowledge, video-based learning, college students

王祯, 史保莹, 赵好莉, 郭云飞, 王恩国. 情感教学代理的情绪表达和角色对视频学习的影响:学习者经验的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 60-69.

WANG Zhen, SHI Baoying, ZHAO Haoli, GUO Yunfei, WANG Enguo. Effects of Emotional Expression and Role of Affective Pedagogical Agent on Video Learning: The Moderating Role of Learners’ Experience[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2026, 42(1): 60-69.

参考文献

Altonji, S. J., Baños, J. H., & Harada, C. N. (2019). Perceived benefits of a peer mentoring program for first-year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 31(4), 445-452.
D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Sullins, J., Daigle, R., Combs, R., Vogt, K., … Graesser, A. (2010). A time for emoting: When affect-sensitivity is and isn’t effective at promoting deep learning. In V. Aleven, J. Kay, & J. Mostow (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 6094: Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 245-254). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Endres, T., Weyreter, S., Renkl, A., & Eitel, A. (2020). When and why does emotional design foster learning? Evidence for situational interest as a mediator of increased persistence.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 514-525.
Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology, 22(2), 61-72.
Graesser, A. C. (2016). Conversations with AutoTutor help students learn.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 124-132.
Guo, Y. R., & Goh, D. H.-L. (2015). Affect in embodied pedagogical agents: Meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 124-149.
Horan, S. M., Martin, M. M., & Weber, K. (2012). Understanding emotional response theory: The role of instructor power and justice messages. Communication Quarterly, 60(2), 210-233.
Horovitz, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures.Computers in Human Behavior, 119, Article 106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724
Kalyuga, S.(2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509-539.
Lawson, A. P., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Does the emotional stance of human and virtual instructors in instructional videos affect learning processes and outcomes?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 70, Article 102080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102080
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load.Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058-1072.
Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., & Jayothisa, C. (2013). The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners’ agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement.Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 275-286.
Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., Tan, T. M., & Kew, S. N. (2020). Does speaker’s voice enthusiasm affect social cue, cognitive load and transfer in multimedia learning?Information and Learning Sciences, 121(3), 117-135.
Liew, T. W., Zin, N. A. M., & 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), 1-21.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-017-0089-2
Liew, T. W., Zin, N. A. M., Sahari, N., & Tan, S. M. (2016). The effects of a pedagogical agent’s smiling expression on the learner’s emotions and motivation in a virtual learning environment.International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 17(5), 248-266.
Li, W., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2019). Getting the point: Which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning?Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(8), 1382-1395.
Lockspeiser, T. M., O’Sullivan, P., Teherani, A., & Muller, J. (2006). Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: The value of social and cognitive congruence.Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(3), 361-372.
Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239-252.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
Nguyen, H. (2022). Let’s teach Kibot: Discovering discussion patterns between student groups and two conversational agent designs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 1864-1884.
Nguyen, H. (2023). Role design considerations of conversational agents to facilitate discussion and systems thinking.Computers & Education, 192, Article 104661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104661
Pi, Z., Liu, W., Ling, H., Zhang, X., & Li, X. (2023). Does an instructor’s facial expressions override their body gestures in video lectures?Computers & Education, 193, Article 104679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104679
Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. L. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 291-314.
Searls, D. B., & Lewitter, F. (2012). Ten simple rules for online learning. PLoS Computational Biology, 8(9), Article 1002631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002631
Shangguan, C., Gong, S., Guo, Y., Wang, X., & Lu, J. (2020). The effects of emotional design on middle school students’ multimedia learning: The role of learners’ prior knowledge.Educational Psychology, 40(9), 1076-1093.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later.Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292.
Wang, Y. (2022). To be expressive or not: The role of teachers’ emotions in students’ learning.Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 737310. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.737310
Wang, Y., Feng, X., Guo, J., Gong, S., Wu, Y., & Wang, J. (2022). Benefits of affective pedagogical agents in multimedia instruction. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 797236. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.797236
Wang, Y., Gong, S., Cao, Y., & Fan, W. (2023). The power of affective pedagogical agent and self-explanation in computer-based learning.Computers & Education, 195, Article 104723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104723
Wang, Y., Gong, S., Cao, Y., Lang, Y., & Xu, X. (2023). The effects of affective pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 38, Article 100506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100506
Zhu, J., Yuan, H., Zhang, Q., Huang, P. H., Wang, Y., Duan, S., … Song, P. (2022). The impact of short videos on student performance in an online-flipped college engineering course.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), Article 327. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01355-6
黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民. (2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 17(1), 54-56.
李文静, 童钰, 王福兴, 康素杰, 刘华山, 杨超. (2016). 动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响: 学习者经验与偏好的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 32(4), 453-462.
王燕青, 龚少英, 姜甜甜, 吴亚男. (2022). 情感代理能否提高多媒体学习的效果? 心理科学进展, 30(7), 1524-1535.
王福兴, 李文静, 谢和平, 刘华山. (2017). 多媒体学习中教学代理有利于学习吗?——一项元分析研究. 心理科学进展, 25(1), 12-28.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	赵笑梅, 赵昕睿, 王珂珂. 大学生图文信息知识整合的加工:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 18-27.
[2]	丁越, 刘力嘉, 寇彧. 互联网时代的大学生人际关系满意度:线上积极反馈与感知社会支持的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 39-49.
[3]	魏军, 羿聪, 周溪亭. 大学生基于学业表现的自我价值感与学业内卷行为的关联:基于潜变量增长模型分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 692-700.
[4]	焦姣, 牡丹, 史璐. 亲密关系满意度对大学生主观幸福感的影响:一项日记追踪研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 720-729.
[5]	胡心怡, 陈英和. 大学生新目标投入能力、自我损耗与幸福感的关系:生命意义感的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 348-356.
[6]	谢莉, 金辉, 王志英, 胡宇飞, 杨喜兰, 席娟. 脱贫内生动力对贫困大学生学习投入的影响:自我控制的中介作用和社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 386-397.
[7]	赵笑梅, 程释, 刘子涵, 刘红. 不同语言条件和执行功能对大学生记忆整合的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 153-162.
[8]	廖晨曦, 王大华. 大学生依恋对自尊和人际适应的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 196-205.
[9]	郭滢, 陈晓丹, 刘文志, 刘雨彤, 朱皕. 青少年语义错误记忆发展:学习测验因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 12-21.
[10]	相硕琪, 李亚丹, 叶超群, 杨伟星, 郭习佩, 张玲玲, 胡卫平. 创造焦虑与日常创造力的关系: 认知灵活性和创造性参与过程的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 32-41.
[11]	史滋福, 周志豪, 许磊, 陈火红, 管锦亮, 刘承珍. 父母消极教养方式与大学生恶意创造性行为的关系:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(6): 808-815.
[12]	贾丽娜, 阴晓娟. 抑制差异与错误信息持续影响效应的关系:信息相关度的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(5): 609-615.
[13]	李娇娇, 徐碧波, 袁海龙, 尹锡杨. 社会排斥与大学生恶意创造力的关系: 应对方式和攻击性的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(5): 667-674.
[14]	苏斌原, 郭蒨岚, 谢滨如, 张卫. 大学生自杀潜在风险的测量指标:个人中心分析的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(4): 572-588.
[15]	胡志琴, 熊猛. 相对剥夺感与大学生网络欺凌的关系：道德推脱的中介作用与道德认同的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(3): 346-356.