Language Assessment Feedback Towards Pedagogical Conversational Agent

Continuous development of technology provides an opportunity to incorporate feedback in online assessments. The mode of online instruction during the pandemic was the most significant survival change. Technology enabled every teacher and student to enter a virtual classroom to make sense of education. Feedback is part of language instruction and is a powerful key to improving students’ learning performance. Feedback plays an influential and crucial role in teaching and learning. Feedback is an invaluable, ultimate learning tool for learners that aids them in not committing the same error again and creates impetus. Thus, knowing about formative exam feedback is students’ right because quality feedback allures them. Given students’ eagerness, providing feedback is considered a good practice to be followed by all the teaching faculty. Apropos of online feedback, the present study attempts to study how pedagogical agents provide online feedback in language assessments. The study also considers the characteristics of pedagogical conversational agents that are suitable for providing feedback in online language assessment. Simply put, the study encapsulates that screen agents play an essential role in students’ motivation and acceptability of learning through feedback.

Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak and F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385-404). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Andre, T., & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of the adjunct questions, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296-307. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90028-8

Andre, E., Rist, T., & Müller, J. (1999). Employing AI methods to control the behavior of animated interface agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4-5), 415-448. doi:10.1080/088395199117333

Arroyo, I., Burleson, W., Tai, M., Mulder, K., & Woolf, B. P. (2013). Gender differences in the use and benefit of advanced learning technologies for mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 957-969. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032748

Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Individual versus group feedback in cooperative groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(5), 681-694. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9922999

Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111-127. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2190/9LMD-3U28-3A0G-FTQT

Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: What can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00025-2

Badler, N. I., Phillips, B. C., & Webber, B. L. (1993). Simulating humans: Computer graphics, animation, and control. New York: Online Education, Oxford Academic. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195073591.001.0001

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213

Bardach, L., Oczlon, S., Pietschnig, J., & Lüftenegger, M. (2020). Has achievement goal theory been right? A meta-analysis of the relation between goal structures and personal achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1197-1220. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000419

Bates, J., Loyall, A. B., & Reilly, W. S. (1992). An architecture for action, emotion, and social behavior. Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=f53d05a5d8813fb0d7a1676d68bb19a1b04f7855

Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15, 95-115. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=itls_facpub

Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.008

Beege, M., Schneider, S., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2020). Does the effect of enthusiasm in a pedagogical agent’s voice depend on mental load in the learner’s working memory? Computers in Human Behavior, 112. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106483

Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, and M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 505-518). New York: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144 & 146-148. http://edci770.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/48124468/BlackWiliam_1998.pdf

Bringula, R. P., Fosgate, I. C. O., Garcia, N. P. R., & Yorobe, J. L. M. (2018). Effects of pedagogical agents on students’ mathematics performance: A comparison between two versions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(5), 701-722. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117722494

Bosseler, A., & Massaro, D. W. (2003). Development and evaluation of a computer-animated tutor for vocabulary and language learning in children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord, 33, 653-672. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000006002.82367.4f

Bremner, D. J., Kernec, J. L., Fioranelli, F., Dale, V. H. M., & Rattadilok, P. (2018). The use of multiple-choice questions in 3rd-year electronic engineering assessment: A case study. In IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 887-892). Wollongong, Australia. doi:10.1109/TALE.2018.8615153

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/1170684

Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

Cassell, J., Pelachaud, C., Badler, N., Steedman, M., Achorn, B., Becket, T., ... Stone, M. (1994, July). Animated conversation: Rule-based generation of facial expression, gesture, and spoken intonation for multiple conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (pp. 413-420). Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/192161.192272

Cassell, J., & Thorisson, R. (1999). The power of a nod and a glance: Envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4-5), 519-538. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/088395199117360

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, 989-1015. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09587-1

Chan, T. W., & Baskin, A. B. (1990). Learning companion systems. Intelligent Tutoring Systems: At the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence and Education, 1, 6-33. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ecdd2765fd02151cd7398d330f2e089/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Chen, Z. H., & Chen, S. Y. (2014). When educational agents meet surrogate competition: Impacts of competitive educational agents on students’ motivation and performance. Computers & Education, 75, 274-281. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.014

Chew, E. (2014). “To listen or to read?” Audio or written assessment feedback for international students in the UK. On the Horizon, 22(2), 127-135. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-07-2013-0026

Chiou, E. K., Schroeder, N. L., & Craig, S. D. (2020). How we trust, perceive, and learn from virtual humans: The influence of voice quality. Computers & Education, 146, 103756. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104039

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 267-286. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 27, 2024 from Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/9270/

Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114, 193-205. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.003

Davis, R. O., Vincent, J., & Wan, L. (2021). Does a pedagogical agent’s gesture frequency assist advanced foreign language users with learning declarative knowledge? Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 18, Article 21. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00256-z

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

D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153-170. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003

Dennis, M., Masthoff, J., & Mellish, C. (2015). Adapting progress feedback and emotional support to learner personality. Int J Artif Intell Educ, 26, 1-47. Retrieved from https://doi: 10.1007/s40593-015-0059-7

Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 557-573. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x

Elliott, C., & Brzezinski, J. (1998). Autonomous agents as synthetic characters. AI Magazine, 19(2), 13-30. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1609/aimag.v19i2.1366

Elliot, A., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613

Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903197883

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2021). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. Mayer and L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Cambridge handbooks in psychology) (pp. 185-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108894333.019

Frasson, C., Mengelle, T., Aïmeur, E., & Gouardères, G. (1996). An actor-based architecture for intelligent tutoring systems. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Third International Conference, ITS’96 Montréal, Canada, June 12-14, 1996 Proceedings 3 (pp. 57-65). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-61327-7_101

Frechette, C., & Moreno, R. (2010). The roles of animated pedagogical agents’ presence and nonverbal communication in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000009

Gulz, A., Haake, M., Silvervarg, A., Sjödén, B., & Veletsianos, G. (2011). Building a social conversational pedagogical agent: Design challenges and methodological approaches. In Conversational agents and natural language interaction: Techniques and effective practices (pp. 128-155). Pennsylvania: IGI Global. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309107405_Building_a_Social_Conversational_Pedagogical_Agent-Design_Challenges_and_Methodological_Approaches

Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970

Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An intelligent tutoring system incorporating a model of an experienced human tutor. In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouardères, and F. Paraguaçu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2002. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 2363 (pp. 596-608). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47987-2_61

Harmer, J., & Lethaby, C. (2005). Just right (upper intermediate) teacher’s book. London: Marshall Cavendish.

Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 263-285). New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839089

Hone, K., Axelrod, L., & Parekh, B. (2005). Development and evaluation of an empathic tutoring agent. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Virtual Social Agents (pp. 103-108). University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. Retrieved from https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/232516446/Proceedings_AISB_2005.pdf#page=116

Huimin, Z. (2006). Peer evaluation. Modern English Teacher, 15(2), 37-41.

Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 422-449. doi:10.1037/a0018947

Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4) 279-285. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.279

Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47-78. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d5ca5efdecba2707aab57d4cb2df008a7ecdd0dd

Johnson, A., Ozogul, G., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Pedagogical agent signaling of multiple visual engineering representations: The case of the young female agent. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(2), 319-337. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20009

Kawaguchi, S., & Ma, Y. (2012). Corrective feedback, negotiation of meaning and grammar development: Learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction in ESL. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(2), 57-70. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=476614

Klimova, B. (2015). The role of feedback in EFL classes. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 172-177. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.502

Korner, I. N., & Brown, W. H. (1952). The mechanical third ear. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16(1), 81-84. doi:10.1037/h0061630

Kozlova, I. (2010). Ellis’s corrective feedback in a problem-solving context. ELT Journal, 64(1), 95-97. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp064

Lang, Y., Xie, K., Gong, S., Wang, Y., & Cao, Y. (2022). The impact of emotional and elaborated feedback of a pedagogical agent on multimedia learning. Front Psychol, 13, 810194. Retrieved from https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.810194

Laureano-Cruces, A., Acuña-Garduño, E., Sánchez-Guerrero, L., Ramírez-Rodríguez, J., Mora-Torres, M., & Silva-López, B. (2014). A pedagogical agent as an interface of an intelligent tutoring system to assist collaborative learning. Creative Education, 5, 619-629. doi:10.4236/ce.2014.58073

Lin, L., Atkinson, R., Christopherson, R. M., Joseph, S. S., & Harrison, C. J. (2013). Animated agents and learning: Does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Computers & Education, 67, 239-249. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.017

Makransky, G., Wismer, P., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 349-358. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335

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. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22642688/

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. Retrieved from https://speakeasydesigns.com/SDSU/student/640/pedagogical%20agents/Moreno.pdf

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021811.66966.1d

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.165

Motley, M. T., & Camden, C. T. (1988). Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52(1), 1-22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318809389622

Muniady, V., & Mohamad Ali, A. Z. (2020). The effect of valence and arousal on virtual agent’s designs in quiz based multimedia learning environment. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 903-920. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1270816.pdf

Munro, A. (1993). Authoring interactive graphical models for instruction. In D. M. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning. NATO ASI Series (Vol. 122). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78539-9_3

Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug-related tutoring feedback in a computer-based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16(4), 310-322. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.003

Narciss, S. (2012). Feedback in instructional contexts. In Encyclopedia of the learning sciences, Volume F (6) (pp. 1285-1289). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_282

Nielsen, A. M. V., Daugaard, H. T., Scavenius, C., & Juul, H. (2022). Combining morphological and contextual strategy instruction to enhance word learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 112, 101920. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101920

Ozuru, Y., Briner, S., Kurby, C., & McNamara, D. (2013). Comparing comprehension measured by multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 67, 215-227. doi:10.1037/a0032918

Padgett, C., Moffitt, R. L., & Grieve, R. (2021). More than words: Using digital cues to enhance student perceptions of online assignment feedback. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100789. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100789

Peng, X., Chen, H., Wang, L., Tian, F., & Wang, H. (2020). Talking head-based L2 pronunciation training: Impact on achievement emotions, cognitive load, and their relationships with learning performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(16), 1487-1502.

Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. Retrieved from https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~julia/papers/P&H90.pdf

Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Mellish, C. (2013). Modelling human tutors’ feedback to inform natural language interfaces for learning. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 71(6), 703-724. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.02.002

Reategui, E., Polonia, E., & Roland, L. (2007). The role of animated pedagogical agents in scenario-based language e-learning: A case-study. Conference ICL2007. September 26-28, 2007, Villach, Austria. Retrieved from https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00257120/document

Riordan, T., & Loacker, G. (2009). Collaborative and systemic assessment of student learning: From principles to practice. In G. Joughin (Ed.), Assessment, learning and judgement in higher education (pp. 1-18). Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3_10

Rock, M. L., Schumacker, R. E., Gregg, M., Howard, P. W., Gable, R. A., & Zigmond, N. (2014). How are they now? Longer term effects of e coaching through online bug-in-ear technology. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(2), 161-181. Retrieved from https://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Rock_How_2014.pdf

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003

Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Game design and meaningful play. In Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 59-79). http://www.waffler.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Game-Design-and-Meaningful-Play.pdf

Salim, S. S., Marzuki, N., & Kasirun, Z. (2007). Modelling the requirements of an animated pedagogical agent for a web-based learning environment through input-process-output relationships. Conference ICL2007. September 26-28, Villach, Austria.

Scheeler, M. C., McAfee, J. K., Ruhl, K. L., & Lee, D. L. (2006). Effects of corrective feedback delivered via wireless technology on preservice teacher performance and student behavior. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29(1), 12-25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640602900103

Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 183-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schmidt, S., Nunez, O. J. A., & Steinicke, F. (2019, October). Blended agents: Manipulation of physical objects within mixed reality environments and beyond. In Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (pp. 1-10). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3357251.3357591

Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229-251. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888265

Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183-204. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597625

Schroth, M. L. (1992). The effects of delay of feedback on a delayed concept formation transfer task. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(1), 78-82. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90048-4

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. Retrieved from https://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/shute%202008_b.pdf

Sikstrom, P., Valentini, C., Sivunen, A., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2022). How pedagogical agents communicate with students: A two-phase systematic review. Computers & Education, 188, 104564. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104564

Stahl, D. (2021). Secondary classroom teachers’ beliefs and decision making regarding the use of feedback to improve student learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)). Staff assessment handbook. Examples of Online Assessment (12/16/2022). The University of Waikato. Retrieved from https://www.waikato.ac.nz/staff/assessment-handbook/assessment-types/online-assessment-examples

Stiles, M., & Martin, L., (1998). Virtual environments for training. Lockheed Martin advanced technology, Center Palo alto, CA. NASA, (19980217089). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA355853.pdf

Sullivan, H., & Higgins, N. (1983). Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED231763

Taylor, L., Oostdam, R., & Fukkink, R. G. (2022). Standardising coaching of preservice teachers in the classroom: Development and trial of the Synchronous Online Feedback Tool (SOFT). Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, Article 103780. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103780

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching: Practice & theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://sacunslc.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/penny-ur-a-course-in-language-teaching-practice-of-theory-cambridge-teacher-training-and-development-1996.pdf 

Van der Lans, R. M., van de Grift, W. J., & van Veen, K. (2015). Developing a teacher evaluation instrument to provide formative feedback using student ratings of teaching acts. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(3), 18-27. doi:10.1111/emip.12078

Valenzuela, A. (2005). Subtractive schooling, caring relations, and social capital in the schooling of US-Mexican youth. In Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 83-94). Albany: State University of New York Press. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/44442088/Subtractive_schooling_caring_relations_and_social_capital_in_the_schooling_of_US_Mexican_youth

Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13, 144-166. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1078

Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1589-1598. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.03.004

Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250-268. doi:10.1037/edu0000221

Yılmaz, R., & Kılıç-Çakmak, E. (2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education, 59(2), 828-838. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.020

Zaman, M. M., & Azad, M. A. K. (2012). Feedback in EFL writing at tertiary level: Teachers’ and learners’ perceptions. ASA University Review, 6(1), 139-156. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374166114

Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2020). Learning to improve the quality peer feedback through experience with peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 973-992. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1833179