ogy has to offer. Looking back at what the field has
accomplished makes us anticipate even more eagerly
the new developments yet to come.
The authors wish to thank our colleagues who con-
tributed to the work described in this article, as well
as those who reviewed it and provided comments.
This research was supported in part by the National
Science Foundation under Grants IIS-1321056, IIS-
1344803, and IIS-1409639. Any opinions, findings,
and conclusions expressed in this material are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.
2. See Alelo’s Enskill Platform Expands into Sixteen Countries,
3.. See Cloud-Based Cognitive Services for Learning,
Baker, R.; D’Mello, S.; Rodrigo, M.; and Graesser, A. 2010.
Better to be Frustrated than Bored: The Incidence, Persist-
ence, and Impact of Learners’ Cognitive–Affective States
During Interactions with Three Different Computer-Based
Learning Environments. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 68( 4): 223-241. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.
Baylor, A., and Kim, Y. 2004. Pedagogical Agent Design: The
Impact of Agent Realism, Gender, Ethnicity, and Instructional Role. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 592–603. Berlin: Springer.
Bickmore, T., and Cassell, J. 2005. Social Dialogue with
Embodied Conversational Agents. In Advances in Natural
Multimodal Dialogue Systems, edited by J. van Kuppevelt, L.
Dybkjaer, and N. Bernsen, 23–54. Berlin: Springer.
Bickmore, T.; Pfeifer, L.; and Schulman, D. 2011. Relational
Agents Improve Engagement and Learning in Science Museum Visitors. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on
Intelligent Virtual Agents, 55–67. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science 6895. Berlin: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
Biswas, G.; Leelawong, K.; Schwartz, D.; and Vye, N. 2005.
Learning by Teaching: A New Agent Paradigm for Educational Software. Applied Artificial Intelligence 19( 3–4): 363–
Cai, Z.; Feng, S.; Baer, W.; and Graesser, A. C. 2014. Instructional Strategies in Trialogue-based Intelligent Tutoring Systems. In Instructional Management, 225–235. Design Recommendations for Intelligent Tutoring Systems, edited by R.
Sottilare, A. C. Graesser, X. Hu, and B. Goldberg, vol. 2.
Orlando, FL: US Army Research Laboratory.
Calvo, R.; and D’Mello, S. 2010. Affect Detection: An Interdisciplinary Review of Models, Methods, and Their Applications. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 1( 1): 18-37.
Chase, C.; Chin, D.; Oppezzo, M.; and Schwartz, D. 2009.
Teachable Agents and the Protégé Effect: Increasing the Effort
Towards Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology
18( 4): 334–352. doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9180-4
Chi, M.; Bassok, M.; Lewis, M.; Reimann, P.; and Glaser, R.
1989. Self-Explanations: How Students Study and Use
Examples in Learning to Solve Problems. Cognitive Science
13( 2): 145–182. doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1
Chou, C.; Chan, T.; and Lin, C. 2003. Redefining the Learning Companion: The Past, Present, and Future of Educational Agents. Computers and Education 40( 3): 255–269.
Clark, R. 2001. Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis, and
Evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., and Choi, S. 2007. The Questionable Benefits of
Pedagogical Agents: Response to Veletsianos. Journal of Educational Computing Research 36( 4): 379–381. doi.org/10.
Council of Europe. 2017. The CEFR Levels. Strasbourg, France:
The Council of Europe. www.coe.int/en/web/common-euro-pean-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions
D’Mello, S., and Kory, J. 2015. A Review and Meta-Analysis
of Multimodal Affect Detection Systems. ACM Computing
Surveys 47( 3), 43. doi.org/10.1145/2682899
Figure 8. Dialogue with a Robotic Pedagogical Agent.
©Alelo Inc. Reprinted with permission.