Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersthey could not have been previously used in the word evaluation task. Half of thesewords had a strong positive valence, the other half a negative one.5.1.3 ProcedureThe main procedure reflected that applied in Experiment 1. Participants were testedindividually in a small room, on a Dell Latitude D600 laptop (screen size 14’’; screenresolution 1400 x 1050 pixels). Each participants was randomly assigned 1 of the 6list developed for the study. Participants were told to evaluate if the word displayedon the screen was a positive or a negative by pressing one of two pre-set keys(assignment of responses to keys was randomized). The animations were to beignored and participants were invited to act as quickly as possible, while maintaininghigh accuracy. The first 10 trials acted as a practice sequence. They were followed by72 experimental trials.At the end of task 1, participants were invited to execute the memory test, by onscreeninstructions. This followed immediately the evaluation task without priornotification. For each word, the participant had to indicate if the word had been or hadnot been previously presented in task 1. At the end of the experiment participantswere thanked and debriefed.5.1.4 DesignWord valence (2: positive versus negative) and animation valence (3: positive,negative and absent) were manipulated in a within-subjects design. The order of thetrials was randomised between participants.5.2 ResultsThe average error rate across all stimulus types was approximately 7%. The meanerror rates for each condition are reported in Table 6, as percentage values computedacross experimental conditions.AnimationWordPositive NegativePositive 6% 10%Negative 10% 6%No animation 5% 3%Table 6. Mean error rates in the 6 experimental conditionsBy comparing the error occurrence in the 4 experimental conditions composed ofwords and animations, a significant effect of consistency emerge (χ 2 =6.54, p < .05).Participants exposed to positive animations were more likely to commit an error whenevaluating a negative word rather than a positive one. Vice versa, participantsexposed to negative words were more likely to commit errors when evaluating apositive word than a negative one.Before the correct reaction times (RT) were analysed, the outliers in each cell wereremoved, using the recursive procedure explained in Experiment 1. A total of 4% ofthe trials were deleted (maximum iterations = 7). The remaining RT data wereaveraged across participants and experimental conditions and entered as dependentDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 20
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersvariables into a 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA, with word (2) and animation (3) asfactors. The analysis returned a strong effect of word F (2,21) = 23.80 p < .001.Animation and the interaction were not significant.Figure 7. Mean reaction times as a function of animation and word (1=positive; 2= negative)Figure 6 illustrates the mean values of reaction times as a function of experimentalcondition. The effect of word is immediately evident: positive words are processedfaster than negative ones. Planned contrasts revealed a significant effect for thecomparison between positive and negative words in combination with a positive or aneutral animation (p < .001), but not in combination to a negative animation.The memory data were analysed selecting only those words which were correctlyresponded to in the first part of the experiment, and the distracters. A total of 19% ofthe trials in the memory test resulted in error. More errors occurred when participantshad to evaluate experimental words (23%), rather than distracters (14%), revealing aconservative response bias (participants tended to answer no). No differences acrossexperimental conditions emerged: participants made the same number of mistakeswhen recognising words which were originally presented as part of consistentcombinations (video and word conveying the same meaning, 21%), inconsistentcombinations (video and word conveying opposite meanings, 25%) or alone (24%).No difference in recognition was found between positive and negative words.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix A page 21
Page 1 and 2:
ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91:
Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 172 and 173: The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 180 and 181: 4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 184 and 185: Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 208: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?