Document Type : Research Paper


Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran


The present study aimed to satisfy a twofold purpose: On the one hand, it sought to verify the postulation that agent-based instruction could offer a compromise approach to teaching L2 idioms where form and meaning would be equally emphasized during instruction. Given that anthropomorphism has not been much under scrutiny, this research, on the other hand, sought to ascertain whether learning and retention of English idioms would be differentially impacted when two different modalities of virtual tutors —anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic— were present in the tutorial. To this aim, the participants of the study received instruction on 128 English idioms from human teachers, a multimedia application featuring a humanoid virtual teacher, or a piece of multimedia courseware with a non-anthropomorphic virtual tutor. Analysis of the post-intervention measures of L2 idiom knowledge revealed that agent-based instruction had proved more effective in improving both learning and retention of the target idioms among the participants. A further finding was that despite the greater motivational benefits of the humanoid virtual tutor, it had not privileged the participants, performance-wise.


Abel, B. (2003). English idioms in the first language and second language lexicon: A dual representation approach. Second Language Research, 19(4), 329-358.

Allen, L. K., Crossley, S. A., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). L2 writing practice: Game enjoyment as a key to engagement. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 124-150. Retrieved from

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–147). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Babaie, H. (2008). On the effects of help options in MCALL programs on the listening comprehension of EFL learners. TELL Journal, 2(6), 27-47.

Boers, F., Demecheleer, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2004). Cross‐cultural variation as a variable in comprehending and remembering figurative idioms. European Journal of English Studies, 8(3), 375‐388.

Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & R. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99-136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cambridge University Press. (2013). Cambridge IELTS 9: Authentic examination papers from Cambridge ESOL. New York: Cambridge.

Cameron, L., & Low, G. (1999). Metaphor. Language Teaching, 32(1), 77-96.

Carlotto, T., & Jaques, P. A. (2016). The effects of animated pedagogical agents in an English-as-a-Foreign-Language learning environment. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 90,1-32.

Cassell, J., & Thorisson, K. (1999). The power of a nod and a glance: envelope vs. emotional feedback in animated conversational agents. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 13(4), 519- 538.

Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Student’s strategies with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal, 7(2), 25-47.

Chen, Y., C., & Lai, H., L. (2013). Teaching English idioms as metaphors through cognitive-oriented methods: A case in an EFL writing class. English Language Teaching, 6(6), 13-20.

Clarebout, G., Elen, J., Johnson, W. L., & Shaw, E. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: An opportunity to be grasped? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 77(3), 267-286.

Collentine, K. (2001). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3d world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 50-67.

Corbeil, G. (2007). Using the French tutor multimedia package or a textbook to teach two French past tense verbs: Which approach is more effective? CALICO Journal, 24(2), 313-330. Retrieved from

Dai, J., Raine, B. R., Roscoe, R., Cai, Z., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The Writing-Pal tutoring system: Development and design. Journal of Engineering and Computer Innovations, 2(1), 1-11.

Duffy, M. C., & Azevedo, R. (2015). Motivation matters: Interactions between achievement goals and agent scaffolding for self-regulated learning within an intelligent tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 338-348.

Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers and Education, 49(3), 677-690.

Ergül, E., & Koç, M. (2013). The role of animated agents in web-based distance education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 1016-1022.

Graesser, A. C., Person, N., Harter, D. (2001). Teaching tactics and dialog in AutoTutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 257-279.

Grant, L. E. (2003). A corpus-based investigation of idiomatic multiword units. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents - A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322-339.

Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? A Review of Empirical Research. Educational Research Review, 6, 27-54.

Heift, T. (2007). Learner personas in CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(1), 1-10.

Hongpaisanwiwat, C., & Lewis M. (2003) Attentional effect of animated character. In M. Rauterberg, M. Menozzi, & J. Wesson (Eds.), Human-computer interaction-INTERACT '03 (pp. 423-430). Nieuwe Hemweg, Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning31(2), 97-115.

Johnson, J., & Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor interpretation and second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics 14, 159-175.

Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 41, 41-78.

Laborda, J. G. (2010). Contextual clues in Semi-direct interviews for computer assisted language testing. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3591-3595.

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. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 275–286.

Massaro, D. W., & Cohen, M. M. (1994). Visual, orthographic, phonological, and lexical influences in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1107-1128.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.

Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in high-tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 63-67.

Nippold, M. A., & Duthie, J. K. (2003). Mental imagery and idiom comprehension: A comparison of school-age children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 788-799.

Noma, T., & Badler, N. I. (1997). A virtual human presenter. Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Animated Interface Agents: Making Them Intelligent. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education, 67, 36-50.

Paivio, A., & Walsh, M. (1993). Psychological processes in metaphor comprehension and memory. In A. Ortony. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 307-328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th Ed.). NY: Open University Press.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, televisions, and new media like real people and places. University Press, Stanford, California.

Ryu, J., & Baylor, A. (2005). The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Tech., Inst., Cognition and Learning, 2, 291-314.

Sahimi, S. M., Zain, F. M., Kamar, N. A. N., Samar, N., Rhman, Z. A., Majid, O., Luan, W. S. (2010). The pedagogical agent in online learning: Effects of the degree of realism on achievement in terms of gender. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 175-185.

Sklar, E., & Richards, D. (2010). Agent-based systems for human learners. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 25(2), 1–25.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory from multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138.

Toyoda, E. (2001). Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 2(2), Retrieved from

Van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. (2015). Animated pedagogical agents’ effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment. Education Tech Research Dev, 63, 381-403.

Vasiljevic, Z. (2015). Effects of etymology and pictorial support on the retention and recall of l2 idioms. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12(1), 35-55.

Veletsianos, G., & Miller, C. (2008). Conversing with pedagogical agents: A phenomenological exploration of interacting with digital entities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 969-986.

Yılmaz, R., & Kılıç-Cakmak, E. (2012). Educational interface agents as social models to influence learner achievement, attitude and retention of learning. Computers & Education, 59, 828-838.

Yung, H. I., & Pass, F. (2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153-160.