How Virtual Teacher Fidelity and Communication Affect Learning Satisfaction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/bp841717Keywords:
Virtual Teacher, Fidelity, Communication Style, Learning Satisfaction, Social PresenceAbstract
With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and virtual reality technologies, virtual teaching systems have been increasingly adopted in higher education. Although current implementations remain largely in their early stages and exhibit varying degrees of effectiveness, virtual teachers have demonstrated considerable potential in supporting students and enhancing their learning experiences. Nevertheless, systematic empirical research on the effective design of instructional models for virtual teachers is still lacking. To address this gap, the present study investigates the effects of virtual teacher fidelity (humanoid vs. cartoon) and communication style (social vs. task-oriented) on learning satisfaction, drawing on the Computers-as-Social-Actors paradigm and Social Presence Theory. A 2×2 between-subjects factorial experiment (fidelity type×communication style) was conducted with 196 college student participants to examine the interaction effects between the two factors. The results revealed that: (1) there was a significant interaction between fidelity type and communication style; specifically, under the social communication condition, humanoid virtual teachers led to a significantly greater increase in learning satisfaction compared to their cartoon counterparts, whereas this advantage was not observed under the task-oriented communication condition; and (2) social presence mediated the interactive effect of fidelity and communication style on learning satisfaction. These findings contribute to the theoretical development of human–computer interaction in virtual educational contexts and offer practical implications for the design of pedagogical virtual agents and the optimization of communication strategies.
Downloads
References
[1] Zhong, Z., Zou, X., Jin, S., Li, K., & Huang, J. (2025). The impact of virtual teachers on learners in collaborative inquiry activities: An experimental study. Education and Information Technologies.
[2] Yang, D., Zhang, J., Sun, Y., et al. (2024). Showing usage behavior or not? The effect of virtual influencers’ product usage behavior on consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 79, 103859. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j. jretconser. 2024.103859.
[3] Abdulrahman, A., Hopman, K., & Richards, D. (2024). Do Not Freak Me Out! The Impact of Lip Movement and Appearance on Knowledge Gain and Confidence. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 8(3), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti8030022.
[4] Chopicki, W. (2017). Communication Styles – An Overview. Styles of Communication, 9(2).
[5] Kim, J., Merrill, K., Xu, K., & Sellnow, D. D. (2021). I like my relational machine teacher: An AI teacher’s communication styles and social presence in online education. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(18), 1760–1770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1915294.
[6] Nass, C., Steuer, J., & Tauber, E. R. (1994, April). Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72–78). https:// doi. org/10.1145/191666.191703.
[7] Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons.
[8] Kim, H., & Park, M. (2024). When digital celebrity talks to you: How human-like virtual influencers satisfy consumer’s experience through social presence on social media endorsements. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 76, 103581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103581.
[9] Nowak, K. L., & Biocca, F. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users' sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270.
[10] Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09631-7.
[11] Sun, P. C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y. Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.06.004.
[12] Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. chb. 2017. 01.026.
[13] Hartanto, A., Toh, W. X., & Yang, H. (2018). Context counts: The different implications of weekday and weekend video gaming for academic performance in mathematics, reading, and science. Computers & Education, 120, 51–63. https://doi. org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.007.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Academic Journal of Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
