本研究旨在依據數位教材及教學代理人的相關文獻，發展教學代理人設計的評估工具，並藉由專家意見與實際評估教材個案，來確認評估架構的可行性，最後以評估架構及教材個案評估結果，作為數位教材設計者在發展數位教材之教學代理人的設計規準。研究樣本為數位教材個案共四件，依教學代理人設計的機制分為瀏覽式、教學式、模擬式、及情境式；而教學代理人評估架構，依設計重點分為教學設計(教材呈現、教學引導及評量與回饋)、技術支援(媒體呈現、介面設計及學習導引)、社會呈現(形貌語言、社會互動及社會角色)三面向及九項評估準則。
研究結果發現：(1)教學代理人設計的評估準則重要性排序依次為教學引導、學習導引、教材呈現、評量與回饋、介面設計、社會角色、媒體呈現、社會互動、形貌語言。(2)教學代理人設計評估架構具可行性；(3)教材個案之教學代理人評估結果具中等水準，但與專家對於教學代理人評估準則重要性的看法有所落差；(4)教學代理人設計機制與評估準則關係如下：教學代理人扮演教學者角色，對於教學代理人設計品質有正面的影響；提供解釋性回饋，能使教學代理人在評量與回饋設計上獲得較高的評價；提供適切的學習導引及完善的課程版面操作，能使教學代理人在學習導引設計上獲得較高的評價；強調擬人化效果，能使教學代理人在形貌語言設計上獲得較高的評價；提供同儕楷模、言語激勵與臉部表情回應，能使教學代理人在社會互動設計上獲得較高的評價。

The purpose of this study was to develop and verify the feasibility of an evaluation instrument for the design of pedagogical agent, and to provide guidelines for e-Learning courseware design. The study was developed based on literature review, and questionnaires were adopted for the evaluation of e-Learning courseware. The four courseware evaluated in this study were identified as the browser-based agent, instruction-based agent, simulation-based agent and scenario-based agent based on the design mechanism of pedagogical agent. There were a total of three dimensions and nine sub-criteria in the evaluation framework including instructional design (presentation, instructional guidance, assessment & feedback), technological support (media, interface design, navigation) and social presence (physical cues & language, social interaction, social role).
The results showed that (1) the importance of criteria were ordered as instructional guidance, navigation, presentation, assessment and feedback, interface design, social role, media, social interaction, physical cues and language; (2) the evaluation framework was feasible through investigation; (3) the evaluation revealed that the quality of the four pedagogical agents was acceptable but there was a gap toward the performance evaluation among experts. Finally, it was suggested that the design of an pedagogical agent should provide explanatory feedback and adaptive navigation for enhanceing evaluation and navigation, emphasize persona effect to improve physical cues and language, and provide peer model, motivational comments, and facial expressions to enrich social interactions.

行政院國科會(2002)。數位學習國家型科技計畫總體規劃書。行政院：作者。(Retrieved November 18, 2007, from Web site: www.etaiwanexpo.nat.gov.tw/upload/國家型計畫總體規劃書.pdf)
吳欣宜(2005)。國小卵胎生概念數位教材之設計與建構。國立台北師範學院教育傳播與科技研究所碩士論文，台北市。
吳聲毅(2004)。數位教材製作。台北：金禾。
李怡璇(2003)。探討e-Learning網路教學媒體呈現比較－以基督教中華福音神學院遠距教學為例。國立雲林科技大學資訊管理所碩士論文，台灣，雲林。
李進寶(2001)。e-Learning全球發展趨勢。e世紀新科技網路教學研討會，台北：淡江大學。
林奇賢(2003)。智慧型虛擬人物的情緒反應對網路主題探索式課程學習行為影響之研究。國立台南師範學院資訊教育研究所碩士論文。
林奇賢、林瓊如(2000)。智慧型虛擬人物在輔助網路學習上之應用研究。第四屆全球華人教育資訊科技大會論文集，新加坡。
林雲龍、李天佑(2001)。利用教學代理人機制設計適性學習網頁。第五屆全球華人學習科技研討會暨第十屆國際電腦輔助教學研討會論文集，台灣。
孫光天、朱社君(2001) 。軟體代理人運用於網路適性學習系統之探討。資訊與教育，八十六期，3-8。
陳明溥(2005)。數位教材品質規範之規劃與考量。台大教與學期刊電子報，第 35 期，專家專欄。
陳明溥、莊良寶(1999)。全球資訊網學習環境中學習活動型態與學習成效之探討。1999年台灣區網際網路研討會(TANET'99)，高雄，中山大學。
陳俊隆(2000)。一個多代理人為基礎之智慧型教學代理人。私立逢甲大學資訊工程研究所碩士論文。
經濟部工業局(2005)。數位教材品質規範1.0.4 版。經濟部：作者。(Retrieved November 18, 2007, from Web site: www.elearn.org.tw/eLearn/download/sp3/數位學習教材品質規範.pdf)
賴阿福(2004)。數位化教學與學習環境之變革。國教新知，51(1)。19-32。
Adcock, A. B., & Van Eck, R. (2005). Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(2), 195-217.
Alessi S. M. & Trollip S. R. (1985). Computer-Based Instruction, New Jersey.
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2).
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Baylor, A. & Ebbers, S. (2003). The pedagogical agent split-persona effect: When two agents are better than one. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003 (pp. 459-462). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Baylor, A. & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1).
Baylor, A. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403-425.
Baylor, A. (2002a). Agent-based learning environments for investigating teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249-270.
Baylor, A. (2002b). Expanding preservice teachers' metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 5-22.
Baylor, A. L. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools for education. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36-40.
Baylor, A. L., Shen, E., & Warren, D. (2004). Supporting learners with math anxiety: The impact of pedagogical agent emotional and motivational support. Paper presented at the Workshop on "Social and Emotional Intelligence in Learning Environments," held at the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems., Maceió, Brazil.
Baylor, A. L.,& Ryu, J. (2003). Effects of image and animation on agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4). 373-395.
Berge, Z. L. (1998). Guiding principles in web-based instructional design. Educational Media International, 35(2), 72-76.
Clark, R. E. & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209-225.
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
Craig, S., Driscoll, D. M., & Gholson, B. (2004). Constructing knowledge from dialog in an intelligent tutoring system: Interactive learning, vicarious learning, and pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(12), 163-183.
Fogg, B. J.& Nass, C. (1997). Silicon sycophants: the effects of computers that flatter. International Journal of Human-Computer, 46(5), 551-561.
Graesser, A. C., Moreno, K. N., & Marineau, J. C. (2003). Autotutor improves deep learning of computer literacy: Is it the dialogue or the talking head? Paper presented at the The International Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Sydney, Australia.
Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W. & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environment. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11 , 47-78.
Kim, Y. (2003). The effects of competency and type of interaction of agent learning companion on agent value, motivation, and learning. Paper presented at the Ed-Media, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223-243.
Koohang, A., & Du Plessis, J. (2004). Architecting usability properties in the E-Learning instructional design process. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(3), 38-44.
Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhoga, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Paper presented at the CHI’97 Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine wasy to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia larning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–813.
Mitrovic, A. & Suraweera, P. (2000). Evaluating an animated pedagogical agent. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Prceedings of the 5th International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring System (pp. 73-82). London: Springer-Verlag.
Moreno, R. (2004a). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23-30.
Moreno, R. (2004b). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback on discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science: Special Issue on Cognitive Load Theory, 32, 99-113.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual relity multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Eudcational Psychology, 94, 598-610.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of educational psychology, 96, 165-173.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117-128.
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.
Moundridou, M., & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 253-261.
Okonkwo, C., & Vassileva, J. (2001). Affective pedagogical agents and user persuasion. In Stephanidis, C. (Ed.), Procedings of the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 397-401). New Orleans: AACE.
Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ryu, J. & Baylor, A. L. (2005).The psychometric structure of pedagogical agent persona. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning (TICL), 2(4), 291-319.
van Mulken, S., Andre, E., & Muller, J. (1998). The personal effect: How substantial is it? In H. Johnson, L. Nigay & C. Roast (Eds.), Peoele and computers XIII: Proceedings of HCI’98 (pp. 53-66). Berlin: Springer.