Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026)
Opening Issue

Practical contribution from school and university

AI Avatars in Learning Scenarios: Prompting and Characteristics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5282/breakingbarriers/13

Published 2026-05-13

  • Judith Zellner
    • ,
  • Carina Galler
    • ,
  • Daniel Götz
    • ,
  • Bernhard Ertl

Judith Zellner
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

Carina Galler


Daniel Götz


Bernhard Ertl


Abstract

This practice contribution focuses on interactive learning with artificial intelligence (AI), specifically learning environments in which learners communicate with AI avatars through natural spoken-language discourse. These scenarios differ from earlier approaches, such as intelligent tutoring systems or pedagogical agents, through their high interactivity, natural language flow, and the capacity of current Large Language Models (LLMs) to support open communication about almost any content. This enables educators to configure and deploy diverse learning scenarios at different difficulty levels, including algebra tutoring, virtual patient simulations in medical education, peer-feedback role-plays in special education, and interactive teachers in STEM education. However, it remains unclear how such scenarios should be configured regarding interaction and appearance. Regarding interaction, the broad affordances of LLMs must be narrowed to specific learning situations with defined goals. Prompting must therefore constrain the LLM so that it provides authentic and motivating dialogue without deviating from the intended learning objectives. Strong responsiveness to learners may increase authenticity and motivation but risk losing instructional focus; strict goal adherence may make the scenario rigid and demotivating. Regarding appearance, the avatar’s look, sex, and voice may shape perceptions of personality, credibility, and competence. This contribution first discusses the benefits and characteristics of avatar-based learning scenarios. It then introduces a peer-feedback role-play and an interactive teacher scenario, conceptualizes each educationally, and discusses their AI-avatar implementation, including prompt-specific peculiarities and pitfalls. Finally, it examines effects of avatar appearance on users’ perceptions and derives practical conclusions.

Keywords

AI-avatar, instructional design, interactive teaching, role play, dialogic learning, prompting

PDF

References

  1. Ashrafi, N., Graf, P., Marquardt, M., Vona, F., Schorlemmer, J., & Voigt-Antons, J.-N. (2025). Avatar appearance beyond pixels: User ratings and avatar preferences within health applications. In V. G. Duffy (Ed.), Digital human modeling and applications in health, safety, ergonomics and risk management (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 15793). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-93508-4_11
  2. Chernikova, O., Sommerhoff, D., Stadler, M., Holzberger, D., Nickl, M., Seidel, T., Kasneci, E., Küchemann, S., Kuhn, J., Fischer, F., & Heitzmann, N. (2025). Personalization through adaptivity or adaptability? A meta-analysis on simulation-based learning in higher education [Review]. Educational Research Review, 46, Article 100662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100662
  3. Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219-243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
  4. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-006
  5. d4b. (2025, September 28). Average response time metrics for OpenAI GPT-5 models (by reasoning level). https://www.d4b.dev/blog/2025-09-28-gpt5-response-time-metrics
  6. DeWester, D., Nah, F. F.-H., Gervais, S., & Siau, K. (2009). An examination of perceptions of male and female avatars. In MG 2009 Proceedings (Paper 5). https://aisel.aisnet.org/mg2009/5
  7. Ertl, B., & Fink, M. C. (2025). Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen? KI-basierte Lernsysteme und Lernavatare. In B. Schäffer & F. R. Lieder (Eds.), Maschinen wie wir? Wie Künstliche Intelligenz Bildung, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft herausfordert (pp. 143-166). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-48522-1_7
  8. Fauville, G., Queiroz, A. C. M., Luo, M., Hancock, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2022). Impression formation from video conference screenshots: The role of gaze, camera distance, and angle.Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(1), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000055
  9. Fink, M. C., Robinson, S. A., & Ertl, B. (2024). AI-based avatars are changing the way we learn and teach: benefits and challenges [Perspective]. Frontiers in Education, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1416307
  10. Fink, M. C., Walter, L., Eska, B., & Ertl, B. (2026). A Web Application and Authoring Tool for Supporting the Generation of Ai-Based Avatars for Communication Scenarios. In Two Decades of TEL. From Lessons Learnt to Challenges Ahead. Cham.
  11. Fortuna, A., Prasetya, F., Samala, A. D., Rawas, S., Criollo-C, S., Kaya, D., Raihan, M., Andriani, W., Safitri, D., & Nabawi, R. A. (2025). Artificial intelligence in personalized learning: A global systematic review of current advancements and shaping future opportunities [Review]. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 12, Article 102114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.102114
  12. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00018
  13. Garcia, M. B. (2025). Teachers in the metaverse: The influence of avatar appearance and behavioral realism on perceptions of instructor credibility and teaching effectiveness. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(7), 4334–4350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2462144
  14. Gebhardt, M. (2024). Pädagogische Diagnostik. Leistung, Kompetenz und Entwicklung messen, bewerten und für individuelle Förderung interpretieren (Version 0.3). Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/110013/1/Diagnostik_in_der_Schule_Version_0.3.pdf
  15. Glaser, R. (Ed.). (1965). Teaching machines and programmed learning II: data and directions. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
  16. Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C. P., Jordan, P. W., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent Tutoring Systems with Conversational Dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v22i4.1591
  17. Leutner, D. (2002). Adaptivität und Adaptierbarkeit multimedialer Lehr- und Informationssysteme. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Eds.), Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet: Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis (3., vollst. überarb. Aufl., pp. 115–126). Beltz PVU.
  18. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. Proceedings of the ACM SIG¬CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97), Atlanta, GA, USA, 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258797
  19. Mousavinasab, E., Zarifsanaiey, N., R. Niakan Kalhori, S., Rakhshan, M., Keikha, L., & Ghazi Saeedi, M. (2021). Intelligent tutoring systems: a systematic review of characteristics, applications, and evaluation methods [Review]. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 142-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558257
  20. Nag, P., & Yalçın, Ö. N. (2020). Gender stereotypes in virtual agents. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents (Article 41, pp. 1–8). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383652.3423876
  21. Nowak, K. L., Fox, J., & Ranjit, Y. S. (2015). Inferences about avatars: Sexism, appropriateness, anthropomorphism, and the objectification of female virtual representations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12130
  22. Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00308.x
  23. OpenAI, Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., & et al. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
  24. Reallusion Inc. (2025). Character Creator 4 (Version 4.62.4603.1) [Computer software]. Reallusion. https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/
  25. Robinson, S. A. (2023). GPTAvatar [Computer software]. GitHub. https://github.com/SethRobinson/GPTAvatar
  26. Schwind, V., Wolf, K., Henze, N., & Korn, O. (2015). Determining the characteristics of preferred virtual faces using an avatar generator. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 221–230). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2793107.2793116
  27. Schwind, V., Wolf, K., & Henze, N. (2018). Avoiding the uncanny valley in virtual character design. Interactions, 25(5), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236673
  28. Shevchenko, Y., Heisenstein, J., & Reips, U.-D. (2024). How do avatars make a positive impression: The effect of facial cues on avatar evaluation. Journal of Perceptual Imaging, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2352/J.Percept.Imaging.2024.7.000406
  29. Wilcox, G., Fernandez Conde, C., & Kowbel, A. (2021). Using evidence-based practice and data-based decision making in inclusive education. Education Sciences, 11(3), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030129
  30. Younas, M., Ismayil, I., El-Dakhs, D. A. S., & Anwar, B. (2025). Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Advancing Smart Learning in Education: A Meta-Analysis with Statistical Evidence [Article]. Open Praxis, 17(3), 594-610. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.17.3.842
  31. Zellner, J., Koch, J., Fink, M., Ebenbeck, N., & Gebhardt, M. (2025a). Fostering Diagnostic Decision-Making in Special Education Students through Simulation-Based Games and AI Pedagogical Agents: A Case-Based Learning Comparison in Higher Education. International Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.52291/ijse.2025.40.24
  32. Zellner, J., Koch, J., Hagmann-von Arx, P., Tönnissen, L., Link, C.-P. & Gebhardt, M. (2025b, July). Simulationen zur Förderung der diagnostischen Kompetenzen in der heil- und sonderpädagogischen Hochschulbildung: Strukturiertes Klickspiel oder Einsatz GPTAvatar – ein Vergleich mit Noviz:innen und Expert:innen. [Poster presentation]. Jahreskongress 2025 der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Bildungsforschung (SGBF) und der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung (SGL). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31321.22886

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.