Skip to main content

Exploring How Role and Background Influence Through Analysis of Spatial Dialogue in Collaborative Problem-Solving Games

Abstract

This study examines how different roles and background knowledge transform players’ dyadic conversations into spatial dialogues in a virtual cellular biology game. Cellverse is a collaborative virtual reality (VR) game designed to teach cell biology. Players work in pairs, assuming the role of either a Navigator, with reference material and a global view through a tablet, or an Explorer, with a more detailed interactive view of the cell through a VR headset and hand controllers. The game is designed so players must collaborate in order to complete the game. Our results show that roles influenced their reference perspectives at a level of statistical significance. Furthermore, players with high prior knowledge tried to reduce their partner’s mental effort by giving spatial information from their point of view, thus producing fewer occurrences of spatial unawareness. Results of this study suggest that designers can build in different roles and leverage different background knowledge to prompt effective partnerships during collaborative games.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Abe, T., Raison, N., Shinohara, N., Khan, M.S., Ahmed, K., & Dasgupta, P. (2018). The effect of visual-spatial ability on the learning of robot-assisted surgical skills. Journal of Surgical Education, 75(2), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.08.017.

  2. Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (2008). The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods. Sage publications.

  3. Bruder, G., Steinicke, F., Rothaus, K., & Hinrichs, K. (2009). Enhancing presence in head-mounted display environments by visual body feedback using head-mounted cameras. In 2009 International Conference on CyberWorlds (pp. 43-50). IEEE.

  4. CF Foundation. (retrieved, July 2019) “Basics of the CFTR protein.” CF Foundation, www.cff.org/Research/Research-Into-the-Disease/Restore-CFTR-Function/Basics-of-the-CFTR-Protein/.

  5. Cheng, K.-H., & Tsai, C.-C. (2019). A case study of immersive virtual field trips in an elementary classroom: Students’ learning experience and teacher-student interaction behaviors. Computers & Education, 140, 103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103600.

  6. Coxon, M., Kelly, N., & Page, S. (2016). Individual differences in virtual reality: Are spatial presence and spatial ability linked? Virtual Reality, 20(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0292-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Duncan, J., & West, R. E. (2018). Conceptualizing group flow: A framework. Educational Research and Reviews, 13(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ens, B., Lanir, J., Tang, A., Bateman, S., Lee, G., Piumsomboon, T., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131, 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher, K. Q., Hirshfield, L., Siebert-Evenstone, A., Arastoopour, G., & Koretsky, M. (2016). Network analysis of interactions between students and an instructor during design meetings. In Proceedings of the American society for engineering education. ASEE.

  11. Fiore, S. M., Graesser, A., Greiff, S., Griffin, P., Gong, B., Kyllonen, P., … & Soulé, H. (2017). Collaborative problem solving: Considerations for the national assessment of educational progress. National Center for Educational Statistics.

  12. Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 133). “Carol I” National Defence University.

  13. Garau, M., Friedman, D., Ritter Widenfeld, H., Antley, A., Brogni, A., & Slater, M. (2008). Temporal and spatial variations in presence: Qualitative analysis of interviews from an experiment on breaks in presence. Presence, 17(3), 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Giusti, L., Xerxes, K., Schladow, A., Wallen, N., Zane, F., & Casalegno, F. (2012). Workspace configurations: Setting the stage for remote collaboration on physical tasks. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (pp. 351-360). ACM.

  15. Hahn, J. F. (2017). Virtual reality library environments. American Library Association.

  16. Hite, R. L., Jones, M. G., Childers, G. M., Ennes, M., Chesnutt, K., Pereyra, M., & Cayton, E. (2019). Investigating potential relationships between adolescents’ cognitive development and perceptions of presence in 3-D, haptic-enabled, virtual reality science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 265-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9764-y

  17. Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Ortiz, A. E., & Stanne, M. (1991). The impact of positive goal and resource interdependence on achievement, interaction, and attitudes. J Gen Psychol, 118(4), 341–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher Education Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kober, S. E., Wood, G., Hofer, D., Kreuzig, W., Kiefer, M., & Neuper, C. (2013). Virtual reality in neurologic rehabilitation of spatial disorientation. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 10(1), 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Böcking, S., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2015). Ways to measure spatial presence: Review and future directions. In Immersed in Media (pp. 139–185). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. León, I., Tascón, L., Ortells-Pareja, J.J., & Cimadevilla, J.M. (2018). Virtual reality assessment of walking and non-walking space in men and women with virtual reality-based tasks. PloS One, 13(10) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204995.

  23. Liszio, S., & Masuch, M. (2016). Designing shared virtual reality gaming experiences in local multi-platform games. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing (pp. 235–240). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education, 140, 103603.

  25. Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Percept Psychophys, 68(2), 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miles, M. A., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (pp. 50–72). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Miniaci, M. C., & De Leonibus, E. (2018). Missing the egocentric spatial reference: A blank on the map. F1000Research, 7.

  28. Montoro, D. T., Haber, A. L., Biton, M., Vinarsky, V., Lin, B., Birket, S. E., et al. (2018). A revised airway epithelial hierarchy includes CFTR-expressing ionocytes. Nature, 560(7718), 319–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pallant, J. (2007). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows. SPSS Survival manual, McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

  30. Pietropaolo, S., & Crusio, W. E. (2012). Learning spatial orientation. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Milleville-Pennel, I., Guillaume, F., & Mars, F. (2016). Remote collaboration in virtual reality: Asymmetrical effects of task distribution on spatial processing and mental workload. Virtual Reality, 20(4), 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Regenbrecht, H., & Schubert, T. E. (2002). Real and illusory interactions enhance presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(4), 425–434.

  33. Riva, G., & Waterworth, J. A. (2014). Being present in a virtual world (pp. 205–221). The Oxford Handbook of Virtuality.

  34. Sawyer, K. (2017). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Basic books.

  35. Schober, M. F. (1996). Addressee-and object-centered frames of reference in spatial descriptions. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Working Notes of the 1996 AAAI Spring Symposium on Cognitive and Computational Models of Spatial Representation, (47), 92–2100.

  36. Seibert, J., & Shafer, D. M. (2017). Control mapping in virtual reality: Effects on spatial presence and controller naturalness. Virtual Reality, 22(1), 79-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-017-0316-1.

  37. Shafer, D. M., Carbonara, C. P., & Korpi, M. F. (2019). Factors affecting enjoyment of virtual reality games: A comparison involving consumer-grade virtual reality technology. Games for Health Journal, 8(1), 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design. Morgan Kaufmann.

  39. Tascón, L., García-Moreno, L. M., & Cimadevilla, J. M. (2017). Almeria spatial memory recognition test (ASMRT): Gender differences emerged in a new passive spatial task. Neuroscience Letters, 651, 188–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.05.011.

  40. Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., & Jia, C. H. (2017). Virtual reality and attitudes toward tourism destinations. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2017 (pp. 229–239). Springer, Cham.

  41. Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison: Cathcart Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Turner, S., Turner, P., Carroll, F., O’Neill S., Benyon, D., McCall, R., et al. (2003). Re-creating the Botanics: Towards a sense of place in virtual environments. Paper presented at the 3rd UK Environmental Psychology Conference, Aberdeen, 23–25 June 2003.

  44. Wang, A., Thompson, M., Roy, D., Pan, K., Perry, J., Tan, P., Eberhart, R. & Klopfer, E. (2019). Iterative user and expert feedback in the design of an educational virtual reality biology game. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1678489

  45. Weber, M. S., & Kim, H. (2015). Virtuality, technology use, and engagement within organizations. J Appl Commun Res, 43(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., et al. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol, 9(3), 493–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence Teleop Virt, 7(3), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zaman, C. H., Yakhina, A., & Casalegno, F. (2015). nRoom: An immersive virtual environment for collaborative spatial design. In Proceedings of the International HCI and UX Conference in Indonesia (pp. 10-17). ACM.

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by Oculus Education.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cigdem Uz-Bilgin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee. Research on human subjects has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uz-Bilgin, C., Thompson, M. & Anteneh, M. Exploring How Role and Background Influence Through Analysis of Spatial Dialogue in Collaborative Problem-Solving Games. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 813–826 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09861-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatial dialogue
  • Collaborative games
  • Virtual reality
  • Prior knowledge
  • Science education