Advertisement

Virtual Companions and 3D Virtual Worlds: Investigating the Sense of Presence in Distance Education

  • Aliane Loureiro KrassmannEmail author
  • Felipe Becker Nunes
  • Maximino Bessa
  • Liane Margarida Rockenbach Tarouco
  • Magda Bercht
Conference paper
  • 464 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11591)

Abstract

Distance Education (DE) still have some challenges to be considered similar to the face-to-face mode of instruction regarding the quality of learning, including the lack in promoting the sense of presence. This research investigates whether a differentiated media support, complementary to the traditional Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), composed by the integration of 3D Virtual Worlds (3DVW) and Conversational Agents, in the role of a Virtual Companions, can promote the student’s sense of presence in order to contribute with the learning process in DE. A quasi-experiment pilot study was conducted with 36 students enrolled in the Financial Management discipline from a DE formal course. A 3DVW was developed in the light of the pedagogical model of Experiential Learning, in the form of a role-play simulation. The results reveal that although the students positively evaluated the experience in the 3DVW, it did not stimulate the sense of presence as expected. However, better performance rates were diagnosed for students who had the help of the Virtual Companion.

Keywords

Conversational agents Virtual worlds Virtual companion Sense of presence Distance education 

References

  1. 1.
    Online Learning Consortium. The Distance Education Enrollment Report (2017). https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  2. 2.
    Gregori, P., Martínez, V., Moyano-Fernández, J.J.: Basic actions to reduce dropout rates in distance learning. Eval. Prog. Plann. 66, 48–52 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Metz, N., Bezuidenhout, A.: An importance–competence analysis of the roles and competencies of e-tutors at an open distance learning. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 34(5), 27–43 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fletcher, J.D.: Technology, the columbus effect, and the third revolution. The design of instruction and evaluation: Affordances of using media and technology, 121 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alencar, M., Netto, J.F.: TUtor collaborator using multi-agent system. In: Yuizono, T., Zurita, G., Baloian, N., Inoue, T., Ogata, H. (eds.) CollabTech 2014. CCIS, vol. 460, pp. 153–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44651-5_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H.A., Lester, J.C.: The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn. Instr. 19(2), 177–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLaughlan, R.G., Kirkpatrick, D.: Online roleplay: design for active learning. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 29(4), 477–490 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dede, C.: The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. Am. J. Dist. Educ. 10(2), 4–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mikropoulos, T.A.: Presence: a unique characteristic in educational virtual environments. Virtual Reality 10(3–4), 197–206 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tüzün, H., Özdinç, F.: The effects of 3D multi-user virtual environments on freshmen university students’ conceptual and spatial learning and presence in departmental orientation. Comput. Educ. 94, 228–240 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coelho, C., Tichon, J.G., Hine, T.J., Wallis, G.M., Riva, G.: Media presence and inner presence: the sense of presence in virtual reality technologies. In: From communication to presence: Cognition emotions and culture towards the ultimate communicative experience, pp. 25–45. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nevelsteen, K.J.: Virtual world, defined from a technological perspective and applied to video games, mixed reality, and the Metaverse. Comput. Animation Virtual World. 29(1), 1752 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domingo, J.R., Bradley, E.G.: Education student perceptions of virtual reality as a learning tool. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 46(3), 329–342 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson, W.L., Rickel, J.W., Lester, J.C.: Animated pedagogical agents: face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 11(1), 47–78 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ijaz, K., Bogdanovych, A., Trescak, T.: Virtual worlds vs books and videos in history education. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25(7), 904–929 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Englund, C.: Exploring approaches to teaching in three-dimensional virtual worlds. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 34(2), 140–151 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soliman, M., Guetl, C.: Implementing intelligent pedagogical agents in virtual worlds: tutoring natural science experiments in OpenWonderland. In: 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 782–789. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, C.J., Toh, S.C., Ismail, W.M.F.W.: Are learning styles relevant to virtual reality? J. Res. Technol. Educ. 38(2), 123–141 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia learning. Annu. Rep. Educ. Psychol. Jpn. 41, 27–29 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burden, D.J.: Deploying embodied AI into virtual worlds. Knowl.-Based Syst. 22(7), 540–544 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim, Y.: Desirable characteristics of learning companions. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 17(4), 371–388 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(6), 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M.: Presence in immersive virtual environments. In: 1993 IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 90–96. IEEE (1993)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bouvier, P.: The five pillars of presence: guidelines to reach presence. In: Spagnolli, A. et, Gamberini, L., éditeurs: Proceedings of Presence 2008, 246–249 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waterworth, E.L., Waterworth, J.A.: Focus, locus, and sensus: the three dimensions of virtual experience. CyberPsychol. Behav. 4(2), 203–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., Davidoff, J.: A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10(3), 282–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Darken, R.P., Bernatovich, D., Lawson, J.P., Peterson, B.: Quantitative measures of presence in virtual environments: the roles of attention and spatial comprehension. CyberPsychol. Behav. 2(4), 337–347 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romano, D.M., Brna, P.: Presence and reflection in training: Support for learning to improve quality decision-making skills under time limitations. CyberPsychol. Behav. 4(2), 265–277 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Avatar Project. Official website. http://www.ufrgs.br/avatar. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  31. 31.
    Kolb, D.: Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (1984)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Presence Questionnaire of Witmer & Singer validated from the Cyberpsychology Lab da Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO) (1998). http://w3.uqo.ca/cyberpsy/en/index_en.htm. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  33. 33.
    Rico, M., Ramírez, J., Riofrío-Luzcando, D., Berrocal-Lobo, M.: A Cost-Effective Approach for Procedural Training in Virtual Worlds. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 23(2), 208–232 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim, Y., Baylor, A.L.: PALS Group: Pedagogical agents as learning companions: the role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 54(3), 223–243 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krassmann, A.L., Kuyven, N.L., Mazzuco, A.E.R., Tarouco, L.M.R., Bercht, M.: Estudo Exploratório sobre Mundos Virtuais e Agentes Conversacionais na Educação a Distância. Revista Novas Tecnologias na Educação (RENOTE) 16(2), 1679–1916 (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vasconcelos-Raposo, J., et al.: Adaptation and validation of the Igroup presence questionnaire (IPQ) in a Portuguese sample. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 25(3), 191–203 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aliane Loureiro Krassmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Felipe Becker Nunes
    • 2
  • Maximino Bessa
    • 3
  • Liane Margarida Rockenbach Tarouco
    • 1
  • Magda Bercht
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Antonio Meneghetti FaculdadeRestinga SecaBrazil
  3. 3.INESC TEC and UTADVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations