Supporting Group Reflection in a Virtual Role-Playing Environment

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 178)


This paper presents an approach to supporting group reflection in a virtual role-playing environment with intelligent support designed for the training customer complaint management in electronic shops. The single-player design involves a player and an AIML chat bot in a 2D web-based virtual environment. Building on this, a group reflection tool was designed, which is supposed be used in a training center environment. It features a dashboard design which includes different visualizations of player performance based on automated individual analyses of players’ communicative behavior, as well as enriched replays of their conversations, and the ability to make annotations. The separation of the application into the actual role-playing game and the group reflection tool is assumed to support the learning process of responding to customer complaints by changing perspective, receiving feedback, and recognizing different ways of problem solving.


Group reflection Role-play Intelligent support Serious games Multi-agent architecture Chat bots 


  1. 1.
    Ladousse, G.P.: Role Play. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lim, M.Y., Aylett, R., Enz, S., Kriegel, M., Vannini, N., Hall, L., Jones, S.: Towards intelligent computer assisted educational role-play. In: Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, Chen, G.-D., Hirose, M. (eds.) Edutainment 2009, LNCS, vol. 5670, pp. 208–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slator, B.M., Chaput, H.C.: Learning by learning roles: a virtual role-playing environment for tutoring. In: Frasson, C., Gauthier, G., Lesgold, A. (eds.) ITS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1086, pp. 668–676. Springer, Heidelberg (1996). doi:10.1007/3-540-61327-7_167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W., Chandrashekaran, M.: Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. J. Mark. 60, 60–76 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., Sabol, B.: Consumer Trust, Value, and Loyalty in Relational Exchanges. J. Mark. 66(1), 15–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheong, Y.-G., Khaled, R., Grappiolo, C., Campos, J., Martinho, C., Ingram, G., Paiva, A., Yannakakis, G.N.: A computational approach towards conflict resolution for serious games. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marr, A.C.: Serious Games für die Informations- und Wissensvermittlung: Bibliotheken auf neuen Wegen. Dinges & Frick, Wiesbaden (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malzahn, N., Buhmes H., Ziebarth S., Hoppe H.U.: Supporting reflection in an immersive 3D learning environment based on role-play. In: EC-TEL 2010, pp. 542–547. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmerich, K., Neuwald, K., Othlinghaus, J., Ziebarth, S., Hoppe, H.U.: Training conflict management in a collaborative virtual environment. In: Herskovic, V., Hoppe, H.U., Jansen, M., Ziegler, J. (eds.) CRIWG 2012. LNCS, vol. 7493, pp. 17–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33284-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziebarth, S., Kizina, A., Hoppe, H.U., Dini, L.: A serious game for training patient-centered medical interviews. In: IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 213–217. IEEE, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrington, J., Oliver, R., Reeves, T.C.: Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. In: Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2001. AACE, Chesapeake (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orshinger, C., Valentini, S., de Angelis, M.: A meta-analysis of satisfaction with complaint handling in services. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38(2), 169–186 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Urban, G.L., Sultan, F., Qualls, W.J.: Placing trust at the center of your internet strategy. Sloan Manag. Rev. 42, 39–49 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D.: Promoting reflection in learning: a model. In: Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D. (eds.) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning, pp. 18–40. Kogan Page, London (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schuster, R.J.: Gruppenreflexion als Kommunikationsinstrument. In: Management und Wirtschaft. Schriftenreihe zur wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Forschung, vol. 13, pp. 7–23. Fachhochschule des bfi Wien, Wien (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilzensauer, W.: Theoretische Zugänge und Methoden zur Reflexion des Lernens. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag. In: Häcker, T.H., Hilzensauer, W., Reinmann, G. (eds.) Bildungsforschung, vol. 5(2) (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, P., Hong, J.-S., Bonk, C., Lim, G.: Effects on group reflection variations in project-based learning integrated in a Web 2.0 learning space. In: Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 19(4), pp. 333–349. Routledge, London (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrison, J.E., Meliza, L.L.: Foundations of the after action review process. In: ARI Special Report, vol. 42. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wallace, R.: The Elements of AIML Style. ALICE AI Foundation (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weinbrenner, S.: SQLSpaces – A Platform for Flexible, Language-Heterogeneous Multi-Agents Systems. University of Duisburg-Essen (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations