The Immersive Power of Social Interaction
The chapter reviews new technologies and their impact on learning and students’ motivation. The main argument is that in order to achieve immersion, social interactions should be fostered. Therefore, three technologies are discussed which either inherently draw on social interactions (pedagogical agents, transformed social interaction) or can be enriched by including collaborative learning elements (augmented reality). For each of the three realms, a short overview on the state of current developments as well as on empirical studies and results is given. Also, it is discussed to what extent they built on social interaction, how this might be extended and whether beneficial outcomes can be expected from this.
KeywordsImmersion Pedagogical agents Augmented reality Transformed social interaction Collaborative learning Social interaction
- Bailenson, J. (2006). Transformed social interaction in collaborative virtual environments. In P. Messaris & L. Humphreys (Eds.), Digital media: Transformations in human communication (pp. 255–264). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive considerations for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.Google Scholar
- Beall, A.C., Bailenson, J. N., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Rex, C. (2003). Non-zero-sum mutual gaze in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of HCI 2003.Google Scholar
- Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2012). Infinite reality. The hidden blueprint of our virtual lives. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Dunleavy M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Graesser, A. C., Jackson, G. T., & McDaniel, B. (2007). AutoTutor holds conversations with learners that are responsive to their cognitive and emotional states. Educational Technology, 47, 19–22.Google Scholar
- Krämer, N. C., Karacora, B., Lucas, G., Dehghani, M., Rüther, G., & Gratch, J. (2016). Closing the gender gap in STEM with friendly male instructors? On the effects of rapport behavior and gender of a virtual agent in an instructional interaction. Computers & Education, 99, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lester, J. C., Towns, S. G., Callaway, C. B., Voerman, J. L., & FitzGerald, P. J. (2000). Deictic and emotive communication in animated pedagogical agents. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 123–154). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(3), 239–252. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0028616.
- Moreno, R. (2003). The role of software agents in multimedia learning environments: When do they help students reduce cognitive load? Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction Annual Conference, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
- Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.Google Scholar
- Ogan, A., Aleven, V., Jones, C., & Kim, J. (2011, June). Persistent effects of social instructional dialog in a virtual learning environment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
- Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Kramer, N., Li, B. (2016a). Let the avatar brighten your smile: Effects of enhancing facial expressions in virtual environments. PloS ONE, 11(9), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161794.
- Rajan, S., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Person, N. K., Graesser, A. C., & TRG. (2001). AutoTutor: Incorporating backchannel feedback and other human-like conversational behaviors into an intelligent tutoring system. International Journal of Speech Technology, 4, 117–126.Google Scholar
- Reeves, B., & Nass, C. I. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Rickel, J., & Johnson, W. L. (2000). Task oriented collaboration with embodied agents in virtual worlds. In J. Cassell, J. Sullivan, S. Prevost, & E. Churchill (Eds.), Embodied conversational agents (pp. 95–122). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D., Blair, K. P., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Animations of thought: Interactivity in the teachable agent paradigm. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research and implications for design (pp. 114–140). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- von der Pütten, A. M., Klatt, J., Broeke, S., McCall, R., Krämer, N. C., & Wetzel, R. (2012). Subjective and behavioral presence measurement and interactivity in the collaborative augmented reality game TimeWarp. Interacting with Computers, 24(4), 317–325. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2012.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar