Advertisement

The Immersive Power of Social Interaction

Using New Media and Technology to Foster Learning by Means of Social Immersion
  • Nicole C. KrämerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Smart Computing and Intelligence book series (SMCOMINT)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Immersion Pedagogical agents Augmented reality Transformed social interaction Collaborative learning Social interaction 

References

  1. 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
  2. Bailenson, J. N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S., & Yee, N. (2004). Transformed facial similarity as a political cue: A preliminary investigation. Political Psychology, 27(3), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Baylor, A. L., & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 373–394. doi: 10.2190/V0WQ-NWGN-JB54-FAT4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2012). Infinite reality. The hidden blueprint of our virtual lives. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  8. Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education—cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2014.889400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlotto, T., & Jaques, P. A. (2016). The effects of animated pedagogical agents in an English-as-a-foreign-language learning environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 95, 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. doi: 10.1126/science.1167311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 7–22. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C. (2006). Views from a cognitive scientist: Cognitive representations underlying discourse are sometimes social. Discourse Studies, 8, 59–66. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Kreuz, R., & the Tutoring Research Group. (1999). AutoTutor: A simulation of a human tutor. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 1, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang, H., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social–cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569–590. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). Research-based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160–169. doi: 10.1007/s40593-015-0055-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klauer, K. J. (1985). Framework for a theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Rivas, L. (2004). Comparative analysis of palm and wearable computers for participatory simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20(5), 347–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00094.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krämer, N. C. (2008). Theory of Mind as a theoretical prerequisite to model communication with virtual humans. In I. Wachsmuth & G. Knoblich (Eds.), Modeling communication with robots and virtual humans (pp. 222–240). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krämer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010). Personalizing e-Learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychological Review, 22, 71–87. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9123-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Lee, H., Kanakogi, Y., & Hiraki, K. (2015). Building a responsive teacher: How temporal contingency of gaze interaction influences word learning with virtual tutors. Royal Society of Open Science, 2, 140361. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. Oh, S. Y., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E., & Zaki, J. (2016b). Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 398–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Rummel, N., & Krämer, N. (2010). Computer-supported instructional communication: A multidisciplinary account of relevant factors. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 1–7. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9122-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schroeder, N. L., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). A systematic review of pedagogical agents’ persona, motivation, and cognitive load implications for learners. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 229–251. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2014.888265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schroeder, N. L., Adesope, O. O., & Gilbert, R. B. (2013). How effective are pedagogical agents for learning? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 1–39. doi: 10.2190/EC.49.1.a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413. doi: 10.1080/10508400701413435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas, B., Close, B., Donoghue, J., Squires, J., Bondi, P. D., & Piekarski, W. (2001). First person indoor/outdoor augmented reality application: ARquake. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Veletsianos, G., & Russell, G. (2014). Pedagogical Agents. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 759–769). New York: Springer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus Effect. The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yuen, S. C.-Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 4(1), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for Computer Science and Applied Cognitive ScienceUniversity Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations