More Related Content


Suter Aera Presentation Post

  1. AERA Conference 2007 Learning and the Sense of Presence in Second Life Presenter: Vicki Suter, Pepperdine University 1
  2. One distance ed student to another in their always-open IM window . . . Second Life Avatar Wendy Widget asks: Are you there? World of Warcraft Avatar ViaMedia answers: I don’t know if I’m there, but I’m here. 2
  3. CadreX Dissertation Therapy Group on Pepperdine’s Malibu Island in SL • Writing preliminary proposal (qualitative, grounded theory study) • For this presentation: – Definition of “sense of presence” – Conceptual Framework – Proposed Approach 3
  4. Purpose & Conceptual Framework 4
  5. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) • Sociocultural perspective on • Considerable existing research learning as enculturation and on CSCL (Haythornthwaite, identity development through 2005; Schweller, 2001; Ståhl & authentic experience (Lave & Wallberg, 2004; Lobel, Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2005) Neubauer, & Swedburg, 2005; ) • Represents a shift from the • Important groundwork in knowledge acquisition model to research on MUDs and MOOs the participation model (Barab (Brown & Bell, 2006; Bruckman & Duffy, 1998) & Resnick, 1995; Bruckman, 1992; Bruckman, 2001; Crump, • Learning is a collective 2001; Fanderclai, 1995; Grigar & phenomenon (Carroll, Rosson, Barber, 2001; Kolko, 2001; Convertino, & Ganoe, 2006) Schwartz, 1997; Turkle, 1997) involving a natural process of activities for developing expertise, supported by tools, artifacts and people 5
  6. Design Study => Human- Computer Interaction Design • From a socio-cultural • From a sociocultural perspective, learners (not perspective, Human designers) create meaning Computer Interaction of objects in interaction Design is focused on with environment practice, not information (Kaptelinin, 2001) • Virtual worlds designed for entertainment and play may have transferrable design elements to support doing and activity in more formal learning environments 6
  7. Conceptualization of Sense of Presence as Media Attribute Media-centric analysis focuses on presence as an attribute of a medium, with sensory realism measures such as: • fidelity • response speed • engagement of sensory and motor channels (See Lombard & Ditton, 1997; Bailenson, 2005; Biocca & Levy, 1995; Biocca, 1997) 7
  8. Conceptualization of Sense of Presence as Individual Experience More recent conceptualization of sense of presence as a property of an individual’s experience – a private, intimate state (Heeter, 1992; Spagnolli, Varotto, Mantovani, 2003), with subjective measures of individual experience such as: • Sense of embodiment (Biocca, 1997; Bowers & O’Brien, 1996) • Control over and identification with avatar (Bartle, 2005; Biocca, 1997; Cuddihy & Walters, 2000; Gee, 2003; Murray, 1997; Rogers, 2005; Schroeder & Axelsson, 2006) • Depth of immersion (Douglas & Hargadon, 2004) • Agency (Murray, 1997) • Engagement and motivation (Garrison, 2003;Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) 8
  9. Definition of presence to be used for this study • Encompasses cognitive and • From a sociocultural social presence (Garrison, perspective, presence as 2001), world-building and an action-based process user-created content and contextualized individual experience (Ondrejka, 2004), and sense of space (Lefebvre, 1991) • Measurement “can be captured by monitoring the sequence of the participants’ actions and the aspects of the environment that are involved in the process” (Spagnolli, Varotto, & Mantovani, 2003, p. 797) 9
  10. Activity Theory • Conceptualization of presence as a dynamic process associated with an action in an activity system, occurring in a sociocultural context over time • Underlying sociocultural and cultural-historical theory of the mind, learning and practice used for the study • Aligns the other three conceptual frameworks (collaborative learning, human-computer interaction design, and sense of presence) • Previous work in HCI and CSCL has used Activity Theory as conceptual framework and analytic tool (Baker, Hansen, Joiner, & Traum, 1999; Bødker, 1989; Bellamy, 2001; Greenhalgh, 1999; Kaptelinin, Nardi & Macaulay, 1999; Kaptelinin, 2006; Nardi, 2001; Kuutti, 2001; Kuutti, 1993; Robins, 2002) 10
  11. Activity Theory Diagram – Ethics Knowledgebase Assignment Based on Activity Theory model, Cole & Engestrom, 1993 11
  12. Unit of Analysis • AT unit of analysis is activity (e.g., in previous example, the activity is the development of the ethics knowledgebase). • For purposes of study, the unit of analysis will be an action: “conscious goal-oriented process undertaken to fulfill the object” (Nardi, 2001, p. 74). In previous activity system example, an action might be the scheduling of a team meeting. 12
  13. Primary Research Questions • How does the sense of presence develop for individuals engaged in collaborative learning activities in Second Life? • What are the design attributes and related conditions that may contribute to the development of a sense of presence in Second Life? • What insights might be gained about the sense of presence and the design of human-computer interaction to support collaborative learning in 3D multi-user virtual worlds? 13
  14. Ethnographic action-based approach (Spagnolli et al) Through observation; content, • How did the “configuration of interaction and discourse virtual objects” (as artifacts analysis; and interviews in the activity system) relate regarding sequences of actions to design and to the making up collaborative development of the sense of learning activities conducted presence? within Second Life, explore: • What are the norms that • What action possibilities regulated the interaction? did learners envisage? • Who were the key participants • How rich and robust was the and what were the important environment with respect to relationships? resources? • What design attributes and • What resources were conditions generally facilitate imported into the virtual (or hinder) the process of the environment and for what development of a sense of purposes? presence? 14
  15. Purpose of study, revisited 15
  16. References Bailenson, J. N., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., Persky, S., Dimov, A., & Blascovich, J. (2005). The independent and interactive effects of embodied-agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(4), 379-393. Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier Science. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (1998). From practice fields to communities of practice (No. 1-98). Bloomington, IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology, Indiana University. Bartle, R. A. (2005). Virtual worlds: Why people play. In T. Alexander (Ed.), Massively multiplayer game development 2 (pp. 3-18). Hingham, MA: Charles River Media, Inc. Bellamy, R. K. E. (2001). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 123-146). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 3): University of Indiana School of Library and Information Sciences and School of Informatics. Biocca, F., & Levy, M. R. (Eds.). (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bødker, S. (1989). A human activity approach to user interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(3), 171-195. 16
  17. References, cont. Bowers, J., Pycock, J., & O'Brien, J. (1996). Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: ACM Press. Brown, B., & Bell, M. (2006). Play and sociability in there: Some lessons from online games for collaborative virtual environments. In R. Schroeder & A. S. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (Vol. 34, pp. pp. 228 - 245). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Spring. Bruckman, A. (1992). Identity workshops: Emergent social and psychological phenomena in text-based virtual reality. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Unpublished master’s thesis. Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1995). The mediamoo project: Constructionism and professional community. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1(1), 94–109. Bruckman, A. (2001). Finding one's own in cyberspace. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 15–24). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Convertino, G., & Ganoe, C. H. (2006). Awareness and teamwork in computer-supported collaborations. Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 21-46. Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cottone, P., & Mantovani, G. (2003). Grounding quot;subjective views:quot; situation awareness and co-reference in distance learning. In G. Riva, F. Davide & W. A. IJsselsteijn (Eds.), Emerging communication: Studies in new technologies and practices in communication (Vol. 5, pp. 249 - 260). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. 17
  18. References, cont. Crump, E. (2001). Writing centers learn to wallow. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 177–191). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Cuddihy, E., & Walters, D. (2000). Embodied interaction in social virtual environments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the third international conference on collaborative virtual environments. Douglas, J. Y., & Hargadon, A. (2004). The pleasures of immersion and interaction: Schemas, scripts, and the fifth business. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), Firstperson: New media as story, performance, and game. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer- Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(1), 8. Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Greenhalgh, C. (1999). Large scale collaborative virtual environments. London: Springer-Verlag. Grigar, D., & Barber, J. F. (2001). Defending your life in moospace. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 192–231). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 18
  19. References, cont. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Introduction: Computer-mediated collaborative practices. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A., & Macaulay, C. (1999). Methods & tools: The activity checklist: A tool for representing the quot;spacequot; of context. interactions, 6(4), 27-39. Kaptelinin, V. (2001). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and developmental contexts. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge: The MIT Press. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kolko, B. (2001). Real politics, real pedagogy, and virtual space. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 253–265). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. J. (1993). Searching for unity among diversity: Exploring the quot;interfacequot; concept, SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ACM Press. Kuutti, K. (2001). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human- computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 19
  20. References, cont. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2005). Comparing how students collaborate to learn about the self and relationships in a real-time non-turn-taking online and turn-taking face-to- face environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4). Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 3): Indiana University School of Library & Information Science and School of Informatics. Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: The Free Press. Nardi, B. A. (2001). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 69-102). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Robins, J. (2002). Affording a place: The role of persistent structures in social navigation, Information Research (Vol. 7, pp. 1-31). Rogers, A. (2005). The three thirties of mmp game design. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Massively multiplayer game development (pp. 19 - 34). Hingham, MA: Charles River Media, Inc. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 20
  21. References, cont. Schwartz, A. (1997). Comments on MUD research: Why study MUDs. The Journal of Virtual Environments, 1(1). Schroeder, R., & Axelsson, A.-S. (Eds.). (2006). Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (Vol. 34). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Schweller, K. (2001). MOO educational tools. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational MOOs (2nd edition ed., pp. 88–106). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ståhl, O., & Wallberg, A. (2004). Using a pond metaphor for information visualisation and exploration. In D. N. Snowdon, E. F. Churchill & E. Frécon (Eds.), Inhabited information spaces: Living with your data (computer supported cooperative work) (pp. 51–68). London: Springer-Verlag. Spagnolli, A., Varotto, D., & Mantovani, G. (2003). An ethnographic, action-based approach to human experience in virtual environments. International journal of human-computer interaction, 797-822. Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, NY: Touchstone. Wenger, E. (2005, May 2005). Learning for a small planet: A research agenda. Retrieved December 2005, 2005, from 21
  22. References, cont. Excellent general online resource on presence, and measurement of presence: E-mail: Blog: Presentation is available online from my blog. 22