Sabine Lawless-Reljic, Ed.D

AERA 2011 Annual Meeting, ARVEL SIG session

New Orleans, Louisiana, April 10, 2011

Introduction◦ Communication Dynamics◦ Transactional Distance◦ Mediated Social Presence◦ MultiUser Virtual Environments

The Study◦ Objectives◦ Theoretical Framework◦ Methods◦ Materials◦ Results◦ Summary◦ Significance◦ Recommendations

Communication Dynamics

Transactional Distance

Mediated Social Presence

MultiUser Virtual Environments

Why MUVE Your Avatar?

The actors have changed

@Sabine Lawless-Reljic, 2010

…is not a physical phenomenon. It is an instructional event in a learning situation.

Source: http://eet.sdsu.edu/eetwiki/index.php/Transactional_distance

Property of people, not technology Moment-to-moment phenomenal state Facilitated by a technological representation

of another bring Varies of the course of a mediated interaction From a low level awareness that another

being is co-present to more intense sense of the accessibility of psychological modeling of the other’s intentional states (Biocca & Harms, 2004)

The actors have changed

How to infuse your technological

proxy of your humanity to be

perceived by your students as a

present and empathic individual?

• Sense of presence: MUVEs have the potential to “significantly reduce the subjective feelings of psychological and social distance often experience by distance education participants” (McKerlich, 2007).

• Sense of place: MUVEs are “richly expressive environments that immerse the participant in a setting that includes sound and visual cues, rich textures, and realistic perspective…and vividly create a sense of place” (Johnson & Levine, 2008).

• Sense of power/autonomy: MUVEs allow users “to move around in the virtual world and see it from different angles, to reach into it, grab it, and reshape it” (Rheingold, 1991).

>>Multiple media in a two-way technology

PURPOSE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK METHODS MATERIALS RESULTS SUMMARY SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

… to investigate the effects of instructor immediacy behaviors (verbal and nonverbal) in a 3D interactive and immersive virtual environment on student perception of instructor immediacy and perception of instructor social presence.

Research QuestionsResearch QuestionsThis experimental study explored the following:RQ1: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the avatar-mediated instructor influence instructor immediacy? RQ2: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the avatar-mediated instructor influence instructor social presence?RQ3: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the avatar-mediated students influence perceived students’ co-presence?RQ4: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the avatar-mediated instructor influence learning outcomes? (*)

The researcher predicted that projection of instructor immediacy behaviors through an avatar in the context of didactic instruction would positively influence perception of the instructor immediacy, instructor social presence, and student co-presence.

* H4 = avatar-based immediacy behaviors would positively influence cognitive learning. Probe not prediction.

Theoretical FrameworkTheoretical FrameworkPRESENCEShort, Williams, & Christie (1976) Social Presence: The degree of salience of other persons in the interaction and the consequent salience (and perceived intimacy and immediacy) of the interpersonal relationships. >>Cognitive synthesis of several factors such as capacity to transmit information about facial expression, direction of looking, posture and nonverbal cues.

Heeter (1992)Personal presence: a measure of the extent to which and the reasons why a person feel as if she/he is in a vw.Social presence: degree to which other beings represented in a vw, both living and synthetic, appear to respond to one’s existence or actions. (behaviorism)Environmental presence: VE responds to a person’s actions.

Lombard and Ditton (1997)Illusion of non-mediation.

Theoretical Framework, part 2Theoretical Framework, part 2PRESENCEWitmer and Singer (1998)Subjective experience of being in one place or environments, even as one is physically situated in another.

Rourke, Anderson, Archer, and Garrison (1999) Social Presence: The ability of learners to project themselves socially and affectively into a community of inquiry.

Russo (2001)Social presence: degree to which a person is perceived to the “real” in a mediated environment and the degree to which they recognize that they are communicating with another human being through a mediating technology.

Biocca and Harms (2004): Copresence =

sensory awareness of the embodied other +

mutual awareness +

attentional awareness

Theoretical Framework, part 3Theoretical Framework, part 3IMMEDIACYMehrabian (1966): a measure of the psychological distance which a communicator puts between himself and the object of her communication.

Andersen (1971): physical approach and avoidance behaviors that may include verbal and nonverbal components.

Christophel (1990): perception of physical or psychological closeness between communicators.

This study: Measure of the number, combination, and intensity of immediacy behaviors in relevant and appropriate learning event contexts according to modern American presentation conventions

Frequency + Intensity + Appropriate use of behaviors

Theoretical Framework, part 4Theoretical Framework, part 4IMMEDIACYImmediacy behaviors are conveyed by :

Verbal cues (Gorham, 1988)•Call students by name•Use inclusive pronouns •Use humor•Provide feedback•Use personal examples•Ask questions•Refer to class as “our” class•Praise students’ work, actions...

Nonverbal cues (Richmond et al, 1987)•Move in front of/away from desk•Gesture while talking•Use variety of tone•Use variety of expressions•Smile at students•Make eye contact•Move around classroom•Other proxemics (body lean, openness, orientation, etc.)

MethodsMethods• The study replicated design elements used by Schutt (2007) and Schutt, Allen, & Laumakis (2009), the key element being the use of pre-recorded teaching scripts in which the instructor immediacy was manipulated to create higher and lower conditions.

•Treatments were recorded in Second Life and posted on Veoh

•Gestures were selected from the standard library and augmented when necessary with scripted gestures from an animation overrider.

Group 1 High Immediacy Instructor – High Immediacy Students (HiHi)Group 2 High Immediacy Instructor – Low Immediacy Students (HiLo)Group 3 Low Immediacy Instructor – High Immediacy Students (LoHi)Group 4 Low Immediacy Instructor – Low Immediacy Students (LoLo)

MaterialsMaterials

•Stimulus Materials

•Population and Sample

•Instrumentation

•Data collection

Materials: Stimulus MaterialsMaterials: Stimulus MaterialsImmediacy Conditions

Four pre-recorded teaching were produced based on Schutt’s (2007) adaptation of validated instruments developed by:

Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey (1987) to measure nonverbal immediacy.Examples of nonverbal items1.Sits behind a desk while teaching.*2.Gestures while talking to class.3.Uses monotone/dull voice while talking to class.*4.Looks at the class while talking.5.Smiles at the class as a whole.6.Moves around the classroom while teaching.7.Has a very relaxed body position while talking to the class.

Gorham (1988) to measure verbal immediacy.

Examples of verbal items1.Uses personal examples or talks about experiences s/he had outside of class.2.Asks questions or encourages students to talk.3.Uses humor in class.4.Addresses students by name.5.Refers to class as “our” class or what “we” are doing.6.Provides feedback on student work through comments, discussions.

* Presumed to be non-immediate, reverse coded for analysis

Materials: Stimulus MaterialsMaterials: Stimulus MaterialsAutomated Immediacy Behaviors in SLAutomated Immediacy Behaviors in SL

Standard gestures library

Materials: Stimulus MaterialsMaterials: Stimulus MaterialsControlled Immediacy Behaviors in SLControlled Immediacy Behaviors in SL

Animation OverriderHead-Up Display & Menu

Materials: Stimulus MaterialsMaterials: Stimulus MaterialsSnapshot of Instructor Avatar used in StudySnapshot of Instructor Avatar used in Study

Materials: Population and Materials: Population and SampleSampleParticipants

Recruited from two 500-seat sections of an introductory course in Psychology in Spring 2008.

TreatmentAll treatments were pre-recorded machinimas in Second Life and posted on a free video hosting site (Veoh).

Experiment370 students participated, 281 surveys were used for analysis

Group 1 (HiHi) n = 68Group 2 (HiLo) n = 74Group 3 (LoHi) n = 69Group 4 (LoLo) n = 70

Materials: InstrumentationMaterials: Instrumentation• Demographic measures (age, gender, ethnicity)

• Online and Virtual World Familiarity (8 items)

• Immediacy (20 verbal & 14 nonverbal items)

• Social presence (10 items)

• Co-Presence (38 items)

• Pre-test of Cognitive Learning (8 items)

• Post-test of Cognitive Learning (8 items)

Materials: Data CollectionMaterials: Data Collection

1. Students signed up by responding to an email request sent through their course’s Blackboard and sending their signed consent form.

2. Students were randomly assigned to one of four online treatment groups.

3. Students had one week to complete the assignment, on their own time, on their personal computer.

Materials: Data CollectionMaterials: Data Collection (cont’d) (cont’d)

Participants then completed the following items:

Pre-Treatment Questionnaire1-Demographic questions 2-Online and virtual world familiarity3-Pretest of cognitive learning itemsTreatment4- Pre-recorded 28-minute machinimaPost-Treatment Questionnaire5-Instructor immediacy questionnaire6-Instructor social presence questionnaire7-Student co-presence questionnaire8-Posttest of cognitive learning items.

LimitationsLimitations1. Treatments were scripted and pre-recorded.

2. The pre-recorded sessions were short (28 minutes).

3. The experiment was a “one shot” exposure.

4. Participants were recruited from the same pool.

5. The avatar chosen to represent the instructor was a bespectacled and bearded Caucasian male.

ResultsResults

Pre-session Items• Demography • Online and virtual worlds familiarity• Pretest

Post-session Items• Immediacy• Social presence• Co-presence• Cognitive learning

Results: DemographyResults: Demography• Females 63.7% (n = 179)• Males 36.3% (n = 102)• 68.7% of participants were 18-19 years old.• 29.6% of participants were 20-26 years old.

Self-Identified Ethnicity

Frequency Percentage

WhiteMexican AmericanAsian/SE AsianFilipinoOther HispanicOther/Not StatedAfrican AmericanInternationalPacific Islander

118464025161612

62

42.016.414.28.95.75.74.32.10.7

Results: Online and Virtual World FamiliarityResults: Online and Virtual World Familiarity

Online Participation• 68.7% (n = 193) indicated 0-5 hours per week• 67.3% (n = 189) had never taken courses in which

the instructor used online conferencing tools.• 75.1% (n = 211) had never been in a virtual world.

Indicated Types of Participation in Online CommunitiesOnline

CommunitiesPopulation Percentage

StudyHobbySocial networkForumRole-Play/Game

141100695844

50.235.624.620.615.7

Results: ImmediacyResults: ImmediacyRQ1: Do immediacy behaviors projected by

the instructor-avatar influence instructor immediacy?

Mean Scores for ImmediacyGroups Mean Scores

Group 1 (HiHi) n = 28Group 2 (HiLo) n = 29Group 3 (LoHi) n = 28Group 4 (LoLo) n = 32

64.3953.4436.6445.13

Significant difference with only pairs: 1 (HiHi) and 3 (LoHi) p = .001 1 (HiHi) and 4 (LoLo) p = .032

Results: Social PresenceResults: Social PresenceRQ2: Do immediacy behaviors projected by

the instructor-avatar influence instructor social presence?

Mean Scores for Instructor Social Presence

Groups Mean Scores

Group 1 (HiHi) n = 62Group 2 (HiLo) n = 52Group 3 (LoHi) n = 58Group 4 (LoLo) n = 61

29.7920.3614.1513.68

Only pair NOT sig. dif: Group 3 (LoHi) & Group 4 (LoLo) p = .995

Strong positive correlation between avatar immediacy and instructor social presence: r = .769, n = 111, p < .0005

Results: Student Co-PresenceResults: Student Co-PresenceRQ3: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the

student-avatar influence perceived students’ co-presence?

Mean Scores for Students Co-PresenceGroups Mean Scores

Group 1 (HiHi) n = 32Group 2 (HiLo) n = 50Group 3 (LoHi) n = 43Group 4 (LoLo) n = 46

29.5330.5621.5328.71

Open-Ended Item # 5: Describe the student-avatar behaviors which positively influenced your perception of the students.

No sig. dif.

Aspects of the machinima

Number of responses

Interactive participationActed like real studentsWere attentiveUsed gestures

45392822

Results: LearningResults: LearningRQ4: Do immediacy behaviors projected by the

instructor-avatar influence cognitive learning outcomes?

Mean Scores for Pretest and Posttest Groups Pretest Mean Scores Posttest Mean Scores

Group 1 (HiHi) n = 68Group 2 (HiLo) n = 74Group 3 (LoHi) n = 69Group 4 (LoLo) n = 70

3.673.754.143.50

5.575.025.635.35

no sig. dif. between the groups as measured by the immediate posttest scores (F (3, 277) = 1.379, p = .249

Negative relationship between avatar immediacy and learning outcomes r = ‑.50, n = 117, p = .000

Results: Open-Ended ItemsResults: Open-Ended ItemsItem 1: Number of students who indicated they perceived the instructor avatar as

realPerceived

Instructor as ‘real’

Group 1 (HiHi)n = 65

Group 2(HiLo)n = 67

Group 3(LoHi)n = 67

Group 4(LoLo)n = 64

YesNo

5312

4123

1651

1846

Item 2: categories of Aspects of the machinima that made the instructor avatar seem real

Aspect of the machinima Number of responses

It was a real voiceUsed gestures, facial expressions, moved bodyHis character looked like a real person/teacherHe was accessible (personal info, caring, ‘us’, emotions…)Interacted with students, called them by first namesEncouraged students to be involved, asked questions

79443229

2721

Results: Open Ended Items Results: Open Ended Items Items 5 & 6: Positive/Negative Student-Avatars’ Behaviors

Positive Behaviors Negative Behaviors

Participated in classFelt together like a classroomUsed humorWere different and uniqueInteracted with instructorWere friendlySitting attentiveWere like real studentsMove realisticallyShowed engagement

Did not do anythingLooked boredIt’s fake anywayDiversity is distractingRidiculous, weirdSlowed down instructorDid not look realisticDid not talkGestures distractedThey can’t see me

Item 7: Environment is distracting

Group 1(n = 64)

Group 2(n = 66)

Group 3(n = 60)

Group 4(n = 66)

YesNo

2440

3135

3135

1541

SummarySummary

• Instructor-avatar immediacy behaviors influence instructor immediacy: Group 1 HiHi and Group 2 HiLo > Group 3 LoHi and Group 4 LoLo

• Instructor-avatar immediacy behaviors influence instructor

social presence: 59% of the variance in the social presence of avatar instructors can be accounted for by students’ perception of instructor immediacy behavior.

• Student-avatars immediacy behaviors influence perceived student co-presence: The networked minds measure results showed no sig. relationship ≠ participants reported awareness of student-avatars activities.

• All groups improved pre to post for cognitive learning. Inconclusive.

RecommendationsRecommendationsParalanguage

behaviors

• Voice quality• Emotion & speaking style• Prosodic features

NonVerbal

• Proxemic behavior, body language/posture

• Facial expression & gaze direction

• Gestures

Text

• Tone, style• Spatial arrangement of

words• Use of emoticons• Use of symbols and

infographics

Avatar

• Clothing, hairstyles• Physique