Since learning situations and instructional communication are inseparably inter- woven with social interaction (Dunleavy et al.,2009; Rummel & Krämer,2010) it is important to also cater for social needs when employing immersive technologies in learning settings. With regard to pedagogical agents this will entail that researchers have to contribute to building the necessary capacities, by, for example, developing nonverbal behavior that is suited to foster learning. As a means to this end, transformed social interaction research will also be helpful in identifying which social signals are most beneficial with regard to supporting learning.
Since TSI allows to manipulate teachers’and learners’behavior in a virtual envi- ronment it is not only helpful in order to actually implement suitable behavior
(for example to render a teacher who does not smile friendlier towards students who need this), but also in order to serve as a research tool helping to understand the fabrics of social interaction. With regard to augmented reality it will be important to not only consider cognitive aspects of learning but to also take social aspects into account by, for example, developing narrative structures that will invite social interactions between learners or between learners and teachers as this will not only deepen the experience but also the learning outcomes.
For all forms of immersive social learning experiences it will further be important to derive future developments from theoretical frameworks that have to be refined for these contexts. Only then it can be achieved that the natural relation between learning and social interaction is further optimized by means of technology that increases social immersion with a view to better learning outcomes.
References
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.
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.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication.Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.
Baylor, A. L. (2001). Permutations of control: Cognitive considerations for agent-based learning environments.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 403–425.
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.
Beall, A.C., Bailenson, J. N., Loomis, J., Blascovich, J., & Rex, C. (2003). Non-zero-sum mutual gaze in immersive virtual environments. InProceedings of HCI 2003.
Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2012).Infinite reality. The hidden blueprint of our virtual lives.
New York: Harper Collins.
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.
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.
Clark, H. H. (1996).Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning.Science, 323(5910), 66–69.
doi:10.1126/science.1167311.
Dunleavy M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning.Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp. 735–745). New York: Springer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?Educational Research Review, 6,27–54.
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.
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.
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.
Klauer, K. J. (1985). Framework for a theory of teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education, 1,5– 17.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Salomon, G. (2001).Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers.Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435.
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.
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.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Author Biography
Nicole C. Krämer is professor for Social Psychology—Media and Communication at the University Duisburg-Essen. She has a background in social and media psychology. Shefinished her Ph.D. in 2001 with a thesis on socio-emotional effects of nonverbal behavior and computer animation as a method in communication research. She worked as a visiting researcher and visiting lecturer at the University of Cambridge in the academic year 2002/2003. In 2006 she received the venia legendi for psychology with the habilitation thesis on “Social effects of embodied conversational agents”. Her research interests include human-computer-interaction, social psychological aspects of web 2.0, nonverbal behaviour and computer supported instructional communication.
Assessment for Learning in Immersive Environments
Valerie Shute, Seyedahmad Rahimi and Benjamin Emihovich
Abstract Immersive Environments (IEs) hold many promises for learning. They represent an active approach to learning and are intended to facilitate better, deeper learning of competencies relevant for success in today’s complex, interconnected world. To harness the power of these environments for educational purposes (i.e., to support learning), we need valid assessments of the targeted competencies. In this chapter we focus on how to design and develop such valid assessments, particularly those providing an ongoing, unobtrusive collection and analysis of data as students interact within IEs. The accumulated evidence on learning thus provides increas- ingly reliable and valid inferences about what students know and can do across multiple contexts. This type of assessment is called “stealth assessment” and is applied toward the real-time measurement and support of learning in IEs—of cognitive and non-cognitive variables. The steps toward building a stealth assess- ment in an IE are presented through a worked example in this chapter, and we conclude with a discussion about future stealth assessment research, to move this work into classrooms for adaptivity and personalization.
Keywords Augmented reality
Diagnostic assessmentImmersive environments Stealth assessmentDigital gamesVirtual realityV. Shute (&)S. RahimiB. Emihovich
Educational Psychology and Learning Technologies, Florida State University, Stone Building, 1114 West Call Street, 3064453, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4453, USA e-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/
URL: http://sahmadrahimi.wixsite.com/mysite S. Rahimi
e-mail: [email protected]
URL: http://sahmadrahimi.wixsite.com/mysite B. Emihovich
e-mail: [email protected]
©Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017
D. Liu et al. (eds.),Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education, Smart Computing and Intelligence, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_5
71