This paper presents a review of literature that introduces major concepts and issues in using avatars and pedagogical agents in first- and second-person virtual environments (VEs) for learning online. In these VEs, avatars and pedagogical agents represent self and other learners/participants or serve as personal learning “guides”. The paper offers insights into the relationship of online VEs and their components to computer games and discusses the roles of the Computer as Social Actor (CASA) paradigm, anthropomorphism, ethopoeia, and homophily in these learning environments. It defines and illustrates the terminology and conventions used in VE technology, discusses social aspects of human learning in online VEs, reviews relevant literature, introduces theories relevant to designing these environments, and suggests some models for research to advance the currently limited knowledge of how, why, when, and for whom these online learning environments may be most effective.

">

Avatars, Pedagogical Agents, And Virtual Environments: Social Learning Systems Online

Lynna J. Ausburn*, Jon Martens**, Gary Dotterer***, Pat Calhoun****
* Associate Professor of Occupational Education,Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma, USA.
** Graduate Assistant in Occupational Education, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma, USA.
*** Technology Specialist, Northeastern Technology Center.
**** Patrol Sergeant, Tulsa Police Department.
Periodicity:January - March'2009
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.5.4.819

Abstract

This paper presents a review of literature that introduces major concepts and issues in using avatars and pedagogical agents in first- and second-person virtual environments (VEs) for learning online. In these VEs, avatars and pedagogical agents represent self and other learners/participants or serve as personal learning “guides”. The paper offers insights into the relationship of online VEs and their components to computer games and discusses the roles of the Computer as Social Actor (CASA) paradigm, anthropomorphism, ethopoeia, and homophily in these learning environments. It defines and illustrates the terminology and conventions used in VE technology, discusses social aspects of human learning in online VEs, reviews relevant literature, introduces theories relevant to designing these environments, and suggests some models for research to advance the currently limited knowledge of how, why, when, and for whom these online learning environments may be most effective.

Keywords

Avatars, CASA Paradigm, Collaborative Learning, Human-Computer Interaction, Online Ethnography, Pedagogical Agents, Virtual Environments, Virtual Reality

How to Cite this Article?

Lynna J. Ausburn, Jon Martens and Gary Dotterer, Pat Calhoun (2009). Avatars, Pedagogical Agents, And Virtual Environments: Social Learning Systems Online. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 5(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.5.4.819

References

[1]. Ausburn, F. B., Ausburn, L. J., Cooper, J., Kroutter, P., & Sammons, G. (2007). Virtual reality technology: Current status, applications, and directions for education research. OATE Journal: Oklahoma Association of Teacher Educators, 11, 7-14.
[2]. Auburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2004). Desktop virtual reality: A powerful new technology for teaching and research in industrial teacher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 41(4),33-58.
[3]. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn F. B. (2008a). New desktop virtual reality technology in technical education. i-manager's Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 48-61.
[4]. Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (2008b). Effects of desktop virtual reality on learner performance and confidence in environment mastery: Opening a line of inquiry. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 45(1), 54- 87.
[5]. Badiqué, E., Cavazza, M., Klinker, G., Mair, G., Sweeney, T., Thalmann, D., & Thalmann, N. M. (2002). Entertainment applications of virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 1143- 1166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[6]. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[7]. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299.
[8]. Baylor, A. L. (2007). Pedagogical agents as a social interface. Educational Technology, 47(1), 11-13.
[9]. Baylor, A. L. & Kim, Y. (2003). Validating pedagogical agent roles: Expert, motivator, and mentor. In D. Lassner, & C. McNaought (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Education, Mu l t imedia, Hypermedia, and Telecommunications 2003(pp.463-466).Chesapeake,VA: AACE.
[10]. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 592- 603). Berlin: Springer.
[11]. Baylor, A. L., & Plant, E. A. (2005). Pedagogical agents as social models for engineering: The Influence of agent appearance on female choice. In C. K. Looi, G., McCall, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Supporting learning through intelligence and socially informed Technology (Vol. 125). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
[13]. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in Second Life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[14]. Bracken, C. C., & Lombard, M. (2004). Social presence and children: Praise, intrinsic motivation, and learning with computers. Journal of Communication, 54, 22-37.
[16]. Calvert, S. L. (2002). The social impact of virtual environment technology. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.),Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 663-680).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[17]. Chittaro, L., & Ranon, R. (2007). Web 3D technologies in learning, education, and training: Motivations, issues, opportunities. Computers & Education, 49(1), 3-18.
[18]. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington Publishers.
[19]. Darken, R. P., & Sibert, J. L. (1996a). Navigating large virtual spaces. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction, 8(1), 49-71.
[20]. Darken, R. P., & Sibert, J. L. (1996b). Wayfinding strategies and behaviors in large virtual worlds. Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI '96 Conference. New York: ACM.
[21]. Darken, R. P., & Peterson, B. (2002). Spatial orientation, wayfinding, and representation. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 493-500. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[22]. Davies, R. (2004). Adapting virtual reality for the participatory design of work environments. Computer Suppor ted Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 13(1), 1-33.
[23]. Di Blas, N. D., & Poggi, C. (2007). European virtual classrooms: Building effective “virtual” educational experiences. Virtual Reality, 11(2-3), 129-143.
[25]. Feldman, S., & Yu, E. (1999). Intelligent agents: A primer. Searcher: The Magazine for Database Professionals, October, 42-55.
[26]. Gong, L. (2006, June). How social is social response to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany.
[27]. Gulz, A. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 405-418.
[28]. Holton, E., & Baldwin, T. (Ed.) (2003). Improving st learning transfer in organizations (1 Eds.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
[30]. Isdale, J., Fencott, C., Heim, M. & Daly, L. (2002). Content design for virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 519-532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[31]. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.
[32]. Koh, T. & Tsay, M. (2006, June). Are we polite because they're like us? Social responses toward anthropomorphized computers. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany.
[33]. Krämer, N., & Bente, G. (2006, June). Communication with human-like machines. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association. Dresden, Germany.
[34]. Lazarsfeld, P., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis in M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York: Van Nostrand.
[35]. Lee, J-E. R., Maldonado, H., Nass, C., Brave, S. C., Yamada, R., Nakajima, H., & Iwamura, K. (2008,June). Can “cooperative” agents enhance learning and userinterface relationships in computer-based learning environments? Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association. New York.
[36]. Lee, J-E. R., Nass, C., Brave, S. B., Morishima, Y., Nakajima, H., & Yamada, R. (2007). The case for caring colearners: The effects of computer-mediated colearner agents on trust and learning. Journal of Communication, 57, 183-204.
[37]. Loftin, R. B., Chen, J. X., & Rosenblum, L. (2005). Visualization using virtual reality. In C. D. Hansen and C. R. Johnson (Eds.), The visualization handbook (pp. 479-489). New York: Elsevier.
[38]. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[40]. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
[41]. Mikropoulos, T. A. (2006). Presence: A unique characteristic in educational virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 10(3-4), 197-206.
[42]. Moon, Y. (1996). Similarity effects in humancomputer interaction: Effects of user personality, computer personality, and user control on attraction and attributions of responsibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
[43]. Moon, Y. (1998). When the computer is the “salesperson:” Computer responses to computer “personalities” in interactive marketing situations. Working Paper No. 99-041. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
[44]. Moshell, J. M., & Hughes, C. E. (2002). Virtual environments as a tool for academic learning. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 893-910). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[45]. Nass, C., Fogg, B. J., & Moon, Y. (1996). Can computers be teammates? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 669-678.
[46]. Nass, C. & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103.
[47]. Nass, C. Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dryer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43, 223-239.
[48]. Nass, C., Steuer, J., Henriksen, L., & Dryer, D. B. (1994). Machines, social attributes, and ethopoeia: Performance assessments of computers subsequent to “self-“ or “other-” evaluations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(3), 543-559.
[49]. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledgecreating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
[50]. Nelson, B., & Earlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: Reflections on design practice. Educat ional Technology and Research and Development, 56, 619-641.
[51]. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledgecreating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 2-10.
[52]. Nowak, K., Hamilton, M., Hammond, E., & Krishnan, A., (2007, May). Evaluations of avatars:Anthropomorphic, realistic, and gendered imagery as triggers of charisma effects. Paper presented at annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
[53]. Ondrejka, C. (2008). Education unleashed: Participatory culture, education, and innovation in Second Life. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 229-252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[54]. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[55]. Robbins, S., & Bell, M. (2008). Second Life for DUMMIES. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.
[56]. Rymaszewski, M., Au, W., Ondrejka, C., Platel, R., Van Gordon, S., CéZanne, J. CéAanne, P.,Bastone- Cummingham, B., Karotoski, A., Trotlop, C., & Rossignol, J. (2008). Second Life: The official guide. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing.
[58]. Schroeder, R. (1996). Possible worlds: The social dynamic of virtual reality technology. Boulder, CO, a n d Oxford, England: Westview Press.
[60]. Shank, D. (2008, July). Affect toward computers who coerce in social exchange. Paper presented at the American Sociological Annual Meeting. Boston, MA.
[61]. Simms, E. M. (2007). Reusable, lifelike virtual humans for mentoring and role-playing. Computers &Education, 49(1), 75-92.
[64]. Waller, D., Hunt, E., & Knapp, D. (1998). The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(2), 129-143.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.