Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education pp 55–70Cite as

The Immersive Power of Social Interaction

Using New Media and Technology to Foster Learning by Means of Social Immersion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Smart Computing and Intelligence ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2012). Infinite reality. The hidden blueprint of our virtual lives. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. doi:10.1126/science.1167311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidig, S., & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauer, K. J. (1985). Framework for a theory of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Animated pedagogical agents in educational technology. Educational Technology, 44(6), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2001). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413. doi:10.1080/10508400701413435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science, University Duisburg-Essen, Forsthausweg 2, 47057, Duisburg, Germany

    Nicole C. Krämer

Authors
  1. Nicole C. Krämer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole C. Krämer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Dejian Liu

  2. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Chris Dede

  3. Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Ronghuai Huang

  4. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    John Richards

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krämer, N.C. (2017). The Immersive Power of Social Interaction. In: Liu, D., Dede, C., Huang, R., Richards, J. (eds) Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education. Smart Computing and Intelligence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5489-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5490-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation