Economou, D., Mitchell, W. L. & Boyle, T. (2000) Requirements Elicitation for Virtual Actors in Collaborative Learning
Environments. Computers & Education, Pergamon/Elsevier Science, ISSN: 0360-1315, Vol. 34, 3-4 (2000), pp. 225-239.
REQUIREMENTS ELICITATION FOR VIRTUAL ACTORS
IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
DAPHNE ECONOMOU, DR. WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
AND DR. TOM BOYLE*
Department of Computing and Mathematics, Manchester Metropolitan University,
Chester Street, M1 5GD, England
[Fax: 0161 247 1483; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]]
*School of Informatics and Multimedia Technology, University of North London,
166-220 Holloway Road, London, N7 8DB
AbstractThis paper reports on the elicitation of requirements for Virtual Actors in Collaborative Virtual Learning
Environments (CVLEs). The methodological approach followed involves the phased development of a series of learning
environments which are observed in use by parents, children and teachers. The focus of study is on the interactivity and
social communication issues that arise in the learning situation. The research uses as its case study the work of the
Manchester Museum Education Service with children at Key Stage Level 2 (9-11 years old) of the National Curriculum.
The particular learning situation is based on senet, an ancient Egyptian board game from the Museum’s collection of
artefacts from the pyramid builders' town of Kahun. Results are presented of the first phase prototype, a single display
groupware system where interactions take place face-to-face in the “real-world” external to the environment. Results are
also presented of the second phase prototype, a multi-user groupware environment in which the users are remotely
located and interaction is mainly internal to the environment. The paper discusses how the results from these two phases
are being used to establish requirements for a CVLE to be developed in the third phase of research.
Keywordsco-operative/collaborative learning, virtual reality, human-computer interface, interactive learning
environments, elementary education
REQUIREMENTS ELICITATION FOR VIRTUAL ACTORS
IN COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
DAPHNE ECONOMOU, DR. WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
AND DR. TOM BOYLE*
Department of Computing and Mathematics, Manchester Metropolitan University,
Chester Street, M1 5GD, England
*School of Informatics and Multimedia Technology, University of North London
166-220 Holloway Road, London, N7 8DB
[Fax: 0161 247 1483; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]]
1. INTRODUCTION
The overall aim of this research is to develop a framework of design factors relating to the use of virtual
actors in Collaborative Virtual Learning Environments (CVLEs). These factors will address issues of pedagogy
and interaction (e.g. how can actors be used to structure a learning session in virtual environments) rather than
underlying technological concerns (e.g. the suitability of particular computer graphics rendering techniques).
This paper focuses on issues concerning the elicitation of requirements for the development of the framework.
CVEs have considerable potential in education and provide a means of supplying a valuable social element to
learning (section 2). The approach adopted in this research is that in order to identify the design factors that will
influence the effectiveness of an educational CVE it is first necessary to study the interactivity and social
communication that arises in such collaborative learning situations. The methodological approach followed is a
phased one in which prototype learning environments are constructed and observed in use (section 3). The
phased approach simplifies the elicitation of requirements and allows the prototypes to be observed in use by a
"real world" sample of users. The learning activity being studied is based around senet, an ancient Egyptian
board game. In the first phase a single display groupware was used which involved face-to-face communication
between users (sections 4 & 5). In the second phase a multiuser groupware environment was constructed in which
the users were remotely located and communication was mainly internal to the environment (sections 6 & 7). The
results of these two phases are being used to elicit requirements which will be used to develop a full
Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment (section 8).
2. VR, CVES AND PEDAGOGY
Virtual Reality (VR) is a medium which provides the potential for new kinds of educational environments
(Robert, 1992; Osberg, 1995; Youngblut, 1998). VR gives the users the opportunity to explore and experience
interactively objects, processes and environments (Mantovani, 1996). Interaction in VR is intuitive because
students interact with objects in a natural way (Brown, Cobb & Eastegate, 1995). Metaphors from games and
theatre can be used in VR to incorporate more affective elements of the interface such as fun (Laurel, 1993).
VR supports the approach to learning which is currently predominant: constructivism. Constructivists argue
that:
• knowledge is constructed from the child’s experience in the world and processes in which they engage
(Piaget, 1962)
• people best construct new knowledge when they are engaged in personally meaningful tasks (Papert, 1993).
• authentic context is pedagogically important (Vygotsky, 1978).
Current educational thought also recognises the need for sociocultural methods that emphasise the social roles
of teachers and learners (Soloway, 1996). Such co-operative learning is seen as an active process facilitated by
interaction between peers, teachers and other learning resources (Slavin, 1983). A more practical impetus for
collaborative learning in the UK has come from the National Curriculum for Education and the National Grid for
Learning (NGfL) (DfEE, 1997; DfEE, 1998).
The Collaborative Virtual Environment (CVE) medium has a lot of potential for supporting collaborative
learning. In a CVE, learners and teachers can be remotely located physically but share a virtual space in which
learning can occur. A CVE can go beyond a VE by providing a medium in which learning occurs not only via
interactions with objects in the environment but also between the participants. It can introduce an important
social dimension to the experience. For example, Brna and Aspin (1997) describe work on supporting the
learning of concepts in Physics through collaboration on tasks in a Virtual Laboratory.
However, one problem with using VEs is the lack of structuring facilities (Kaur, 1997). In a VE the onus is
often on the user to take the initiative in exploring the environment. This unstructuredness increases when a CVE
is used as issues like communication and control come into play (Johnson, Stiles & Munro, 1998). This lack of
structure is a particular problem when CVEs are used as learning environments. It contrasts with the situation in
the classroom where the teacher is responsible for structuring the presentation of material and learning activities
(Hertz-Lazarowitz & Shachar, 1990).
Virtual Actors provide a potential solution to the problem of unstructuredness. Virtual actors can play two
main roles in a CVE. Firstly, a virtual actor can function as an embodiment or representation of the user in the
environment (Granieri & Badler, 1995; Slater & Usoh, 1994). When virtual actors are used in this way they are
known as avatars. When a user enters the environment they are represented by their own avatar. They can detect
the presence of other users by seeing their avatars. Secondly, a virtual actor may represent a software agent. In
this case the behaviour of the actor is specified by the agent (Laurel, 1993; Granieri & Badler, 1995).
Actors and agents can play an important role in educational systems (Johnson, Stiles & Munro, 1998). Lester,
Converse, Kahler, Barlow, Stone and Bhoga (1997) describe a 2D educational environment in which two fully
functional animated pedagogical agents (Herman and Bug) fly around, point out things of interest and provide
children with problem-solving advice. Roussos, Johnson, Moher, Leigh, Vasilakis and Barnes (1999) describe
the NICE project, a fully immersive environment for collaborative learning in which avatars represent expert
instructors for children.
A general description of the type of CVLE to be studied can be created by synthesising models of VEs (Kaur,
1998) and CVEs (Benford, Bowers, Fahèn, Greenhalgh & Snowdon, 1995; Steed & Tromp, 1998) with models
of classroom interaction (Bigge & Shermis, 1992). A CVLE can be seen as consisting of three main elements:
entities; actions between those entities; and the situation of the collaboration.
Entities can be split into four main categories:
• environment
the space in which collaboration occurs
• objects
artefacts in the environment that participants can interact with or tools that can be used to communicate
with other participants
• participants
these can be split into two main categories: child and expert (e.g. teacher, museum staff, parent)
• groups
participants may be organised into groups (e.g. children usually work in pairs, the teacher and several pairs
will constitute a class).
Actions can be identified for each participant:
• interactions with the environment (e.g. navigating around the space)
• interactions with objects (e.g. picking up objects)
• social interaction with other participants (e.g. communication)
In addition the situation itself can be described:
• activity, the task that is the subject of collaboration.
• pedagogy, the style of teaching/learning being used.
The research described in this paper aims to identify requirements that can be used to guide developments in
the CVE technology. These requirements focus on the interactivity and social communication issues surrounding
virtual actors.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 A phased approach
One major problem faced in studying CVLEs is the vast amount of factors that are involved. Kaur (1997) has
identified 46 design properties to be considered when designing VEs for usability. The number of factors
increases dramatically when considering a CVE that introduces issues of communication and collaboration
between users. This makes it difficult to isolate which design decisions are responsible for the overall
effectiveness of the environment. It is also difficult to identify the inter-play between various factors (e.g. the
effects that usability issues have on pedagogic issues).
To simplify the study of design factors a phased approach was adopted to studying the learning situation
(Economou, Mitchell & Boyle, 1998). In the first two phases more mature technologies were used to construct
robust prototype collaborative learning environments. These prototypes were then observed in use in order to
identify the types of interactivity and social communication that would need to be supported in a complete
CVLE.
In the first phase a prototype environment was developed that took the form of a single display groupware
(Stewart, Bederson & Druin, 1999). Participants sit next to each other and view the environment through a single,
shared display. The interactions between them were external to the computer (see Figure 1(a)). The prototype
was constructed using 2D multimedia tools. This helped to simplify issues surrounding the navigation of the
environment and the ways in which objects could be manipulated. The purpose of this phase was primarily to
explore what goes on in the game-playing situation. It was meant to gather information about what goes on in the
"real world" and identify usability issues surrounding the prototype in order to inform the design of environments
developed in subsequent phases.
In the second phase of work prototypes were developed which took the form of conventional groupware
systems. Participants were remotely located so interactions between them were internal to the computer (see
Figure 1 (b). The prototypes were developed using 2D multimedia tools coupled with groupware technology
typical of that used in education. The purpose of this phase was to explore issues surrounding the interaction
being internal to the environment and the effects on the behaviour of participants. The prototypes also introduced
the concept of population to the environment. One prototype was semi-populated (the child could see an avatar
representing the expert) and the other two prototypes were fully populated (the child could also see their own
avatar).
In the third phase, a prototype is being constructed using CVE technology. This will be 3-D, fully populated
with the interactions internal to the computer. The prototype is being designed according to the design factors
identified in previous phases. Some of the studies in this phase will thus be evaluative as well as exploratory.
Figure 1 (a)
Interactions external to the environment
Figure 1 (b)
Interactions internal to the environment
The studies in the first two phases are aimed at deriving a rich set of qualitative information. From this a set
of requirements can be identified and then used to inform the design of the third phase prototype. The work in the
first two phases can be seen to be of a more exploratory nature, more like formative evaluation in contrast to the
work in the third phase which will involve evaluation of a more summative nature.
The phased approach provides several benefits. It provides the means of managing the complexity of factors
by dealing with a manageable set of factors in each phase (e.g. 2D/3D and population). It allows the results of
each phase to inform subsequent phases. In this way it allows requirements to be progressively identified. The
use of more robust technologies allows the essential features of the situation (interactivity and social
communication) to be studied with real users in a way not possible with more immature and inaccessible CVE
technology.
3.2 The learning task
Another problem faced by CVE research is the prototypical nature of many of the applications developed.
Roussos, Johnson, Moher, Leigh, Vasilakis and Barnes (1999) call for more exploratory work which involves
building novel learning applications and carrying out informal evaluations of them. Many studies that have been
carried out have been with users with ready access to the technology. However, it is necessary to recognise the
situated nature of the processes that arise in collaborative learning. To determine the requirements of a CVE it is
necessary to study a “real world” situation. Only in such a situation do seemingly trivial problems arise that in
reality may determine the success or failure of a system.
In order to study an authentic learning activity the research was based around the work of Manchester
Museum's Education Service (Mitchell, 1999). This service is one of the longest established of its type in the
U.K., providing close to a hundred years of access for schools to the museum's collection. The primary emphasis
of a school's visit to the Museum is to enable children to study and work from "real things" and the Service has
access to a wide range of Museum artefacts and specimens relevant to many subjects in the National Curriculum
for education. The Service mainly caters for children at Key Stage Level 2 (9-11 years old). One particular
strength of the Museum is its collection of ancient Egyptian artefacts from the pyramid builders' town of Kahun.
These artefacts play a major part in the Education Service's teaching.
The artefact chosen as the basis of the learning activity was senet - a board game for two players. Players take
turns to throw a die. The object is to "bear off" your 10 pieces first.
A CVE based on senet would provide a good testbed for the various CVLE properties described earlier (see
section 2). Objects in the environment would include the board and pieces. It allows participants to operate as
individuals, in pairs or as larger groups. Participants can interact with the pieces as well as communicating with
each other. There is a natural turn-taking structure which can be taken advantage of. In terms of collaboration it
allows co-operation (in learning the game) as well as competition (in trying to win the game). The game situation
also allows a range of teaching styles from traditional instructional methods (e.g. explaining the rules in advance)
to constructivist methods (learning by playing).
The game also supports the needs of experimentation in various ways. Firstly, it can be implemented in either
2D or 3D form. This allows findings to be carried through from one phase to another. Secondly, it is a fairly well
structured task (the players have to learn the rules, set up the board, decide who plays first, then start playing).
The length of time required for this is typically 30-45 minutes. This matches well the length of time the children
would be prepared to take part in a task before becoming restless. Thirdly, assessment of the player’s knowledge
can occur in a fairly unobtrusive manner (e.g. by observing if they are following the rules).
4. FIRST PHASE STUDIES
The aim of the first phase studies was to examine the types of interactions and social communication which
occur in the game playing situation. The study was intended to gather a rich set of qualitative information. CVE
technology was not used to develop the prototype as the immature nature of this technology would have limited
the functionality available to users. Instead, a 2-D prototype was developed using more mature multimedia
technology (Macromedia Director). Users share a single display and input device (e.g. mouse) and the
interactions between the users are external to the environment (see Figure 1 (a)). The environment contains
artefacts related to the game (board, pieces and dice) and two Egyptian figures (see Figure 2). The participant can
obtain information about the game by selecting from a menu of questions that can be put to the figures. This
introduces the concept of a virtual actor to the environment and provides a very limited form of population.
Figure 2. First phase prototype
Two sets of studies were conducted in the first phase. Direct observation and note taking were used to gather
data during the studies. Video recording would not have been practical due to the location of the studies and the
fact that members of the general public were being observed. In addition these first phase studies were primarily
exploratory.
The first study was conducted during Manchester Museum's activity week when activities are put on for
parents and children. 47 children (8-11 years old) were observed over 4 days. The composition of participants
within each session varied widely. In some cases there was a single child and parent, in other cases a pair of
children. In many cases the pairs were made up of siblings.
Each session lasted between 30-45 minutes. A researcher (playing the role of an expert) gave the children a
brief introduction to the game. The children were shown how to ask the Egyptian figures questions to learn about
the game. Children were then asked to carry out various tasks such as setting up the board and playing the game.
The second study took place during an open day for schools at Manchester Metropolitan University. Children
were drawn from the same class and ranged in age from 10-11 years. Five 30 minute sessions were observed.
Each session consisted of two experts and 3 pairs of children in one room. Each pair had access to a prototype.
This study differed from the first in three main ways. Firstly, the prototype was revised to include an
introduction to the game. This used animation to show how pieces are set up on the board and how the game is
played. This replaced the introduction by the researcher in the first study. Secondly, there was a closer match
between the children making up a pair (as they were classmates). Thirdly, three pairs of children were observed
at a time.
5. FIRST PHASE FINDINGS
The sessions could be classified according to the roles adopted by the participants:
− 2 children evenly matched
The most common situation in the second study where children were classmates.
− 2 children where one is "expert"
This occurred in both studies. Typically the "expert" child had previous experience of playing board games
(particularly chess) or had been an on-looker during a previous session of senet (first study). The expert
child would be particularly active in such a situation and show good ability in providing a concise
summary of what was required to start playing.
− 1 child and an expert
This occurred several times in the first study when just a single child wanted to play the game and no one
else (except one of the researchers) was available.
− one child and a parent
This occurred only in the first study. Parents were particularly good at prompting the child into informationseeking behaviour.
− on-lookers
Due to the public nature of the venues there would be occasional overcrowding so children would be in
the role of on-lookers rather than players.
The content of the communication within each session was also analysed. The children would typically
discuss between themselves how to do things at the start of the game. As the game progressed the communication
decreased. In addition to the expected intra-pair communication, there was significant inter-pair communication
observed in one of the sessions in the second study. Children from one pair asked other children questions about
the game.
In terms of the expert the main types of exchanges involved:
- giving information (describing an object, describing rules, describing how to operate the prototype)
- telling children what processes to follow to find more information
- assessing progress (e.g. asking which child was winning)
- giving encouragement and feedback
The participants also used a range of communication modes. The experts made extensive use of gesturing.
This would either be by pointing to areas of the screen or using the cursor to do so. The latter course of action
had the benefit of taking control of the communication.
The game itself is a situation with an explicit turn-taking structure that the children recognised and adhered to.
Children took turns at object manipulation (mainly throwing the dice and moving pieces) by taking control of the
single mouse that was available. The expert would take control of the communication by interrupting the
children, usually verbally. The expert would sometimes need to take control of the mouse to move pieces (e.g. to
make a move for a child or to "undo" an illegal move). This sometimes caused problems when resuming play if
the children had forgotten whose turn it was.
Children encountered problems with the game when they were unsure of the rules. However, they rarely
consulted the Egyptian figures themselves. If they encountered problems during the game they would almost
always turn to the expert who would have to explicitly refer them to the Egyptian figures. The children were
sometimes prompted in more subtle ways to consult the figures (e.g. by asking them whether they trusted each
other to know the rules). Other problems arose when the children forgot where they were in the game (e.g. after
asking a question). They were also sometimes unclear when they should be watching the demonstration and when
they could actually play.
The expert monitored the situation by checking if children were following the rules or seeing if they were
following the best strategy (the children often adopted the strategy of capturing their opponent's pieces rather
than concentrating on bearing their own pieces off the board). The expert would monitor by asking questions
such as "who is winning" or "how do you know they are winning". In the second study, monitoring was more
difficult as only two experts were available for 3 pairs of children.
The first phase results also provided information about changes that needed to be made to the interface of the
environment. This included the increased use of animation for demonstration purposes as well as more minor
issues such as the positioning and appearance of controls.
Of more significance are results concerning the lack of use of the Egyptian figures. Most of the children's
knowledge about the game was obtained from the human participants (e.g. parents or researchers playing the
expert role). This could be put down to the limited mode of communication available (menu-based questioning,
static text and graphics for presenting information). Indeed, the use of animation in the prototype used in the
second study did help in the initial presentation of information. However, during the course of a game, children
still relied on human participants.
The problem was that the Egyptian figures were unable to exhibit the types of behaviours shown by the
human experts. The expert was able to employ various techniques for monitoring the situation, be it the state of
the game or the state of the children's knowledge about the rules. With that information to hand the expert could
intervene when necessary.
This issue of awareness has been raised by Pedersen and Sokoler (1997) who referred to peripheral
awareness, the ability to maintain and constantly update a picture of someone’s social and physical context. The
inter-pair communication observed in the second study showed the need for awareness not just at the level of the
pair but also at the level of the group as a whole.
The first phase prototypes provided some of the range of actions characteristic of a CVLE (see section 2).
One difference was the 2D nature of the prototypes. This restricted the range of interactions possible with the
environment (especially navigation). Object interaction involved use of game pieces and dice. The first phase
studies mainly identified the patterns of social interaction which arose in the game playing situation. These
patterns suggested requirements for communication tools to be provided in the second phase prototypes.
6. SECOND PHASE STUDIES
The second phase studies have focused on the issues that arise when the interaction and communication
between participants is internal to the environment. As in the first phase, prototypes were developed using 2D
multimedia technology (Macromedia Director). To provide the multi-user element the prototypes were combined
with the NetMeeting tool. NetMeeting supports sharing of documents and applications and synchronous
communication via text or audio. It is widely used for distance learning.
Each prototype contained three main elements: game artefacts; user representations; and communication
tools. In contrast with the first phase where communication was external to the prototype, in this phase
participants were obliged to communicate with each other by using the communication tools. These consisted of
chat boxes (for typed communication), a hand (for pointing at things in the game) and a white board (for other
communication e.g. drawing). The communication tools were designed to emulate the type of tools typically
found in CVEs.
Three different prototypes were developed and observed:
1. 2-D semi-populated, dialogue external to the game environment (see Figure 3)
In the first prototype the participants were a child and an expert (played by a researcher) located in different
rooms. The child could see a virtual actor representing the expert but was not represented by their own
virtual actor. Participants communicated with each other by typing text in a NetMeeting chat window which
was separate from (external to) the game environment window.
Figure 3. 2-D semi-populated, dialogue external to the game environment.
2.
2-D fully-populated, dialogue internal to the game environment (see Figure 4)
Each participant was represented by their own virtual actor (a palette allows selection). In addition,
participants communicated via chat boxes which are internal to the game environment. This represents an
environment in which a "speech bubble" is associated with each actor.
Figure 4. 2-D fully-populated, dialogue internal to the game environment.
3.
2-D fully-populated, dialogue internal to the game environment (see Figure 5)
This differs from the second prototype as a second child is present in the environment.
Figure 5. 2-D fully-populated, dialogue internal to the game environment.
The studies took place at Knutsford high school over three school days. The subjects were eleven year old
children (year 7). 22 children (11 pairs) participated in the studies. Two rooms were used for the studies. One
containing a researcher (playing the role of the expert) and a second room containing one or both children
accompanied by a second researcher. In the first and second studies only one child at a time used the
environment. The second child was asked to accompany the expert and comment on what was going on.
Background information about the children was obtained from questionnaires filled out by the children before
the session. At the start of the session the children were given some basic instructions about the system and told
to ask the expert if they had any further problems. Both the expert and the child were video taped separately.
Each session lasted approximately 45 minutes. The text typed by each participant during a session was written to
a file automatically. At the end of each session the researcher discussed their experiences with the children. This
lasted approximately ten minutes and was tape recorded.
7. SECOND PHASE FINDINGS
The data gathered has been transcribed and organised to a framework suggested by Druin, Stewart, Proft,
Bederson and Hollan (1997). This organises data according to: time, quotes (what was said), activities (actions),
activity pattern, roles of the participants and design factors.
The fact that the expert was remotely located from the child meant that awareness could not be achieved
simply by looking at them. A comparison of the video of the expert (in which the expert voices the situation as
they perceive it) and the video of the child shows discrepancies in the expert's reading of the situation. The only
cues available were the text appearing in the child's chat box or the movement of the hand pointer. The position
of the mouse pointer gives some clue as to the other participant's focus of activity (e.g. if the other participant has
moved the pointer to their chat box then it could be assumed that they are about to type in some dialogue).
However, this does not allow for the situation in which the child is intending to act but has paused to think about
what they are going to do. The expert's only other option is to explicitly ask the child what is going on.
Turn taking also became more difficult. The NetMeeting tool only allows one user control at a time. This is
achieved by controlling the mouse pointer. However, an additional complicating factor was the lag in the system.
One participant, seeing no apparent activity would take control of the pointer unaware (because of lag) that the
other participant was in fact doing something. To overcome these problems an informal protocol arose during the
studies whereby a participant would place the mouse pointer in a particular area of the screen to signify that their
turn was completed.
When the number of children in the environment increased to two it became more difficult for the expert to
keep track of previous actions and dialogues between the users. Some help was provided by the fact that the chat
boxes provided a "transcript" of the dialogue. This seems to have been used both by the expert and the children
(e.g. scrolling back over an explanation).
One issue that needs further analysis is the effectiveness of the teaching techniques used. For example, instead
of giving direct feedback to children about their actions the expert sometimes used the reflection method (part of
cognitive apprenticeship theory (Collins, Brown & Newman, 1989)). She would ask one of the children to
confirm that the other child’s action was correct, e.g. “is this move correct”, “what would you do if you were
asked the same question”. This could lead to frustration in a situation involving system lag.
The biggest problem faced by the expert in this second phase was the number of times she was literally not in
control in the environment. Whether it was due to lag or the child’s lack of awareness of the expert's intended
action it is not a situation that a teacher would want to see arise. This is an indication that one vital feature will be
the ability to "freeze" the situation and take control.
In comparison to the first phase prototypes, the second phase prototypes were closer in functionality to the
CVLE described in section 2. The social interaction and object interaction were provided via tools internal to the
environment. This simulates the situation that would arise in a CVLE. By studying the problems that arose with
the second phase prototype it is possible to identify design factors for consideration in the next phase of work.
8. FURTHER WORK
The results from the first two phases have been mainly qualitative and served to elicit a set of requirements
for the CVLE to be developed in the third phase. The first phase mainly identified the rich range of interactivity
and social communication that would need to be supported. It showed how important it is that the expert be
aware of and be able to control even such a seemingly well structured activity as game playing The second phase
focused on issues arising from communication via tools in the prototype. The results so far indicate that problems
arise because the established 2D collaborative technology limits the access of the expert to information about the
situation. Technical problems (such as system lag) increase this problem leading to a breakdown in control.
These requirements are currently being formulated into a framework of design factors to consider when using
the CVLE in the third phase. For example, one problem that arose in the second phase was the expert not being
aware of whether the child was thinking about what they would do next or whether they were confused. This can
be seen as a requirement for awareness about the individual. This in turn leads to a design factor concerning the
appearance of the child’s virtual actor, in particular how to show to the expert that they are confused. The
framework will include factors such as:
• appearance (e.g. user's representation)
• awareness, what the actor can perceive about the VE and situation
• object manipulation, ways in which the virtual actors can use objects (e.g. moving a piece in the senet
game)
• communication content, the content of the communicative exchanges
• communication modes, the ways in which the virtual actors communication can be presented (e.g. as text or
as speech)
• turn-taking, this may be by taking turns at communicating (e.g. interrupting) or object manipulation
• role in situation, this will depend on the particular pedagogical style being followed
When the framework of design factors is completed it will be used to design a 3D fully-populated prototype
of the senet game (see Figure 6). The technology that will be used is the DEVA 3D CVE tool developed by the
Advanced Interfaces Group of Manchester University at the Department of Computer Science (Pettifer & West,
1997).
Figure 6. The third phase prototype
The studies in the third phase will be of a more evaluative nature. This will allow the evaluation of the design
factors framework. The results of this phase will be used to refine the framework and determine how generic a set
of CVLEs it will be applicable to.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to the State Scholarships Foundation of Greece for funding Daphne Economou's Ph.D.; the MMU
Manchester Multimedia Centre for use of their facilities; the Advanced Interfaces Group at the University of
Manchester Department of Computer Science for help with the third phase and Claremont Road Primary School,
and Knutsford High School for their co-operation.
REFERENCES
Work from the Senet project can be found at: www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/RESEARCH/virtual-museum
Benford, S., Bowers, J., Fahèn, L., Greenhalgh, C., & Snowdon, D. (1995). User Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual Environments.
Proceedings of ACM CHI’95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 242-249.
Bigge, M.L. & Shermis, S.S. (1992). Learning Theories for Teachers. Harper Collins.
Brna, P. & Aspin, R. (1997). Collaboration in a Virtual World: Support for Conceptual Learning?. Proceedings of IFIP WG3.3 Working
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction and Education Tools, D. Dicheva and I. Stanchev (eds.), Sophia: VirTech, 113-123.
Brown, D.J., Cobb, S.V.G., & Eastegate, R. M. (1995). Learning in virtual environments (LIVE). Virtual Reality Applications. Academic
Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L.
B. Resnick, Cognition and instruction: issues and agendas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
DfEE (1997). Connecting the Learning Society: The Government’s Consultation Paper on the National Grid for Learning, U.K.:
Department of Education and Employment.
DfEE (1998). Open for Learning, Open for Business: The Government’s National Grid for Learning Challenge, U.K.: Department of
Education and Employment.
Druin, A., Stewart, J., Proft, D., Bederson, B., & Hollan, J. (1997). KidPad: A Design Collaboration Between Children, Technologists, and
Educators. Proceedings of ACM CHI’97, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 463-470.
Economou, D., Mitchell, W.L., & Boyle, T. (1998). A Phased Approach to Developing a Set of Requirements for the Use of Virtual Actors
in Shared Virtual Learning Environments. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA & ED-TELECOM 98: 10th World Conference on
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World Conference on Educational Telecommunications. Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 1620-1621.
Granieri, J. P., & Badler, N. I. (1995). Simulating Humans in Virtual Reality. In R.A. Earnshaw, J.A. Vince & H. Jones, Virtual Reality
Applications. Academic Press, 253-269.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Shachar, H. (1990). Teacher’s Verbal Behaviour in Cooperative and Whole-Class Instruction. In S. Sharan,
Cooperative Learning Theory and Research. New York: Praeger, 77-94.
Johnson, W.L., Stiles, R., & Munro, A. (1998). Integrating Pedagogical Agents into Virtual Environments. Presence, 7(6), 523-546.
Kaur, K. (1997). Designing Virtual Environments for Usability. Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT’97. Chapman &
Hall, 636-639.
Kaur, K. (1998). Designing virtual environments for usability. PhD thesis. Centre for HCI Design, City University, London.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as Theatre, Addison-Wesley.
Lester, J.C., Converse, S.A., Kahler, S.E., Barlow, S.T, Stone, B.A., & Bhoga, R.S. (1997) The Persona Effect: Affective Impact of
Animated Pedagogical Agents. Proceedings of ACM CHI’97, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press,
359-366.
Mantovani, G. (1996). New Communication Environments From Everyday to Virtual, Taylor & Francis.
Mitchell, W. L. (1999). Moving the museum onto the Internet: The use of virtual environments in education about ancient Egypt. In J.A.
Vince and R.A. Earnshaw, Virtual Worlds on the Internet. IEEE Computer Society Press, 263-278.
Osberg, K. M. (1995). Virtual Reality and Education: Where Imagination and Experience Meet. VR in the Schools, 1(2).
Papert, S. (1993). Situating Constructivism. In I. Harel, & S. Papert, Constructionism. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
1-11.
Pedersen, E.R., & Sokoler, T. (1997). AROMA: Abstract Representation Of Presence Supporting Mutual Awareness. Proceedings of ACM
CHI’97, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 51-58.
Pettifer S.R., & West A. J. (1997). Deva: A coherent operating environment for large scale virtual reality applications. Proceedings of
Virtual Reality Universy '97.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, London: Routledge.
Robert, I. (1992). Psychological and Pedagogical Issues in Using Virtual Reality Systems. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on
Virtual Reality International: Impacts & Applications, April 1992, London.
Roussos, M., Johnson, A., Moher, T., Leigh, J., Vasilakis, C., & Barnes, C. (1999). Learning and Building Together in an Immersive Virtual
World. Presence, 8(3), 247-263
Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1994). Body Centered Interaction in Immersive Virtual Environments. In N. Thalmann & D. Thalmann, Artificial
life and Virtual Reality, John Wiley and Sons, 123-147.
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Soloway, E., Jackson, S.L., Klein, J., Quintana, C., Reed, J., Spitulnik, J., Stratford, S.J., Studer, S., Eng, J., & Scala, N. (1996).
Learning theory in practice: case studies of learner-centered design. Proceedings of ACM CHI '96, Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. ACM Press, 189-196.
Steed, A., & Tromp, J. (1998). Experiences with the Evaluation of CVE Applications. Proceedings of Collaborative Virtual Environments
CVE’98, University of Manchester, U.K., 123-130.
Stewart, J., Bederson, B.B., & Druin, A. (1999) Single Display Groupware: A Model for Co-operative Collaboration. Proceedings of ACM
CHI’99, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Youngblut, C. (1998). Educational Uses of Virtual Reality Technology, Technical Report IDA Document D-2128. Alexandria, VA: Institute
for Defence Analyses.