**3. Case of study**

Working together to accomplish a task does not necessarily mean that the outcome is due to collaboration. It could be, for example, the result of splitting the task and then putting the parts together, or the task could be accomplished by some participants giving orders while others just follow them. In consequence, if Collaborative Learning is expected some factors have to be observed like the maintained focus on the task, the creation of shared ground, division of labor, and the Plan-Implement-Evaluate cycle.

A collaborative learning session usually begins with an initial introductory social phase, especially if the members of the group do not know each other; students tend to socialize before initiating collaboration in the strict sense (Heldal, 2007). This social conduct can be repeated in the session to maintain a balance between the social and the task aspects of the meeting. Nevertheless, even the fact that this social behavior is necessary for the proper function of a work group, it is also important that it is kept in due proportions, and *focus on the task* has to be maintained.

In order to achieve collaboratively a task, participants have to share information or common ground, that is, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions; and this *shared ground* has to be updated moment-by-moment (Clark & Brennan, 1991). This mechanism is the individual attempt to be understood, at least to an extent that the task can be accomplished.

*Division of labor* may appear during the whole session or in parts of it; the kind of task will determine its convenience.

In addition, whereas a maintained balance between dialogue and action is desirable, it is also expected an appropriate approach to problem solving, based on the *Plan-Implement-Evaluate* cycle (Jermann, 2004).

The study was conducted with the purpose of understanding the participation of the members of a group, in both dialogue and implementation; and the group process phases: Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation, by identifying patterns derived from selected NVC cues extracted from the group behavior during a session while they carry out a task in a CVE.

#### **3.1 Observing NVC cues**

In trying to understand the use of some NVC cues, an experimental application was developed. The VICTOR (VIrtual Collaborative Task- Oriented) application allows three users net-connected to work in a collaborative task, in which the three users' avatars are placed around a table, their workspace.

The NVC cues available in the environment were narrowed to those observed in a study conducted in a real life situation where three people seated around a shared workspace were asked to place a set of drawn furniture on an apartment sketch –see (Peña & de Antonio, 2009) for further details.

These NVC cues are talking turns, objects manipulation, gazes to the workspace and to peers, and pointing to objects, next described for collaborative interaction:

Working together to accomplish a task does not necessarily mean that the outcome is due to collaboration. It could be, for example, the result of splitting the task and then putting the parts together, or the task could be accomplished by some participants giving orders while others just follow them. In consequence, if Collaborative Learning is expected some factors have to be observed like the maintained focus on the task, the creation of shared ground,

A collaborative learning session usually begins with an initial introductory social phase, especially if the members of the group do not know each other; students tend to socialize before initiating collaboration in the strict sense (Heldal, 2007). This social conduct can be repeated in the session to maintain a balance between the social and the task aspects of the meeting. Nevertheless, even the fact that this social behavior is necessary for the proper function of a work group, it is also important that it is kept in due proportions, and *focus on* 

In order to achieve collaboratively a task, participants have to share information or common ground, that is, mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions; and this *shared ground* has to be updated moment-by-moment (Clark & Brennan, 1991). This mechanism is the individual attempt to be understood, at least to an extent that the task can be

*Division of labor* may appear during the whole session or in parts of it; the kind of task will

In addition, whereas a maintained balance between dialogue and action is desirable, it is also expected an appropriate approach to problem solving, based on the *Plan-Implement-*

The study was conducted with the purpose of understanding the participation of the members of a group, in both dialogue and implementation; and the group process phases: Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation, by identifying patterns derived from selected NVC cues extracted from the group behavior during a session while they carry out a task in

In trying to understand the use of some NVC cues, an experimental application was developed. The VICTOR (VIrtual Collaborative Task- Oriented) application allows three users net-connected to work in a collaborative task, in which the three users' avatars are

The NVC cues available in the environment were narrowed to those observed in a study conducted in a real life situation where three people seated around a shared workspace were asked to place a set of drawn furniture on an apartment sketch –see (Peña & de

These NVC cues are talking turns, objects manipulation, gazes to the workspace and to

peers, and pointing to objects, next described for collaborative interaction:

division of labor, and the Plan-Implement-Evaluate cycle.

**3. Case of study** 

*the task* has to be maintained.

determine its convenience.

*Evaluate* cycle (Jermann, 2004).

**3.1 Observing NVC cues** 

placed around a table, their workspace.

Antonio, 2009) for further details.

accomplished.

a CVE.

*Talking turns and amount of talk.* The idea of taking the time that group members speak to understand group process is not new. In 1949, Eliot Chapple created the chronograph interaction; a device to measure persons' amount of talk with the intention of analyzing talkturns structure (Chapple, 1949). Since then, frequency and duration of speech have been useful tools for the analysis of group interaction in a number of ways, for example to create regulatory tools for meetings as in (Bergstrom & Karahalios, 2007). The students' rates of speech will help to determine if they are participating during discussion periods and to what extent.

*Artifacts manipulation and implementation.* When the group's common goal implies implementation, it is desirable a maintained balance between dialogue and action (Jermann, 2004). Artifacts manipulation is an object form of nonverbal behavior, as it can be part of the answer to an expression. The amount of work a student realizes, aside of its quality, is a good indicative of that student's interest and participation on the task.

*Gazes*. The eyes direction is a reliable indicative of a persons' focus of attention (Bailenson et al., 2003). Via the students' gazes, it can be determined to what they are paying attention.

*Deictic Gestures*. Deictic terms such as "here, there, that", are interpreted resulting from the communication context, and when the conversation is focused on objects and their identities, they are crucial to identify them quickly and securely (Clark & Brennan, 1991). Consequently, deictic gestures directed to the shared objects or the workspace should be useful to determine whether students are talking about the task.

In the application, the user does not see his/her own avatar −see Figure 2. The users' avatars do not have a natural behavior; they are just seated representations of the user that need a metaphorical representation of their actions in the environment.

The significant entities associated to the avatars actions are: colored arrows coupled to their hair color (yellow, red, or brown) that take the place of their hands, and can be used to point the objects or grab them to be moved; by a mouse click, the arrow is activated. To move the objects once they have being selected, the WASD keys can be used to direct them.

Fig. 2. Experimental application

The Users' Avatars Nonverbal Interaction in Collaborative Virtual Environments for Learning 79

restriction on the number of times they could move each piece of furniture. The instructions

Participants were allowed to try the application for a while before starting the task in order to get comfortable with its functionality. The time to accomplish the task was restricted to 15

*Data*. Every student intervention within the environment was recorded in a text log file. The logs content is the user identification; the type of action , i.e. move furniture, point furniture, a change in the point of view of the environment, when speaking to others; and the time the intervention was made in minutes and seconds. Data was manipulated to identify

Discussion periods are important in a collaborative session because when they occur, planes, evaluation and agreements are settled. A number of talking-turns involving most of the group members seems to be an appropriate method for distinguishing them from situations like a simple question-answer interchange, or the statements people working in a group produce alongside their action directed to no one in particular (Heath et al., 1995).

A talking turn, as defined by Jaffe and Feldstein (1970), begins when a person starts to speak alone, and it is kept while nobody else interrupts him/her. For practical effects, in a computer environment with written text communication, the talking turn can be understood

Discussion periods for these trials were established as when each one of the three group members had at least one talking-turn. Because for automatic speech recognition the end of an utterance is usually measured when a silence pause occurs in the range of 500 to 2000 ms (Brdiczka, Maisonnasse, & Reignier, 2005), and the answer to a question usually goes in a smaller range, around 500 ms (A. Johnson & Leigh, 2001); to determine the end of a

The collaborative stages can be established by nonverbal cues in different ways, although it also has to relay on the specifications of the task and the instructor strategy for the session. For example, the initial phase could be the introduction to the problem within the

In this case, because the task was explained in person, instruction were delivered to participants in written paper and they had an initial session to try the application, the initial stage was expected to be brief, more likely to be used to get the initiative to start. Then, the Planning stage was expected to start almost immediately; to identify it, the first discussion

The restrictions posted for the objects manipulation makes to expect that participants will not move objects if they have no implementation intention; therefore, the initiation of the

Once the group starts to implement, the discussions periods should mean that they are making new plans or changing them, because there is no way to differentiate new plans

discussion period, pauses of silences were considered in the range of three seconds.

as a posted message, and in oral communication as a vocalization.

**Initial-Planning-Implementation-Reviewing stages** 

stage was determined with the first movement of an object.

were given both verbally and in written form.

minutes. Sessions were audio recorded.

discussion periods and the session stages.

**Discussion periods** 

environment.

period was used.

The avatars' head is another entity that can take four positions to change the user field of view; to the front where the other two peers can be seen, to the right or left to see directly one of the peers, or down to see the workspace –see Figure 3, for that the arrow keys are used.

Fig. 3. The avatar head movements

And, when the user is speaking a dialogue globe appears near his/her right hand as showed in Figure 4., when the user wants to speak he/she needs to press the spacebar key.

This first trial was conducted with the aim of modeling a virtual tutor to facilitate collaboration. In the next session, the tutor implementation is discussed.

Fig. 4. The dialogue globe
