**5. References**


The Users' Avatars Nonverbal Interaction in Collaborative Virtual Environments for Learning 93

Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W., & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-

Kendon, A. (1990). *Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters*.

Knapp, M., & Hall, J. (2007). *Nonverbal communication in human interaction* (7 th ed.). Belmont,

Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. In T.

Kujanpää, T., & Manninen, T. (2003). Supporting visual elements of non-verbal

Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A., & Bhogal, R. S. (1997).

Patterson, M. L. (1983). *Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective*. New York: Springer-

Peña, A., Aguilar, R. A., & de Antonio, A. (2010). Collaborative interaction analysis in

Peña, A., & de Antonio, A. (2009). Nonverbal communication as a means to support

Peña, A., & de Antonio, A. (2010). Inferring interaction to support collaborative learning

Rickel, J. W. (2001). Intelligent virtual agents for education and training: Opportunities and

Salem, B., & Earle, N. (2000). Designing a non-verbal language for expressive avatars.

Stein, R. T., & Heller, T. (1979). An empirical analysis of the correlations between leadership

Wolff, R., Roberts, D., Steed, A., & Otto, O. (2005). A review of tele-collaboration

*Collaborative Virtual Environments,* San Francisco, CA, USA. 93-101.

*E-learning support* (pp. 172-197). Hershey, PA: IGI- Global.

*Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11*, 47-78.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Conference,* Universiteit Utrecht. 220-233.

CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

366.

133.

90.

15-22.

*Social Psychology, 37*, 1993-2002.

*Computer Applications in Technology,* 

Verlang.

face interaction in interactive learning environments. *International Journal of* 

Koschmann (Ed.), *CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm* (pp. 1-23).

communication in computer game avatars. *Level Up - Digital Games Research* 

The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. *CHI '97,* 359-

virtual environments based on verbal and nonverbal indicators. Proceedings of the Ninth Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence*,* pp.129 –

collaborative interaction assessment in 3D virtual environments for learning. In A. A. Juan, T. Daradoumis, F. Xhafa, S. Caballe & J. Faulin (Eds.), *Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for* 

in 3D virtual environments through the User's avatar nonverbal communication. *International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 2*(1/2), 75-

challenges. *Third International Workshop, Intelligent Virtual Agents,* Madrid, Spain.

status and participation rates reported in the literature. *Journal of Personality and* 

technologies with respect to closely coupled collaboration. *International Journal of* 


Brdiczka, O., Maisonnasse, J., & Reignier, P. (2005). Automatic detection of interaction

Capin, T. K., Pandzic, I. S., Thalmann, N. M., & Thalmann, D. (1997). Realistic avatars and

Casillas, L., & Daradoumis, T. (2009). Knowledge extraction and representation of

Chapple, E. D. (1949). The interaction chronograph: Its evolution and present application.

Chou, C., Chan, T., & Lin, C. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present and future of educational agents. *Computer & Education,* (40), 255-269. Churchill, E. F., & Snowdon, D. (1998). Collaborative virtual environments: An introductory

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),

Giraffa, L., & Viccari, R. (1999). Intelligent tutoring systems built using agents techniques. *Intelligent Tutoring Systems Built using Agents Techniques, 4*(1), 23-40.

Guye-Vuillème, A., Capin, T. K., Pandzic, I. S., Thalmann, N. M., & Thalmann, D. (1998).

Heath, C., Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Hindmarsh, J. (1995). Unpacking collaboration: The

Heldal, I. (2007). The impact of social interaction on usability for distributed virtual

Jermann, P. (2004). *Computer support for interaction regulation in collaborative problem-solving.* 

Jermann, P., Soller, A., & Lesgold, A. (2004). Computer software support for collaborative

Johnson, A., & Leigh, J. (2001). *Tele-immersive collaboration in the CAVE research network*.

environments. *The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 6*(3), 45-54.

Jaffe, J., & Feldstein, S. (1970). *Rhythms of dialogue*. New York, NY: Academic.

Unpublished University of Genéva, Genéva, Switzerland.

*Collaborative Virtual Environments,* University of Manchester. 105-112.

Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.

Hall, E. (1968). Proxemics. *Current Anthropology, 9*, 83-108.

*Cooperative Work, 3*(2), 147-165.

London: Springer-Verlag.

autonomous virtual humans in VLNET networked virtual environments. *From Desktop to Webtop: Virtual Environments on the Internet, WWW and Networks,* 

collaborative activity through ontology-based and social network analysis technologies. *International Journal of Business and Data Mining, 4*(2),

review of issues and systems. *Virtual Reality: Research, Development and Applications,* 

Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), *Perspectives on socially shared cognition* (pp. 127–149).

*Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches* (pp. 1-19). Oxford:

Nonverbal communication interface for collaborative virtual environments.

interactional organisation of trading in a city dealing room. *Computer Supported* 

learning. *What we know about CSCL in higher education* (pp. 141-166). Amsterdam:

groups. *ICMI,* Trento, Italy.

141-158.

*3*, 3-15.

Elsevier.

Kluwer.

*Personel, 25*, 295-307.

*International Conference,* Bradford, UK.


**ROTATOR Model: A Framework for Building** 

Charles J. Lesko Jr, Christine R. Russell and Yolanda A. Hollingsworth

The impacts of virtual world technologies are beginning to resonate on a global scale. The recent developments and use of virtual world technologies in the form of virtual workspaces has demonstrated distinct characteristics and outcomes that can be used to plan and gauge levels of development and incorporation within a given business process framework. In supporting business processes, virtual workspaces can provide collaborative and immersive environments to better enable core business processes over a specified period of time. Virtual workspaces are particularly valuable today because they can provide workers with an online collaboration suite with varying levels of functionality that allow groups of workers to communicate in a highly interactive, self-contained collaborative

Recent uses of virtual workspaces have begun to identify some distinct characteristics and outcomes related to their integration in live working environments. Collectively, these characteristics and outcomes can be articulated through the identification of various functional stages that businesses realize to establish and maintain a distinct level of virtual world collaborative capability. However, to date there is no effective strategic model for evaluating and planning implementation of virtual workspaces in a business setting. To frame a discussion on implementation and planning processes for virtual workspaces the authors are proposing a new systematic model in this paper. This proposed model provides a staged breakdown outlining the characteristics and functionalities businesses can currently expect to encounter when implementing virtual workspaces. This proposed model

In a broad sense, the concept of rotation involves having a clear central point that stays fixed, in this case that fixed point is the process of virtual workplace collaborations and like any palindrome it can be viewed from either end having movement from real to virtual with varying degrees of reality and virtualization processes and capabilities

This chapter presents the ROTATOR Model as a proposed framework for managing the development and implementation of virtual workspaces. The purpose of the ROTATOR model is to: (1) provide a pragmatic approach for describing various levels of virtual world application used for implementing virtual workspaces; (2) assist in identifying what level of

**1. Introduction** 

workspace.

is referred to herein as the ROTATOR Model.

enmeshed in between.

**Collaborative Virtual Workspaces** 

*USA* 

*East Carolina University, East Carolina University, Middlesex College* 

Youngblut, C. (1998). *Educational uses of virtual reality technology* No. Technical Report No. IDA Document D-2128). Institute for Defense Analyses. **5** 
