**4. Conclusions and future work**

90 Virtual Reality and Environments

In the Planning stage, only one time the action following to the gaze changes was pointing. The final gaze target during the Planning stage to the peers was 43%, in the Implementation stage only 15%, and in the Reviewing stage, it was the 71 %. In the Reviewing stage, the followed action to the changes in the viewpoint, in 5 of the 34 times was the end of the session, this is consistent with a last look to verify what had been done. The change of gaze that ended in a moving action may be because of the user trying to see the workspace from other perspectives. Curiously, Group 2 from the first trial without facilitator, used these changes of gaze by the end of the session during the Reviewing stage, which imply head

In reserve of confirming these observations with a biggest sample of data, they may represent an adaptation of the users' nonverbal behavior facilities in a CVE, as awareness of

Regarding the facilitator, it seems that the messages were sent very frequently, see column 2 in Table 12, it might be better to spread them, especially those regarding participation rates; also, statistics should be cleaned once a message is triggered regardless the users' answer to avoid repetitions. This, as an attempt of improving the number of answered messages,

Other method to make the facilitator advices more acceptable could be to present them in a more attractive way like changing the color of the letters, or maybe in an imperative form, to

Finally, following the logs files a kind of story can be tell about what is going on in the environment, the next lines were composed based on them and it correspond to a SS user:

movements on their avatars, to say yes or not to the others.

their interaction with others.

without forcing the participants to do so.

Results from Loading: keyStrokeLog - 1.txt

Look at Both at 9:40:29 Look at Nobody at 9:40:29 Look at SB at 9:40:30 Look at SA at 9:40:31 Talk to SA at 9:40:31 Look at SB at 9:40:32 Talk to SB at 9:40:32 Talk to SB at 9:40:35 Talk to SB at 9:40:42

Take Dining Table at 9:44:14

Move Dining Table at 9:44:43 Move Dining Table at 9:44:44 Move Dining Table at 9:44:45 Move Dining Table at 9:44:46

Talk to SB at 9:44:32

Talk to SB at 9:44:52 Talk to SB at 9:44:58...

SS(1)

...

…

give them via voice, or to give the facilitator a body.

Base on the nonverbal behavior of the users' avatars in a CVE for learning, an IVA was modeled within an experimental application with the intent to scaffold the collaborative process. The model used only two NVC cues, talking turns and artifacts manipulation, to give two types of advices: one regarding a balance in the group members' participation rates in both talk and implementation; and, the other regarding an expected sequence in the Plan-Implement-Review stages.

Two trials were presented, the first without the facilitator or IVA and the second one with it. In the second trial, the observation of other two NVC cues was conducted, deictic gestures and gazes, while some indications on this regard were pointed out.

Although in this chapter only nonverbal behavior took part in the facilitator modeling, our final intention is to incorporate the scheme to a verbal analysis, an example, can be found in (Peña, Aguilar, & de Antonio, 2010). In trying to avoid a restricted interface like the Sentence Opener approach, the analysis in (Casillas & Daradoumis, 2009) will be adapted to the model.

How people nonverbally behave in graphical environment through their avatars and how they will adapt the CVE facilitations for that, are big open issues. The analysis in here was narrowed to collaborative interaction during the accomplishment of a task in a small group through only a few nonverbal communication cues, barely a small brushstroke of what is suggested as a complete area for research.
