This document summarizes Vicki Suter's presentation at the 2007 AERA Conference on learning and the sense of presence in the virtual world Second Life. The presentation defines presence as an action-based process and contextualized individual experience. It proposes using an ethnographic action-based approach and activity theory as a conceptual framework to study how the sense of presence develops for individuals engaged in collaborative learning activities in Second Life. The study aims to provide insights into design attributes that may contribute to developing a sense of presence to support collaborative learning in 3D virtual worlds.

1. AERA Conference 2007
Learning and the Sense of
Presence in Second Life
Presenter: Vicki Suter,
Pepperdine University
1

2. One distance ed student to another in
their always-open IM window . . .
Second Life Avatar
Wendy Widget asks:
Are you there?
World of Warcraft Avatar
ViaMedia answers:
I don’t know if I’m there,
but I’m here.
2

3. CadreX Dissertation Therapy Group
on Pepperdine’s Malibu Island in SL
• Writing preliminary
proposal (qualitative,
grounded theory
study)
• For this presentation:
– Definition of “sense of
presence”
– Conceptual
Framework
– Proposed Approach
3

4. Purpose & Conceptual Framework
4

5. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning (CSCL)
• Sociocultural perspective on • Considerable existing research
learning as enculturation and on CSCL (Haythornthwaite,
identity development through 2005; Schweller, 2001; Ståhl &
authentic experience (Lave & Wallberg, 2004; Lobel,
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2005) Neubauer, & Swedburg, 2005; )
• Represents a shift from the • Important groundwork in
knowledge acquisition model to research on MUDs and MOOs
the participation model (Barab (Brown & Bell, 2006; Bruckman
& Duffy, 1998) & Resnick, 1995; Bruckman,
1992; Bruckman, 2001; Crump,
• Learning is a collective
2001; Fanderclai, 1995; Grigar &
phenomenon (Carroll, Rosson,
Barber, 2001; Kolko, 2001;
Convertino, & Ganoe, 2006)
Schwartz, 1997; Turkle, 1997)
involving a natural process of
activities for developing
expertise, supported by tools,
artifacts and people
5

6. Design Study => Human-
Computer Interaction Design
• From a socio-cultural • From a sociocultural
perspective, learners (not perspective, Human
designers) create meaning Computer Interaction
of objects in interaction Design is focused on
with environment practice, not information
(Kaptelinin, 2001)
• Virtual worlds designed for
entertainment and play
may have transferrable
design elements to support
doing and activity in more
formal learning
environments
6

7. Conceptualization of Sense of
Presence as Media Attribute
Media-centric analysis focuses on
presence as an attribute of a medium, with
sensory realism measures such as:
• fidelity
• response speed
• engagement of sensory and motor channels
(See Lombard & Ditton, 1997;
Bailenson, 2005;
Biocca & Levy, 1995;
Biocca, 1997)
7

8. Conceptualization of Sense of
Presence as Individual Experience
More recent conceptualization of sense of presence as a
property of an individual’s experience – a private,
intimate state (Heeter, 1992; Spagnolli, Varotto,
Mantovani, 2003), with subjective measures of individual
experience such as:
• Sense of embodiment (Biocca, 1997; Bowers & O’Brien,
1996)
• Control over and identification with avatar (Bartle, 2005;
Biocca, 1997; Cuddihy & Walters, 2000; Gee, 2003;
Murray, 1997; Rogers, 2005; Schroeder & Axelsson,
2006)
• Depth of immersion (Douglas & Hargadon, 2004)
• Agency (Murray, 1997)
• Engagement and motivation (Garrison, 2003;Salen &
Zimmerman, 2004)
8

9. Definition of presence to be
used for this study
• Encompasses cognitive and
• From a sociocultural
social presence (Garrison,
perspective, presence as
2001), world-building and
an action-based process
user-created content
and contextualized
individual experience (Ondrejka, 2004), and sense
of space (Lefebvre, 1991)
• Measurement “can be
captured by monitoring
the sequence of the
participants’ actions and
the aspects of the
environment that are
involved in the process”
(Spagnolli, Varotto, &
Mantovani, 2003, p. 797)
9

10. Activity Theory
• Conceptualization of presence as a dynamic process
associated with an action in an activity system,
occurring in a sociocultural context over time
• Underlying sociocultural and cultural-historical theory
of the mind, learning and practice used for the study
• Aligns the other three conceptual frameworks
(collaborative learning, human-computer interaction
design, and sense of presence)
• Previous work in HCI and CSCL has used Activity
Theory as conceptual framework and analytic tool
(Baker, Hansen, Joiner, & Traum, 1999; Bødker,
1989; Bellamy, 2001; Greenhalgh, 1999; Kaptelinin,
Nardi & Macaulay, 1999; Kaptelinin, 2006; Nardi,
2001; Kuutti, 2001; Kuutti, 1993; Robins, 2002)
10

11. Activity Theory Diagram – Ethics
Knowledgebase Assignment
Based on Activity Theory model, Cole & Engestrom, 1993
11

12. Unit of Analysis
• AT unit of analysis is activity (e.g., in
previous example, the activity is the
development of the ethics knowledgebase).
• For purposes of study, the unit of analysis will
be an action: “conscious goal-oriented
process undertaken to fulfill the object”
(Nardi, 2001, p. 74). In previous activity
system example, an action might be the
scheduling of a team meeting.
12

13. Primary Research Questions
• How does the sense of presence develop
for individuals engaged in collaborative
learning activities in Second Life?
• What are the design attributes and related
conditions that may contribute to the
development of a sense of presence in
Second Life?
• What insights might be gained about the
sense of presence and the design of
human-computer interaction to support
collaborative learning in 3D multi-user
virtual worlds?
13

14. Ethnographic action-based
approach (Spagnolli et al)
Through observation; content, • How did the “configuration of
interaction and discourse virtual objects” (as artifacts
analysis; and interviews in the activity system) relate
regarding sequences of actions to design and to the
making up collaborative development of the sense of
learning activities conducted presence?
within Second Life, explore:
• What are the norms that
• What action possibilities regulated the interaction?
did learners envisage?
• Who were the key participants
• How rich and robust was the and what were the important
environment with respect to relationships?
resources?
• What design attributes and
• What resources were conditions generally facilitate
imported into the virtual (or hinder) the process of the
environment and for what development of a sense of
purposes? presence?
14

15. Purpose of study, revisited
15

16. References
Bailenson, J. N., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., Persky, S., Dimov, A., & Blascovich, J. (2005). The independent
and interactive effects of embodied-agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and
behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 14(4), 379-393.
Baker, M., Hansen, T., Joiner, R., & Traum, D. (1999). The role of grounding in collaborative learning
tasks. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp.
31–63). Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (1998). From practice fields to communities of practice (No. 1-98). Bloomington,
IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology, Indiana University.
Bartle, R. A. (2005). Virtual worlds: Why people play. In T. Alexander (Ed.), Massively multiplayer game
development 2 (pp. 3-18). Hingham, MA: Charles River Media, Inc.
Bellamy, R. K. E. (2001). Designing educational technology: Computer-mediated change. In B. Nardi
(Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 123-146).
Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 3): University of Indiana School of Library and Information
Sciences and School of Informatics.
Biocca, F., & Levy, M. R. (Eds.). (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bødker, S. (1989). A human activity approach to user interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 4(3),
171-195.
16

17. References, cont.
Bowers, J., Pycock, J., & O'Brien, J. (1996). Talk and embodiment in collaborative virtual environments,
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: ACM Press.
Brown, B., & Bell, M. (2006). Play and sociability in there: Some lessons from online games for
collaborative virtual environments. In R. Schroeder & A. S. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and
play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (Vol. 34, pp. pp. 228 - 245).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Spring.
Bruckman, A. (1992). Identity workshops: Emergent social and psychological phenomena in text-based
virtual reality. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Unpublished master’s thesis.
Bruckman, A., & Resnick, M. (1995). The mediamoo project: Constructionism and professional
community. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1(1),
94–109.
Bruckman, A. (2001). Finding one's own in cyberspace. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High
wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 15–24). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Convertino, G., & Ganoe, C. H. (2006). Awareness and teamwork in
computer-supported collaborations. Interacting with Computers, 18(1), 21-46.
Cole, M., & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon
(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-40). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cottone, P., & Mantovani, G. (2003). Grounding quot;subjective views:quot; situation awareness and co-reference
in distance learning. In G. Riva, F. Davide & W. A. IJsselsteijn (Eds.), Emerging communication:
Studies in new technologies and practices in communication (Vol. 5, pp. 249 - 260). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: IOS Press.
17

18. References, cont.
Crump, E. (2001). Writing centers learn to wallow. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High
wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd edition ed., pp. 177–191).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cuddihy, E., & Walters, D. (2000). Embodied interaction in social virtual environments. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the third international conference on collaborative virtual
environments.
Douglas, J. Y., & Hargadon, A. (2004). The pleasures of immersion and interaction: Schemas,
scripts, and the fifth business. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), Firstperson: New
media as story, performance, and game. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Fanderclai, T. L. (1995). MUDs in education: New environments, new pedagogies. Computer-
Mediated Communication Magazine, 2(1), 8.
Garrison, D. R. (2003). Cognitive presence for effective asynchronous online learning: The role
of reflective inquiry, self-direction and metacognition.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Greenhalgh, C. (1999). Large scale collaborative virtual environments. London: Springer-Verlag.
Grigar, D., & Barber, J. F. (2001). Defending your life in moospace. In C. A. Haynes & J. R.
Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd
edition ed., pp. 192–231). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18

19. References, cont.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Introduction: Computer-mediated collaborative practices. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4).
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators
and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.
Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A., & Macaulay, C. (1999). Methods & tools: The activity checklist: A tool
for representing the quot;spacequot; of context. interactions, 6(4), 27-39.
Kaptelinin, V. (2001). Computer-mediated activity: Functional organs in social and
developmental contexts. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and
human-computer interaction (pp. 45-68). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction
design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kolko, B. (2001). Real politics, real pedagogy, and virtual space. In C. A. Haynes & J. R.
Holmevik (Eds.), High wired: On the design, use and theory of educational moos (2nd
edition ed., pp. 253–265). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. J. (1993). Searching for unity among diversity: Exploring the quot;interfacequot;
concept, SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: ACM Press.
Kuutti, K. (2001). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction
research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-
computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
19

20. References, cont.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2005). Comparing how students collaborate to learn
about the self and relationships in a real-time non-turn-taking online and turn-taking face-to-
face environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4).
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication (Vol. 3): Indiana University School of Library &
Information Science and School of Informatics.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York:
The Free Press.
Nardi, B. A. (2001). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models,
and distributed cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory
and human-computer interaction (pp. 69-102). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Robins, J. (2002). Affording a place: The role of persistent structures in social navigation,
Information Research (Vol. 7, pp. 1-31).
Rogers, A. (2005). The three thirties of mmp game design. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Massively
multiplayer game development (pp. 19 - 34). Hingham, MA: Charles River Media, Inc.
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
20

21. References, cont.
Schwartz, A. (1997). Comments on MUD research: Why study MUDs. The Journal of Virtual
Environments, 1(1).
Schroeder, R., & Axelsson, A.-S. (Eds.). (2006). Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and
interaction in shared virtual environments (Vol. 34). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Schweller, K. (2001). MOO educational tools. In C. A. Haynes & J. R. Holmevik (Eds.), High
wired: On the design, use and theory of educational MOOs (2nd edition ed., pp. 88–106).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ståhl, O., & Wallberg, A. (2004). Using a pond metaphor for information visualisation and
exploration. In D. N. Snowdon, E. F. Churchill & E. Frécon (Eds.), Inhabited information
spaces: Living with your data (computer supported cooperative work) (pp. 51–68). London:
Springer-Verlag.
Spagnolli, A., Varotto, D., & Mantovani, G. (2003). An ethnographic, action-based approach to
human experience in virtual environments. International journal of human-computer
interaction, 797-822.
Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, NY:
Touchstone.
Wenger, E. (2005, May 2005). Learning for a small planet: A research agenda. Retrieved
December 2005, 2005, from http://www.ewenger.com/research/index.htm
21

22. References, cont.
Excellent general online resource on presence,
and measurement of presence:
http://www.presence-research.org/
E-mail: vicki.suter@pepperdine.edu
Blog: http://vickisuter.blogspot.com/
Presentation is available online from my blog.
22