A study of verbal and nonverbal communication in Second Life – the ARCHI21 experience

Abstract

Three-dimensional synthetic worlds introduce possibilities for nonverbal communication in computer-mediated language learning. This paper presents an original methodological framework for the study of multimodal communication in such worlds. It offers a classification of verbal and nonverbal communication acts in the synthetic world Second Life and outlines relationships between the different types of acts that are built into the environment. The paper highlights some of the differences between the synthetic world's communication modes and those of face-to-face communication and exemplifies the interest of these for communication within a pedagogical context.We report on the application of the methodological framework to a course in Second Life which formed part of the European project ARCHI21. This course, for Architecture students, adopted a Content and Learning Integrated Learning approach (CLIL). The languages studied were French and English. A collaborative building activity in the students' L2 is considered, using a method designed to organise the data collected in screen recordings and to code and transcribe the multimodal acts. We explore whether nonverbal communication acts are autonomous in Second Life or whether interaction between synchronous verbal and nonverbal communication exists. Our study describes how the distribution of the verbal and nonverbal modes varied depending on the pre-defined role the student undertook during the activity. We also describe the use of nonverbal communication to overcome verbal miscommunication where direction and orientation were concerned. In addition, we illustrate how nonverbal acts were used to secure the context for deictic references to objects made in the verbal mode. Finally, we discuss the importance of nonverbal and verbal communication modes in the proxemic organisation of students and the impact of proxemic organisation on the quantity of students' verbal production and the topics discussed in this mode.This paper seeks to contribute to some of the methodological reflections needed to better understand the affordances of synthetic worlds, including the verbal and nonverbal communication opportunities Second Life offers, how students use these and their impact on the interaction concerning the task given to students.

Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life

“…The importance of non-verbal communication in virtual environments has been recognised in literature (Verhulsdonck & Morie, 2009;Wigham & Chanier, 2013), and new promising virtual worlds like High Fidelity are starting to capture and stream facial expressions and body language using inexpensive webcams and motion controllers (http://www.highfidelity.com). The next more frequent negative codes in Group V were related to control and technical difficulties (camera, rulers, voice chat quality, and whiteboard).…”

Exploratory study of collaborative behaviour in gaming and interactions of students in Second Life

“…Similarly, Men and Stacks () and Goh, Chan, and Kuziemsky () highlight the fact that the same factors are crucial in organization based collaboration. In addition, Wigham and Chanier () emphasize the issue of break down in collaborative behaviour in an SL environment as a result of a lack of free access. Consequently, there is the need to encourage users to place their avatars in close proximity to other avatars and objects for collaboration to be enhanced.…”

3D digital games, virtual worlds, and language learning in higher education: Continuing challenges in Japan

“…It is claimed that from the perspective of cognitive accounts of sla, these environments provide exposure to the target language in a context conducive to learning (Zhao & Lai, 2009). Researchers emphasize the importance of findings reported in learner-based research, suggesting that because many virtual worlds and digital games are designed to compel learners to undertake purposeful, real-time interaction in the target language, they provide opportunities to encounter communication issues relating to meaning (Lan, Kan, Sung, & Chang, 2016;Milton, Jonsen, Hirst, & Lindenburn, 2012;Wigham & Chanier, 2013). This aspect is perceived as supporting vocabulary acquisition (Rankin & Shute, 2010), as it enables individual learners to engage in forms of interaction involving feedback and the production of modified target language output that are identified as playing a central role in language learning (Long, 1996).…”