Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:15:43.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2013

Ciara R. Wigham  and
Thierry Chanier
Ciara R. Wigham
Affiliation:
Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme - LRL, 4, rue Ledru, 63057 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 01, France (email: ciara.wigham@univ-bpclermont.fr)
Thierry Chanier
Affiliation:
Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme - LRL, 4, rue Ledru, 63057 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 01, France (email: thierry.chanier@univ-bpclermont.fr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

synthetic worldsmultimodalitynonverbal communicationCLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)LETEC (LEarning and TEaching Corpus)
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 63 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonijevic, S. (2008) From Text to Gesture Online; A microethnographic analysis of nonverbal communication in the Second Life virtual environment. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2): 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, D., Snow, M.Wesche, I. (2003) Content-based second language instruction. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chanier, T. Wigham, C. R. (eds.) (2011) Learning and Teaching Corpus (LETEC) of ARCHI21. Mulce.org: Clermont Université. http://repository.mulce.orgGoogle Scholar
Ciekanski, M.Chanier, T. (2008) Developing online multimodal verbal communication to enhance the writing process in an audio-graphic conferencing environment. ReCALL, 20(2): 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.Krych, M. A. (2004) Speaking while Monitoring Addressees for Understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 50(1): 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P.Marsh, D. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalgarno, B.Lee, M. J. W. (2010) What are the Learning Affordances of 3-D virtual Environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41: 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton- Puffer, C.Smit, U. (2007) (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Freitas, S. (2006) Learning in immersive worlds: a review of game-based learning. A report for the JISC e-Learning Programme. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearninginnovation/outcomesGoogle Scholar
Falloon, G. (2010) Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1): 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, M. (2000) Working with Objects in Collaborative Virtual Environments. Doctoral Thesis. University of Bristol. http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~fraser/phdGoogle Scholar
Fynn, J., Mammad, L.Gautheron, Y. (2004) VoiceForum. http://lrl-voiceforum.univ-bpclermont.frGoogle Scholar
Gold, R. (1958) Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces, 36: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gullberg, M. (Forthcoming -2012) Gestures in Second Language Acquisition (Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition). Routledge.Google Scholar
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S.Henderson, L. (2009) Language Acquisition in Second Life: improving self-efficacy beliefs. Proceedings ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/henderson.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, P.Mark, G. (1998) Constructing Social Spaces in Virtual Environments: A study of Navigation and Interaction. In: Hook K., Munro A. and Benyon D. (eds.), Workshop on Personalised and Social Navigation in Information Space. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, 24–38.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1982) The study of gesture: some observations on its history. Recherches Semiotique/Semiotic Inquiry, 2(1): 25–62.Google Scholar
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R.Siegel, J. (2003) Visual information as a Conversational Resource in Collaborative Physical Tasks. Human Computer Interaction, 18(1): 13–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessikar, P. (2000) Business Communication: Theory and application. New Delhi: All India Traveller Books seller.Google Scholar
Lim, K. (2009) Pedagogy, Education and Innovation in 3-D Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virutal Worlds Research, 2(1): 3–11.Google Scholar
Marsh, D., Marsland, B.Stenberg, K. (2001) Integrating Competencies for working life. Unicom: University of Juvaskyla.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S. G.Stam, G. (2008) Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2000) (ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulce-doc (2010) Site explaining the methodology used to compile LETEC Corpora. Mulce.org: Clermont Université. http://mulce.orgGoogle Scholar
Mulce-repository (2012) Repository where LETEC corpora can be downloaded. Mulce.org: Clermont Université. http://repository.mulce.orgGoogle Scholar
Nowak, K.Biocca, F. (2004) The effect of agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 12(5): 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornberg, T. (2003) Linguistic presence on the Internet: Communication, worldview and presence in online virtual environments. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Umea. http://admin.humlab.umu.se/files/pdf/therese_duppsats.pdfGoogle Scholar
Peachey, A., Gillen, J., Livingston, D.Smith-Robbins, S. (2010) Research Learning in Virtual Worlds. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010) Learner participation patterns and strategy use in Second Life: an exploratory case study. ReCALL, 22(3): 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saddour, I., Wigham, C. R.Chanier, T. (2011) Transcription manual for multimodal data from Second Life. [in French]. http://edutice.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00676230Google Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2002) The state of VR: A meta-analysis of virtual reality tools in second language acquisition. CALL, 15(3): 221–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventrella, J. (2011) Virtual Body Language. The History and Future of Avatars: How Nonverbal Expression is Evolving on the Internet. Eyebrain Books.Google Scholar
Verhulsdonck, G.Morie, J. F. (2009) Virtual Chironomia: Developing Non-verbal Communication Standards in Virtual Worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 2(3): 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, A.Chanier, T. (2006) Supporting oral production for professional purpose, in synchronous communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18(1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadley, G.Gibbs, M. (2010) Speaking in character: Voice communication in virtual worlds. In: Bainbridge, W. S. (ed.), Online worlds: Convergence of the real and the virtual. London: Springer, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigham, C. R.Chanier, T. (2011) Communication in Second Life. Research Laboratory Report. Clermont-Ferrand: LRL-Université Blaise Pascal.Google Scholar
Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F.Merget, D. (2004) The unbearable likeness of being digital: the persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. Cyber Psychology and Behaviour, 10(1): 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, N.Bailenson, J. N. (2007) The Proteus effect: Self transformation in virtual reality. Human Communication Research, 33: 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar