The Covid-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented demand on the use of virtual learning environments. However, the rapid adoption of tools to transition from in-person to virtual instruction has left many questions unanswered as to how learning may be optimized when in-person interactions are no longer available. Additionally, there exists a gap in supporting both instructors and trainees, synchronously, during learning experiences. In this paper, we explore how this gap may be bridged by leveraging the lessons learned, practices, and technologies created in the operational world in the form of Cognitive Assistants (CA). CAs have emerged as a novel means to support both individuals and teammates as they accomplish their work in domains as varied as maintenance or healthcare. This early work identifies a series of affordances which a CA may leverage to support both instructors and trainees, for the purpose of optimizing learning in an online classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkcaogluMLeeE. (2016). Increasing social presence in online learning through small group discussions. International Review of Research in Open and DistributedLearning, 17(3), 1-17.
2.
AragonS. R. (2003). Creating social presence in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 57-68.
BruniS. (2018). Why Automated Agents Should Be More Like Alfred Pennyworth. Proceedings of the 2018 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL.
5.
BruniS.LuciaL.CummingsP.FordB. (2019). Comparing Modeling Techniques to Predict Current and Likely Next Tasks for Cognitive Workers. Proceedings of the2019 SBP-BRIMS Conference, Washington, DC.
6.
BruniS.FreimanM.WeissCWardD.LynchS.KayK. (2020). A 7-dimensional framework for technical data in high-intensity vital environments and its application to aircraft maintenance. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA). Virtual.
7.
BurgoonJ. K.BergerC. R.WaldronV. R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. Journal of Sociallssues, 56(1), 105-127.
8.
BurgoonJ. KBonitoJ. A.RamirezA.JrDunbarN. E.KamKFischerJ. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal ofCommunication, 52(3), 657-677.
9.
ChickeringA. W.GamsonZ. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.A4/ffibulletin, 3, 7.
10.
CulnanM. J.MarkusM. L. (1987). Information Technologies. JablinFMPutnamLLRobertsKHPorterLW (eds.): Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.
11.
FredricksJ. A.EcclesJ. S. (2008). Participation in extracurricular activities in the middle school years: Are there developmental benefits for African American and European American youth?Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(9), 1029-1043.
12.
GaverW. W. (1991, March). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 79-84).
13.
GaoQ.DaiY.FanZ.KangR. (2010). Understanding factors affecting perceived sociability of social software. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 18461861.
14.
Goren-BarD.KoubekA. (2001). Edts.: User Processes in Collaborative Learning. Unpublished research study, funded by EC research contract Nr. IST-17722. Graz.
15.
GrayJ. A.DiLoretoM. (2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. International Journal of EducationalLeadershipPreparation, 11(1), nl.
16.
GunawardenaC. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2), 147-166.
17.
GunawardenaC. N.ZittleF. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.
18.
HanH. (2013). Do nonverbal emotional cues matter? Effects of video casting in synchronous virtual classrooms.^4/wer/'ca«Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 253-264.
19.
HerringtonJ.OliverR.ReevesT. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learningenvironments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 59-71.
20.
HartsonR. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & information technology, 22(5), 315-338.
21.
JeongHHmelo-SilverC. E. (2016). Seven affordances of computer-supported collaborative learning: How to support collaborative learning? How can technologies help?EducationalPsychologist, 51(2), 247-265.
22.
JoyceK.BrownA. (2009). Enhancing Social Presence in Online Learning: Mediation Strategies Applied to Social Networking Tools. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(4).
23.
JuncoR.HeibergerG.LokenE. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal ofComputerAssistedLearning, 27(2), 119-132.
24.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.JochemsW. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 822.
25.
KreijnsK.KirschnerP. A.VermeulenM. (2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229-242.
26.
KuhG. D. (2001). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Framework & Psychometric Properties, 1-26.
27.
MartinF.BolligerD. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205-222.
28.
McBrienJ. L.ChengRJonesP. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1-17.
29.
MayerR. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. InMayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201-212). Cambridge University Press.
NormanD. A. (2008). The way I see IT signifiers, not affordances. Interactions, 15(6), 18-19.
32.
RovaiA. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and DistributedLearning, 3(1), 1-16.
33.
SalonenP.VaurasM.EfklidesA. (2005). Social Interaction~What Can It Tell Us about Metacognition and Coregulation in Learning?European Psychologist, 10(3), 199-208.
34.
SchaefferC. E.KonetesG. D. (2010). Impact of learner engagement on attrition rates and student success in online learning. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(5), 3-9.
35.
SheelyZ. (2020). Basic Leader Course goes virtual: 168th Regional Training Institute holds first online BLC Colorado National Guard. Public Affairs Release of May 12.
36.
Slagter van TryonP. J.BishopM. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291315.
37.
WeiC. W.ChenN. S.KinshukK. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Education TechnologyResearch andDevelopment, 60, 529-545.
38.
WeissCFreimanM.BruniS.WardD.LynchS.KayK. (2021). Information Ergonomics: Expediting Maintenance Workflow Using Mixed Reality. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE). New York, NY.
39.
YenCTuC. (2011). A multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis of the scores for online presence: Do they measure the same thing across cultural groups?Educational ComputingResearch, 44(2), 219-242.
