Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a
Collaborative Serious Game
Anthony Basille
1 a
Elise Lavou
1 b
and Audrey Serna
2 c
University of Lyon, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Iaelyon School of Management, CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621,
Lyon, France
Univ. Lyon, INSA Lyon, CNRS, UCBL, LIRIS, UMR5205, F-69621 Villeurbanne, France
Serious Game, Social Presence, Collaborative Processes, Viewpoint, Soft Skills.
Collaborative serious games have proven to be effective learning environments to enhance the development
of learners’ soft skills, such as collaboration, negotiation and cooperation. To be effective, such role paying
games should provide genuine interactions. However, little is known on how design choices, such as the view-
point (either first or third person perspective), impact collaborative processes and learners’ perception of their
partners. This paper reports an exploratory study on the impact of the viewpoint on the sense of social pres-
ence, and on collaborative processes that emerge from learners’ interactions in a collaborative serious game
dedicated to soft skills training. To address this issue, learners played in either first-person or third-person
perspective during a session of two games. Our results show that the first-person view allowed for a higher
sense of social presence and increased information sharing. This seems to be mainly due to the knowledge
asymmetry caused by the affordances of the environment, in other words design choices. These results can
be applied in the design of collaborative serious games that support social interactions and collaborative skills
With the strong technological evolution, soft skills
(non-technical skills) are becoming more and more
important in education. In many fields they are highly
valued by recruiters, Archer and Davison (2008) ar-
gue that most employers consider students’ soft skills
to be more important than their degree qualifications.
The European Commission (2018) has highlighted
the key competencies for learning: problem solving,
decision making, cooperation, and communication.
Various studies on serious games agree that they can
be effective tools for the development of such skills,
and other 21st century skills such as self-regulation,
information skills, networked co-operation and prob-
lem solving strategies (Westera et al., 2008). Seri-
ous games can easily immerse learners into a spe-
cific scenario, using role-playing methods, which al-
lows learners to experience a specific situation with
others (humans or artificial agents), learning about
social roles and interactions (Marocco et al., 2015).
In this context, some studies underline the impor-
tance of considering the levels of immersion, pres-
ence, interactivity and fidelity for a game to be ef-
fective (De Freitas et al., 2010). Among others, so-
cial presence, ”the feeling of being with others in a
mediated environment” (Heeter, 1992), seems partic-
ularly interesting to develop for soft skills training. In
fact, different studies have shown that social presence
has an impact on many factors, for example allowing
to increase participation and interaction (Zhao et al.,
2014). Thus, in this paper we focus on two interre-
lated aspects of serious games for soft skills training:
the social presence perceived by learners and the col-
laborative processes that emerge in such environment.
We conducted a study based on the hypothesis
that the affordances of a virtual environment (in other
words design choices), and more particularly the
learner viewpoint, has an impact on both social pres-
ence and collaboration between players. The good
choice of the viewpoint in the design of video games
is primordial given its impact on many elements such
as presence (spatial presence, self-presence) or em-
bodiment perceived by players (Denisova and Cairns,
Basille, A., Lavoué, É. and Serna, A.
Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a Collaborative Serious Game.
DOI: 10.5220/0011046400003182
In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 2, pages 614-621
ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026
2022 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
2015). We conducted a study with 18 participants,
who played a collaborative serious game in either a
first or third-person perspective. Our study mainly
shows that the first-person viewpoint increases social
presence and information sharing. These results show
the importance of this design choice for the develop-
ment of serious games that support social interactions
and collaborative skills training.
2.1 Soft Skills and Collaborative
Traditionally, education has focused on the transmis-
sion of knowledge and hard skills (technical skills)
training. However, due to the important technological
evolution, Prensky (2004) showed that our way of so-
cializing, searching for information, learning and an-
alyzing has changed significantly. Trilling and Fadel
(2009) show the importance of ”21st century skills”,
also called soft skills, including collaboration and
communication, which are among the most important
skills for success in modern society (Romero et al.,
Collaborative learning is an educational approach
to teaching and learning, which involves groups of
learners working together to solve a problem, com-
plete a task, or create a product (Laal and Laal, 2012).
There are several studies that highlight the usefulness
and benefits of ”cooperative teams”. For example
these teams achieve higher levels of thinking and re-
tain information longer (Johnson and Johnson, 1987).
In these collaborative activities, the coordination of
individual actions within each group is important. In-
deed, since the participants have a common goal, they
will have to act while taking into account several con-
straints such as time or organization. For this, sev-
eral processes will be used for collaboration such as
awareness, regulation, information sharing and dis-
cussion (Tong, 2017). For Schmidt (2002), aware-
ness refers to ”reciprocal practices of monitoring oth-
ers and designing actions in order to make certain as-
pects of the activity visible”. To complement this,
Yuill and Rogers (2012) extend the concept of aware-
ness, not only to actions but also to situations where
people ”have ongoing awareness of the actions, inten-
tions, emotions, and other mental states of other in-
teractants”. Regulation builds upon awareness and re-
lates to people’s ability to plan, monitor, evaluate and
regulate the joint activity (Vauras et al., 2003). Infor-
mation sharing involves building a common ground,
which means that members collaborate in ensuring
understanding and in grounding their mutual knowl-
edge and assumptions (Clark and Brennan, 1991).
The discussion takes place when participants gather
and evaluate arguments for and against the available
options, and make decisions for the alternatives on the
way to a final solution (Tong, 2017).
2.2 Social Presence
Many works investigated how users are feeling and
acting in virtual environments through the tightly re-
lated concepts of immersion and presence (Sanchez-
Vives and Slater, 2005). Presence can be defined as
the subjective experience of being in the virtual envi-
ronment, and is grounded on the ability to do things
in the virtual environment, relying on actions and the
affordances offered in the virtual environment. Usu-
ally presence is divided into different sub-concepts:
physical, self and social presence (Lee, 2004).
Social presence can be defined as the feeling of
”being with others” (Heeter, 1992). It is the moment-
to-moment awareness of co-presence of a mediated
body and the sense of accessibility of the other be-
ing’s psychological, emotional, and intentional states
(Biocca and Harms, 2002). This can be interpreted as
the degree to which a person is perceived as “real”
in mediated communication. Several studies have
shown that social presence is a key element to create a
sense of community, for instance in online courses, to
enable productive collaboration, increased participa-
tion and interaction (Zhao et al., 2014). Thus, in this
paper, we propose to explore in which way it can be
impacted by the design of a serious game. We rely on
the definition of Biocca and Harms (2002) who dis-
tinguishes three dimensions:
can be defined as the degree to which
the users feel that they are not alone and isolated.
Goffman (1963) extends the notion of co-presence by
incorporating ”awareness of others”: the user is aware
of the mediated other, and the other is aware of the
Psychobehavioral Accessibility: this dimension fo-
cuses on the perceived accessibility of the other, the
user’s sense of awareness and access to the other
(through attentional engagement, emotional state, un-
Perceived Symmetry: Social presence is not only
based on our vision of the other, but also on our feel-
ing of what the other thinks of us. Indeed, social pres-
ence is not a one-way interaction, but an interaction
between several interlocutors. Subjective symmetry
is the degree of symmetry or correlation between the
users’ sense of social presence and their perception
Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a Collaborative Serious Game
of their partner’s sense of social presence (Biocca and
Harms, 2002).
From previous work, we can assume that to engage
users in collaborative activities, the immersive envi-
ronment should promote a good experience of social
presence. As shown in the literature review, the sense
of presence seems to be related to the actions in the
virtual environment. We are thus particularly inter-
ested in investigating the impact of the immersive en-
vironment affordances on social presence experience
and collaborative processes.
Regarding affordances, some works have investi-
gated the impact of the viewpoint of users in virtual
environments. In particular, several studies on video
games showed that the third person viewpoint could
increase awareness in the virtual space, as well as
a better perception of the avatar within its environ-
ment (Denisova and Cairns, 2015). In addition, some
studies show that the first-person perspective is the
most appropriate condition to induce a high sense of
embodiment, refering to self-presence concept (Slater
et al., 2010), while other studies did not observe any
significant difference (Debarba et al., 2015). Finally,
little is known on the impact of viewpoint on social
presence, as well as on collaborative behaviors. In
this paper, we try to fill these gaps by investigating the
influences of different affordances (viewpoints) of a
same virtual environment on social presence and col-
laboration. We use a collaborative serious game for
soft skills training to address the following research
RQ1: Does the viewpoint have an impact on social
RQ2: Does the viewpoint have an impact on collabo-
rative processes ?
We used a collaborative serious game, designed to
measure and train soft skills (see the project presenta-
tion link for more details
). The game relies on a col-
laboration between three players whose objective is to
repair the four breakdowns of a submarine. At each
turn, the water level rises progressively. The game
is lost when the water level reaches a certain level.
The submarine must therefore be repaired before it is
completely filled with water. To do this, each player
in turn can perform several actions. Each player has
one movement point and two bailing points per turn
(to move, to scoop or to repair a breakdown). To re-
pair a breakdown, there must be at least two players
in the room. Each player has a specific power that al-
lows him to perform a special action. The Diver has
one more movement point per turn. The Oceanogra-
pher can scoop the rooms adjacent to his own. The
computer scientist is able to move a quantity of water
from one room to another per turn.
Players are able to interact with each other at any
time, via a video and audio feed. According to the ex-
perimental conditions, players can play either in first
or third person. In third person, all actions are per-
formed on the map when it is their turn to play. In
first person, they must perform their actions directly
in the room , the water level of each room, the plan of
the submarine and the total water level in the subma-
rine are not accessible to the player. They then revert
to a third person viewpoint. The possible actions and
the ways of communication remain the same in the
first or third person perspective.
5.1 Experimental Conditions
Condition 1: Participants were not in the same room,
and could communicate via webcam and audio. The
game was in third person when it was not their turn to
play and in first person when it was their turn to play
(First Person Perspective).
Condition 2: Participants were not in the same room,
and could communicate via webcam and audio. The
game was only in third person (Third Person Perspec-
5.2 Participants
We recruited 30 participants. Due to technical prob-
lems during the experiment as well as the pandemic,
we were able to use the data from only 18 partici-
pants. They were divided into 6 groups (G1, G2,
G3, G4, G5, G6) of 3 participants (P1, P2, P3) ac-
cording to their availability. Groups G1, G2 and G3
were associated with condition 1, and groups G4, G5
and G6 were associated with condition 2. Participants
were recruited via the mailing list of the University of
Lyon. The average age was 23.5 years (SD = 2.5) and
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
there was an equal distribution of nine men and nine
5.3 Procedure
Given the sanitary conditions during the experiment,
the game sessions were conducted remotely. Players
used their own equipment, namely a computer, a web-
cam, a microphone and a headset (or earphones). The
participants were invited to sit in front of their com-
puter screen. First, they had to go through the game’s
tutorial. They then started playing the serious game,
in collaboration with two other participants. After the
end of the first game, they had to do a second game
with a different role (but the same condition). At the
end, a debriefing was set up with the three participants
and the two experimenters. For the interested groups,
a third game was proposed to them with the other
viewpoint, followed by a second debriefing. Only the
debriefing is considered in this article.
5.4 Data Collection/Recording
We collected the screen and webcam recordings of
each participant. After the experiment, students were
asked to fill in a questionnaire: the Networked Mind
Social Presence Inventory (SPI, 34 items) (Biocca and
Harms, 2003). We chose this questionnaire due to its
approach to social presence. The questions focus on
the dimensions of co-presence and psycho-behavioral
accessibility. All the questions in these dimensions
deal with both ”perception of self” (e.g. I paid special
attention to my partners), but each of these questions
is followed by a question about ”perception of others”
(e.g. my partners paid special attention to me). The
perceived subjective symmetry is calculated as a cor-
relation between the ratings of the social presence of
the self “Perception of self” and the other “Perception
of my partner”, for each dimensions (co-presence and
psycho-behavioral accessibility). At the end of the
experiment, we conducted semi-directive interviews
with the participants to collect their perceptions and
feelings about the lived experience.
5.5 Video Analysis and Coding Schemes
The goal of this analysis was to provide quantitative
insight into how participants collaborated in the game.
We focused on the four collaborative processes iden-
tified in section 2.1 (awareness, regulation, informa-
tion sharing and discussion) to understand how they
were impacted by the change in viewpoint (in answer
to RQ2). We defined a coding scheme for video anal-
ysis defined hereafter and in detail in Table 1. Two
coders analyzed video samples independently repre-
senting 10% of the total videos (and 131 utterances).
They did an inter-rater reliability test with the result of
85% agreement. Cohen’s Kappa, which measures the
agreement between the two observers is: κ = 0.899.
There were a total of 6 videos, for a duration of 3
hours 33 minutes and 31 seconds. There is an average
of 182 utterances per game at the first-person condi-
tion and 159 at the third-person condition.
Awareness: ”The extent to which awareness of
users’ current actions, intentions, and state of
mind is present or made visible at all times” (Yuill
and Rogers, 2012). ”I go to the locker room”
Regulation: ”Represents the processes that mem-
bers use to plan, monitor, evaluate and control
joint activity” (Vauras et al., 2003). ”Go to the
locker room to bail out, then use your power”
Information sharing: ”Collaboration of members
to ensure understanding and to build on each
other’s knowledge and assumptions” (Clark and
Brennan, 1991). ”The changing rooms are on the
right of the cabin”
Discussion: ”It takes place when participants
gather and evaluate arguments for and against the
available options, and make decisions about al-
ternatives on the way to a final solution” (Tong,
2017). ”I don’t agree with your idea, I think it’s
better to go to the locker room now”
6.1 Impact of Viewpoint on Perceived
Social Presence
Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal con-
sistency of the questionnaire and therefore its relia-
bility. They were found to be very reliable, since α
> 0.8 for both dimensions (see Table 2). Given the
rather small amount of data we collected from 18 par-
ticipants, we performed a Mann-Whitney U test on
the 2 dimensions of social presence between first and
third person conditions (results are considered signifi-
cant when ρ < 0.05), as well as the mean and standard
deviation (see Table 2). Concerning the perceived
subjective symmetry, Spearman’s correlation test was
performed for each questionnaire between the dimen-
sions ”self” and ”others”, then we calculated the av-
erage of these coefficients for the 2 conditions (first
person and third person perspective).
Co-presence: Regarding the co-presence dimen-
sion of the SPI, the p-value ρ = 0.779 being far above
Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a Collaborative Serious Game
Table 1: Categories, sub-categories and indicators used for the video analyses of the different collaborative processes.
Category Subcategory Indicator
Action awareness Tells what it does
Intention awareness Tells what he is going to do
Mind state awareness Shares how he feels
Suggest what should be done
Assigns task
Asks if he should do this action
Asks a question about the other’s possibilities
Give someone a voice
Information sharing
Asks a question about the card/item he does not have
Gives an indication about the card/item
Game understanding
Asks a question about the game
Gives an explanation about the game
Idea exchange Exchange ideas in order to reach a solution
Consensus building Accepts/rejects the proposal, proposes a new solution
Table 2: Mean, standard deviation, cronbach’s alpha and
p-value for the different dimensions of social presence.
First Person Third person
x σ x σ α ρ
Co-presence 5.60 0.717 5.35 1.066 0.929 0.779
6.07 0.357 5.23 1.008 0.934 0.018
Table 3: Average of Spearman’s correlation coefficients for
perceived subjective symmetry between the ”self” and ”oth-
ers” questions of the SPI questionnaire.
First person Third person
Co-presence 0.876 0.707
Psychobehavioral 0.839 0.671
0.05, it means that the results are not significant (first
person: mean = 5.60, SD = 0.717; third person: mean
= 5.35, SD = 1.066). So the viewpoint does not seem
to have an impact on co-presence.
Psychobehavioral Accessibility: Regarding the
psychobehavioral dimension of the SPI, the p-value
ρ = .018 is below the α = 0.05 threshold so the re-
sults are significant. These results suggest that the
first-person perspective allows for greater psychobe-
havioral accessibility (M = 6.07; SD = 0.357) than
the third-person perspective (M = 5.23; SD = 1.008).
Perceived Subjective Symmetry: The mean of the
correlation coefficients is larger in the first person for
both dimensions namely co-presence (first person: ρ
= 0.876; third person: ρ = 0.707) and perceived psy-
chobehavioral accessibility (first person: ρ = 0.839;
third person: ρ = 0.671). Thus, this appears to show a
stronger perceived subjective symmetry for the first-
person group than for the third-person group. This
means that in the first-person condition, participants
have a better perception of what the others think of
them than the ones in the third-person condition.
Table 4: Number of utterances for each category per group
and per viewpoint.
First person Third person
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6
Awareness 49 15 49 26 59 32
Regulation 103 109 99 59 124 81
76 27 39 5 13 18
Discussion 206 176 143 94 247 198
Table 5: Average number of utterances in each collaboration
process for each player during a game at the first and third
person conditions.
First Person Third Person
Categories x σ x σ ρ
Awareness 6.27 3.261 6.5 3.426 0.983
Regulation 17.28 6.215 14.67 6.722 0.424
7.89 4.053 2.00 1.369 .00037
Discussion 29.17 6.704 29.94 14.525 0.776
6.2 Analysis of Collaborative Processes
In answer to RQ2, we observed the different indica-
tors (described in section 5.5) to analyse awareness,
regulation, information sharing and discussion pro-
cesses. For each game, we counted the number of
utterances in each category for each participant. The
table 4 presents the sum of the utterances for each
group (sum of the utterances of the two games and
the three players).
Table 5 presents the average number of utterances
in each collaboration process per player and per game.
We performed a Mann-Whitney U test on the aver-
age of the two games (per group) of each player re-
garding each categories for the two viewpoints. We
observed a significant difference for the information
sharing process during a game according to the view-
point (ρ = .00037). These results suggest that the
viewpoint has an impact on the information sharing
process, with greater information sharing in the first
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
Table 6: Percentage of utterances in each collaboration pro-
cess for each player during a game at the first and third per-
son conditions.
First Person Third Person
Categories x σ x σ ρ
Awareness 3.49 1.730 4.03 1.559 0.730
Regulation 9.57 3.920 9.99 4.020 0.562
4.20 1.652 1.20 0.916 .0005
Discussion 16.07 3.655 18.11 6.657 0.387
person (M = 7.89; SD = 4.053) than in the third per-
son (M = 2.00; SD = 1.369). We did not observe any
significant differences regarding the other collabora-
tive processes (awareness, regulation, discussion) be-
tween the first-person and the third-person conditions.
Since the number of utterances was different for each
game, we also calculated the average of utterances per
game, but divided for each game the number of utter-
ances per categories over the total number of utter-
ances (see Table 6). We also obtain significant results
(ρ = .0005), which confirms that viewpoint has an im-
pact on information sharing, with greater information
sharing in the first person (M = 4.20; SD = 1.652) that
in the third person (M = 1.20; SD = 0.916). However,
we did not observe any significant differences regard-
ing the other collaborative processes (awareness, reg-
ulation, discussion) between the first and third-person
7.1 Viewpoint and Social Presence
Our results show that co-presence is not significantly
impacted by the viewpoint. The co-presence is mainly
based on the perception of others using automatic
classification of other’s representation. Accordingly,
this result can be explained by the fact that the virtual
representation of the other players in the game is the
same regardless the viewpoint (webcam and voice).
The perception of the other players’ body thus does
not change. This would certainly have been differ-
ent with additional representations such as shadows
or avatar when the two players are in the same room,
as underlined by Kim et al. (2013), who showed that
seeing their partner’s avatar increased co-presence.
The results concerning psychobehavioral acces-
sibility reveal significant impact of the first-person
viewpoint, which seems to allow for greater psy-
chobehavioral accessibility than the third-person
view. This difference could be explained by the asym-
metry of knowledge introduced by the first-person
viewpoint for several reasons. First, the lack of con-
textual information when players are in first-person
view may have forced them to communicate with the
other two players in order to make relevant decisions
early in the game, contrary to the third person view-
point. One player declared in the third person view
”If I wanted I could play alone” (P1-G2) emphasizing
the lesser importance of collective decisions accord-
ing to him. Second, players at the first-person were
more dependent on others, which led them to trust
more. One of the players made this clear during the
interview (for the first person viewpoint) by stating
”You can’t trust your own perception but you have to
trust the perception of others” (P1-G3). Third, hav-
ing access to other’s perception of things is directly
associated with ”mind reading” (emotional states for
instance) and may reduce uncertainty in relationships
(Planalp and Honeycutt, 1985). In our case, it is thus
possible that the greater reliance on others’ percep-
tions induced by the knowledge asymmetry provided
a greater sense of access to others’ minds and there-
fore increased psychobehavioral accessibility at the
first-person view.
The results regarding subjective symmetry reveal
that there is a greater correlation between one’s own
sense of social presence and one’s perception of one’s
partner’s sense of social presence at the first-person
view than at the third-person view. In other words,
participants in the first-person condition perceived
some sort of psychological and behavioral match be-
tween themselves and the other players. We may sup-
pose that at the third-person view, some players felt
they were giving more (i.e. attention) than the others
gave them. A certain imbalance could be perceived
because since the players have all the information,
there is less need for cooperation during their turns. A
participant said for the third person perspective ”We
didn’t have to collaborate, we could play alone and
ignore the others” (P1-G2).
To conclude, our results show that the viewpoint
has an impact on social presence in the collabora-
tive game, and more specifically on the dimensions of
psycho-behavioral accessibility and perceived sym-
metry. It seems that this is mainly induced by the
knowledge asymmetry due to the affordances of the
environment that differ in each view. This is in line
with the work of Kreijns et al. (2007), which explains
the impact of the environment and its characteristics
on social presence, and this completes the work of
Slater et al. (2010), which showed that the first per-
son view could increase the sense of self-presence
(another category of the concept of presence). To in-
crease the sense of social presence in a virtual game it
seems thus important to create asymmetrical knowl-
Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a Collaborative Serious Game
edge, easily offered with the use of the first-person
view. Care should also be taken in designing others’
representation to enhance co-presence.
7.2 Viewpoint and Collaborative
We showed that the first-person view increased infor-
mation sharing. This result can be explained by the
affordances of the environment, since some informa-
tion (map of the submarine, general level of water)
was not visible for players when they were at the first
person view. Players had to compensated for this lack,
communicating on the missing information. We be-
lieve that this increase in information sharing partic-
ipated to the increase of sense of social presence, as
explained previously for the psychobehavioral acces-
sibility. The increase in information sharing through
the first-person view can really benefit to learning. In-
deed, according to Chi (2009), the co-construction of
knowledge enhances understanding by allowing one
to argue one’s propositions, to ask and answer ques-
tions, and to open up new perspectives and reasoning.
Winne et al. (2010) also support this assumption, ar-
guing that information that are not accessible to others
may requires more collaboration to become knowl-
edge shared by the group.
On the contrary, we did not observe differences
in terms of awareness, regulation and discussion with
the different viewpoints. These results may seem a
little surprising, especially for awareness since we
expected lower awareness with the introduction of
asymmetric knowledge and more regulation to com-
pensate. We therefore think that the higher level of in-
formation sharing compensated for the lack of aware-
ness, but further studies would be needed to inves-
tigate more deeply the relationship between the four
collaborative processes.
Finally, we did not observe direct correlation be-
tween social presence and collaboration processes.
This could be explained by a quite high sense of social
presence in both conditions. Further studies should be
conducted since some works, such as Garrison et al.
(2010), have showed that social presence influence
collaborative processes and develop learners’ aware-
ness of each other’s existence.
7.3 Limitations
First, our study involved a rather small number of par-
ticipants. This was mainly due to sanitary conditions,
which made the recruitment of participants and tech-
nological apparatus more difficult at distance. How-
ever, we believe that our results are coherent and re-
veal tendencies that can be easily supported by the
existing the literature in the domain. Second, we be-
lieve that the observation of the participants’ behav-
iors in laboratory conditions would have allowed us
to go further in the analysis and understanding of the
collaborative processes that emerged between learn-
ers. This constitutes another perspective to deepen
this work. Finally, we were not able to analyze the
correlation between the perception of social presence
and collaboration processes that emerged due to the
rather small number of participants. We should ex-
amine more precisely the relationships between both,
making the assumption that a higher feeling of social
presence would lead to more collaborative processes
in the serious game or the opposite, that differences in
collaboration processes could impact the sense of so-
cial presence. We could also analyze more deeply the
impact of information sharing on other collaboration
We conducted a study with 18 participants to under-
stand the impact of the viewpoint (first and third per-
son) on the sense of social presence and collabora-
tion processes in a collaborative serious game. Our
results show that the first-person viewpoint appears
to lead to a greater sense of social presence through
higher psychobehavioral accessibility and higher per-
ceived subjective symmetry. The first-person view-
point also impacted the collaboration processes, and
more specifically information sharing. These results
show the importance of the virtual environment affor-
dances (especially according to the chosen viewpoint)
when designing serious games. Our future research
will investigate other affordances of the virtual envi-
ronment, analyse the impact of different modalities of
communication provided to players (webcam, audio
only, chat only) as well as face-to-face versus remote
presence on collaborative processes, social presence
and engaged-behaviors.
This research is funded by the LABEX ASLAN, Uni-
e de Lyon, within the framework of the French
program ”Investissements d’Avenir” managed by the
”Agence Nationale de la Recherche” (ANR).
CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
Archer, W. and Davison, J. (2008). Graduate employability:
What do employers think and want? The Council for
Industry and Higher Education, page 20.
Biocca, F. and Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring
social presence: Contribution to the networked minds
theory and measure. In In F.R. Gouveia, & F. Biocca
(Eds). Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop
on Presence, pages 7–36.
Biocca, P. F. and Harms, P. C. (2003). Networked minds
social presence inventory: |(scales only, version 1.2)
measures of co-presence, social presence, subjective
symmetry, and intersubjective symmetry.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A
Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning
Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1):73–105.
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in com-
munication. In Perspectives on socially shared cogni-
tion, pages 127–149. American Psychological Asso-
De Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F.,
Magoulas, G., and Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learn-
ing as immersive experiences: Using the four-
dimensional framework for designing and evaluating
immersive learning experiences in a virtual world.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1):69–
Debarba, H. G., Molla, E., Herbelin, B., and Boulic,
R. (2015). Characterizing embodied interaction in
First and Third Person Perspective viewpoints. In
2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI),
pages 67–72. IEEE.
Denisova, A. and Cairns, P. (2015). First Person vs. Third
Person Perspective in Digital Games: Do Player Pref-
erences Affect Immersion? In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Com-
puting Systems, CHI ’15, pages 145–148, New York,
NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.
European Commission, C. (2018). Proposal for a coun-
cil recommendation on key Competences for Lifelong
Learning. Brussels: European Commission.
Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., and Fung, T. (2010).
Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cog-
nitive and social presence: student perceptions of the
Community of Inquiry framework. The Internet and
Higher Education, 13(1-2):31–36.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: notes on
the social organization of gatherings, volume 3. Free
Press of Glencoe, 4. print edition.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The Subjective Experience
of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual En-
vironments, 1(2):262–271.
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning to-
gether and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and in-
dividualistic learning, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc, En-
glewood Cliffs, NJ, US.
Kim, H., Suh, K.-S., and Lee, U.-K. (2013). Effects of
collaborative online shopping on shopping experience
through social and relational perspectives. Informa-
tion & Management, 50(4):169–180.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P., Jochems, W., and Buuren, H.
(2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-
supported collaborative learning environments. Com-
puters & Education, 49(2):176–192.
Laal, M. and Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what
is it? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication
Theory, 14(1):27–50.
Marocco, D., Pacella, D., Dell’Aquila, E., and Di Ferdi-
nando, A. (2015). Grounding serious game design on
scientific findings: The case of ENACT on soft skills
training and assessment. In European Conference on
Technology Enhanced Learning, volume 9307, pages
441–446. Springer.
Planalp, S. and Honeycutt, J. M. (1985). Events that In-
crease Uncertainty in Personal Relationships. Human
Communication Research, 11(4):593–604.
Prensky, M. (2004). The Emerging Online Life of the Dig-
ital Native. Retrieved August, 7(2008):253–263.
Romero, M., Usart, M., and Ott, M. (2015). Can Serious
Games Contribute to Developing and Sustaining 21st-
Century Skills? Games and Culture, 10(2):148–177.
Sanchez-Vives, M. V. and Slater, M. (2005). From pres-
ence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4):332–339.
Schmidt, K. (2002). The problem with ‘awareness’: Intro-
ductory remarks on ‘awareness in CSCW. Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11(3):285–
Slater, M., Spanlang, B., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., and Blanke,
O. (2010). First Person Experience of Body Transfer
in Virtual Reality. PLOS ONE, 5(5):e10564.
Tong, L. (2017). Designing and analyzing collaborative
activities in multi-surface environments. PhD thesis,
e de Lyon.
Trilling, B. and Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learn-
ing for life in our times. Jossey-Bass/Wiley, Hoboken,
Vauras, M., Iiskala, T., Kajamies, A., Kinnunen, R., and
Lehtinen, E. (2003). Shared-regulation and motivation
of collaborating peers: A case analysis. Psychologia,
Westera, W., Nadolski, R., Hummel, H., and Wopereis, I.
(2008). Serious games for higher education: a frame-
work for reducing design complexity. Journal of Com-
puter Assisted Learning, 24(5):420–432.
Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., and Gress, C. (2010). The
learning kit project: Software tools for supporting and
researching regulation of collaborative learning. Com-
puters in Human Behavior, 26(5):787–793.
Yuill, N. and Rogers, Y. (2012). Mechanisms for collabora-
tion: A design and evaluation framework for multi-
user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction, 19(1):1–25.
Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P. H., and Mellenius, I. (2014). Par-
ticipation, interaction and social presence: An ex-
ploratory study of collaboration in online peer review
groups. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Impact of Viewpoint on Social Presence and Collaborative Processes in a Collaborative Serious Game