analyzing place metaphors in 3d educational collaborative virtual environments

Computers in

Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 185–204

www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Human Behavior

Analyzing place metaphors in 3Deducational collaborative virtual environments

Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland *

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway

Available online 12 March 2007

Abstract

In the recent years, the usage of three dimensional (3D) collaborative virtual environments(CVEs) for educational purposes has increased. The metaphors behind the design of virtual placesare quite diverse, from replication of real universities to art museums and scientific labs. This paperreports the results of a case study where the students of our university, as a part of their courseassignment, analyzed place metaphors used in a range of 3D educational CVEs vs. the correspondingeducational goals. The students suggested a design for a virtual campus representing the NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology (NTNU). The results of this study provide some suggestionsconcerning the characterization of different design features in educational CVEs and the suitabilityof such features for different educational goals. Also, a preliminary set of design guidelines for anideal virtual campus representing a real university is presented. Finally, some challenges associatedwith using 3D CVEs in various educational situations are discussed.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: 3D Collaborative virtual environments in education; Place metaphors; Virtual universities

1. Introduction

Collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) have been widely used in educational set-tings of different types. They can support learning communities because of their capabilityto provide a social arena where students and teachers can meet in spite of the barriersof separation in space and time (Neal, 1997). The virtual space provides a dynamic and

0747-5632/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.009

* Tel.: +47 73593437; fax: +47 73596640.E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

186 E. Prasolova-Førland / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 185–204

flexible environment where learners, especially distributed ones, can share information andform the environment according to their needs. There exists a wide range of 3D educa-tional virtual environments, especially within the Active Worlds Educational Universe(AWEDU, http://www.activeworlds.com/edu/). The metaphors behind the design of vir-tual places are quite diverse, from replication of real universities to other planets. Theworlds are also used for different purposes, from demonstrations of art and scientific con-cepts to meetings between physically remote learners. Especially interesting in this contextare metaphors where the virtual environment provides an analogy to a part of the realworld. Several universities and schools introduced virtual representations of themselves.Examples include Virtual Design Studio (Maher & Simoff, 2000), Virtual Campus ofNanyang Technological University in Singapore (Prasolova-Førland, Sourin, & Sourina,2005) and different worlds in AWEDU, such as VHS (Virtual High School). The roomsand the buildings of such virtual worlds give an idea about the social environment, avail-able equipment and provide a ‘‘familiar’’ atmosphere for the user (Maher, 1999).

A question arises: how suitable are various metaphors for different educational pur-poses? To answer this question, we want to explore and analyze a range of 3D educationalplace metaphors. To start such an analysis, we need a characterization framework, inwhich the metaphors and their features would be considered. Previously, we characterizededucational CVEs (Prasolova-Førland, 2004) in terms of learner, place and artifact. Thisframework is inspired by Activity Theory (Gifford & Enyedy, 1999) – activities are per-formed by learners and are mediated by artifacts, while both learners and artifacts are con-tained in a place. As the major focus of this paper is place metaphors, the characterizationfor the place dimension is presented in more detail in terms of outlook, structure and role

(Prasolova-Førland, 2005). By the outlook of a virtual place we refer to how it looks, forexample like a campus or like a museum. We consider outlook in terms of the followingmain dimensions: the degree of reality or abstraction represented by the CVE and to whatextent it appears to be a frontier, which can be thought of as land to conquer and horizonsto expand (Schroeder, Huxor, & Smith, 2001); it is much easier to extend the boundaries ofa virtual campus than those of a physical one. Still, in many cases the frontier is actuallylimited by various factors such as the virtual land cost and the overall development planfor the world.

By the structure we understand the mutual relations between different parts of the vir-tual environment, for example the mutual position of rooms within CVEs. Structure canbe rigid or free, depending to what extent users can alter it such as adding new rooms. Insome worlds such as Viras (Prasolova-Førland, 2004), the students are the ones mostactively engaged in forming the structure, while in others it is predefined by teachers/devel-opers for certain teaching purposes. Also, structure can be generated and altered automat-ically by agents. The structure of a virtual world may be formed according to many factorssuch as social (e.g. Viras, see Prasolova-Førland, 2004), course structure (Virtual Syllabus;see Dickey, 2000), educational themes (SciCentr; see Corbit & DeVarco, 2000). We canidentify different structure components such as rooms, roads and teleportation links.

CVEs and associated place metaphors can play a number of roles, one major role orseveral overlapping and interleaving ones: meeting- and work-places, information spaces,virtual stage and demonstrations and exhibitions (Prasolova-Førland & Divitini, 2002). Inmany cases, CVEs intended to play a certain role (e.g. a meeting place) do not always doso due to inadequate design or various social factors. For each role or metaphor we canidentify the creator: teacher, administrator, student or agent. The role of a virtual place is

http://www.activeworlds.com/edu/

E. Prasolova-Førland / Computers in Human Behavior 24 (2008) 185–204 187

also defined by the design, available facilities, and artifacts contained there, such as linksand pictures.

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the settings and the results of acase study where students of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology(NTNU) evaluate a number of typical educational 3D CVEs along the framework sug-gested above and discuss to what extent these worlds are suitable for the claimed educa-tional goals. The students also suggest a design for a virtual world representing NTNU.Based on the students’ evaluation, Section 3 discusses the advantages and shortages ofthe adopted characterization framework as an analytical tool, suggesting some revisions.This section also outlines some design guidelines for 3D CVEs for various educationalgoals. These guidelines are further concretized as a set of initial design principles for a vir-tual world representing a real university, or ‘‘virtual campus’’. Section 4 discusses whatadditional factors not directly related to the virtual place design should be taken into con-sideration when introducing a 3D CVE for educational use. Conclusions and directionsfor future work are presented in Section 5.

2. Case study

An exploratory case study among the students of NTNU taking a CSCW course wasconducted during the Fall semester 2004. Sixteen student groups participated, with fourto five students in each group. The students were given an exercise in which they were sup-posed to explore a range of 3D educational worlds in AWEDU to analyze different designfeatures used. To the end of the exercise, the students focused on a specific type of educa-tional 3D CVEs, i.e. ‘‘virtual campuses’’ representing real universities. In their essays, thestudents provided design suggestions for such a world representing NTNU. Prior to thebeginning of the exercises, the students got a lecture on CVE together with a short tutorialin AWEDU.

The worlds to be examined during the exercise have been chosen since they represent arather typical selection of the existing educational CVEs in Active Worlds EducationalUniverse which is currently one of the most popular 3D systems for educational use. Theseworlds exhibit a wide range of design features used and cover a broad variety of educa-tional situations and contexts. In addition, they are among the most finalized and well-developed worlds of AWEDU.

One of the worlds to analyze had to be SciCentr (see Fig. 1) as it was described in detailin a required reading (Corbit & DeVarco, 2000). The other two worlds could be chosenfrom the following list: VanGogh (Fig. 2), EcollegE (Fig. 3), Globe (Fig. 4), Edutopia(Fig. 5), Linkworld, Paralaw, SciFair, StarGate and Vdrama. None of the groups choseLinkworld, Paralaw and StarGate. It is worth mentioning that at the writing moment anumber of studied worlds (such as EcollegE, StarGate and Edutopia) can no longer befound online in AWEDU due to the termination of the associated projects, moving toanother hosting etc. Also, the content of the worlds still online might have changed sincethe time they were studied as the existing projects developed and new ones started.

As a part of the study, the students were asked to deliver a group essay with a discus-sion of the following issues: communication, coordination and navigation mechanisms inthe chosen worlds, social conventions and the major differences between them. They werealso asked to analyze the place metaphors used, taking a starting point in the character-ization framework presented in the previous section and introduced in another curriculum

Fig. 1. SciCentr, Gene house.

Fig. 2. VanGogh world, city of Arles.


paper (Prasolova-Førland & Divitini, 2002) and during the lecture, answering followingquestions: (1) What is the predominant outlook, how realistic it is, does it resemble a con-crete real place (e.g. a campus)? (2) Who and what factors define the structure, is it rigid/free? (3) What roles does the virtual place play? The students were in addition asked toidentify the differences between the worlds and the aspects of metaphors not mentioned

Fig. 3. EcollegE.

Fig. 4. Globe, a theatre museum.


in the curriculum. The students also discussed what evaluated worlds and the associateddesign features are most suitable for the corresponding educational goals the way theyare stated in the corresponding project descriptions, official Web pages, and so on. Tothe end, the students described how they would have designed a concrete example of a3D educational CVE representing NTNU in the most appropriate way. It is worth men-

Fig. 5. Edutopia, archeological time walk.


tioning that in another exercise of the course, the students engaged in a practical CVE con-struction in the world Viras in AWEDU (Prasolova-Førland, 2004).

The goals of this case study are twofold. First, to evaluate the adequacy of the proposedframework as an analytical tool by observing how it was used by the students during apractical task. Second, to explore the diversity and identify the major trends in the opin-ions and feedbacks that the students provide when studying and interacting with the vir-tual worlds. Students as a group are the major target audience of the educational 3Dworlds. Still, such worlds are often created and administered by teachers, not always infull compliance with the current actual needs of the students. Therefore, their feedbacksand discussions of the usefulness and adequacy of various design features in different con-texts provide a background for deriving a initial set of design guidelines as elaborated inthe following.

The source of the presented data are the delivered student group essays. It is importantto note that due to the exploratory nature of this study, the emphasis has been put on thequalitative analysis rather than providing quantitative measures and overview of the stu-dents’ responses and opinions in this study. Therefore, the following subsections provide asummary and overview of the students’ feedbacks and discussions. Section 2.1 summarizesthe students’ analysis of the place metaphors in selected worlds along the dimensions ofoutlook, structure and role of the characterization framework. Section 2.2 summarizesthe students’ feedbacks on every world explored it the study, together with their opinionson the suitability of different design features. To the end, student suggestions for design ofa virtual world representing NTNU are summarized.

2.1. Metaphors

This subsection provides a summary of the students’ analysis and discussion of theplace metaphors in the selected worlds along the dimensions of outlook, structure androle.


2.1.1. Outlook

Some essays have exhibited an unexpected divergence concerning the concept of realismof the outlook. For example, though the outlook of EcollegE (Fig. 3) in part directlyresembles the outlook of the physical UCSC campus, it was mentioned that the degreeof realism of this world is not only determined by the design but also by the quality ofgraphics and textures which has generally been criticized as too low. One of the groupsintroduced the definition of realism also as an authentic artist style, in this case the styleof Van Gogh (Fig. 2). The latter has been surprisingly denoted as one of the most realisticworlds studied. In certain cases there has been seen a certain ambiguity between ‘realistic’as something that can be realized, such as big signs in Edutopia (Fig. 5) vs. something thatdoes not exist e.g. floating platforms in SciCentr. The possibility for ‘flying’ in AWEDUwas on several occasions considered unnecessary and contributing to less realism.

One of the groups stressed the role of the outlook for establishing the proper atmo-sphere and thus corresponding social conventions. For example, the outlook of museum(glass dome, chandeliers) in Globe (Fig. 4) encouraged museum behavior such as beingquiet and not discussing irrelevant issues, as can be seen from this citation: ‘‘This look(museum) is supported by paintings on the walls, glass domes and old candelabrums.These decorations give Globe a grim look, which does not invite to play or caper’’. Sim-ilarly, for the SciCentr it was noted that ‘‘the world looks very futuristic, which correlateswell with how a science center should be’’. Another group mentions that the unrealistic yetfuturistic style of SciCentr ‘‘makes it exciting, and suits well the research theme’’. On anumber occasions it has been noted that there should be a proper correspondence betweenthe place and associated tools and facilities; for example, avatars dancing ‘‘Macarena’’were considered completely irrelevant in a world of Van Gogh paintings. Similarly, thoughlinks with enhanced functionalities in Globe would add to its efficiency, the world wouldlose its museum look and feel. The ‘frontier’ dimension of the outlook (as opposed to therealism/abstraction one) was only identified in a few essays and mostly in relation to Sci-Centr. As one of the groups put it, ‘‘It seems like there are no boundaries in this world . . .to show that there is no boundary in the scientific world’’. It is interesting to note that inone of the essays the ‘‘frontier’’ metaphor was connected not to ‘‘land to conquer’’ asdefined in (Schroeder et al., 2001), but more to the active user role, ‘‘discovering andextending new horizons’’ vs. the passive observer role.

2.1.2. Structure

A repeating pattern in the discussion of the freedom/rigidness of structure concernednot only the extension possibilities, but in addition (or solely) the navigation possibilities.For example how easy it is to ‘‘teleport’’ from one location to another, whether the usernavigation is restrained/guided by such factors as roads and corridors, or the users just‘‘float’’ freely in 3D dimensions (like in the SciCentr), though it is technically possibleto float in AWEDU, also where roads are present. Such navigation modes in SciCentrwere in many student essays considered as confusing. The rigidness/freedom of structurehas been often connected to the underlying defining factors and the physical possibilities/access rights for users to do alterations. For example, in SciCentr, which is composed ofplatforms, it is in principle easy to add new ones, but outsiders may not have the accessrights to do so. Also, the structure in the worlds appearing more ‘‘thought-through’’, real-istic and presumably created by the administrators, was more likely to be defined as rigidas opposed to e.g. student-developed worlds. Generally, the students tended to call the


structure free in ‘‘abstract’’ worlds, but also in the ones ‘‘created from scratch’’, with anextensive use of custom-made objects as it could give more freedom to the designer.

There have been surprising discrepancies between different essays concerning the struc-ture of Vdrama, some claiming it has rigid structure as it ‘‘consists of authenticable the-aters’’. At the same time this structure has also been denoted a loose one as its majorstructural components are stand-alone buildings with roads. This motivates a more finedistinction between the different levels of structure in virtual worlds.

2.1.3. Roles

Some student groups have questioned the significance of the form and structure of theworld for coordination of activities and communication. For example, when arguing whya certain world plays the role of a meeting place, there have been mentioned many featuresnot related to the place design such as possibilities for synchronous communication, textmessages, sound, avatars movement and gestures. There has generally been some confu-sion concerning what roles to identify for different worlds. It especially applies to the meet-ing place metaphor. For example, VanGogh (Fig. 2) was unexpectedly described as apredominantly meeting place for those interested in art. Similarly, in one essay, virtualscenes in the virtual theatres in Vdrama were considered as predominantly meeting places,i.e. using them for discussions/lectures on certain topics to reach a bigger audience. On anumber of occasions, when discussing the roles, the students did not make a clear distinc-tion between the role the place actually plays and is designed to play, and the ones theplace could potentially play, probably not originally intended by the designer. For exam-ple, the ‘‘meeting place’’ metaphor has not only been connected to the design of the cor-responding places and associated facilities, but also to their absence such as the presence of‘‘open fields with lots of free space’’ for talking to each other or specific ‘‘landmarks’’ as‘‘meeting points’’ such as gates and streets. Another important aspect mentioned in someessays is the extent of passivity/activity of the user, i.e. whether he/she can actively interactwith the world and modify it or just being passive audience. For example, SciCentr playsthe role of a ‘‘self-learning world’’ while worlds like VanGogh assume a more passive‘‘observer’’ role. Concerning the former, on of the essays mentioned that ‘‘presenting somegames (growing tomatoes game in SciCentr) is a way to activate the users more that justattending classes’’.

2.1.4. Dimensions not covered in the characterization framework

An often-mentioned important factor for a world’s success is the ability to ‘‘excite’’ thetarget audience. As one of the groups expressed it in the essay, ‘‘Important factors to takeinto account when designing the structure is that the different places are captivating andcan attract the youth with a desire for learning’’. As a consequence, the most popular sug-gestion for an alternative metaphor has been an ‘‘immersive 3D piece of art’’ CVE, or a‘‘3D painting’’. Similar suggestions include an encyclopedia-world, a ‘‘see-and-learn’’world, a ‘‘surprise’’ and ‘‘emotional’’ place and a ‘‘playground’’. In addition, three essayssuggested a metaphor for facilitating separation of topics, partly as in SciCentr, such as‘‘CVEs as islands’’ and ‘‘CVEs as clouds’’. These were probably influenced by the Archi-pelago metaphor used in Viras, the world students worked in for their other exercise (Pra-solova-Førland, 2004). Also a metaphor opposite to frontier has been suggested: infinitelandscape and symbolic space waiting to be reached by finding places/units with new


knowledge: ‘‘a symbolic landscape waiting to be reached by finding new platforms (as inSciCentr) with new knowledge’’.

2.2. Suitability of the CVE design for different educational goals

This subsection provides a summary of the students’ analysis of the different worlds inthe study. The goal of this presentation is to show what design strategies appeared to bemost successful in relation to the claimed goals.

� SciCentr (a world with a set of scientific exhibitions). In this world, the component mostsuitable for its purpose was considered its futuristic outlook, being in harmony with thetheme. The structure consisting of floating platforms with exhibitions received a lot ofcriticism for being too confusing and providing bad overview. It was also noted that‘‘exact science’’ does not rime well with such a chaotic structure. Still, the structural sep-aration of areas/topics was mostly denoted as ‘‘smart’’. One of the major disadvantagesof the world has been its ‘‘unfinished’’ look and non-working simulations. One groupclaimed it is the most suitable world due to its potential for further development.� SciFair (a world related to SciCentr, exhibiting students’ scientific projects) was consid-

ered to have a better outlook than SciCentr as the former is more realistic and uniform,with better structure and links, though information structure was still evaluated as messy.� VanGogh (a world representing the home city of VanGogh the way it is depicted in his

paintings), was in a number of essays evaluated as the best world, ‘‘a very interestingand exciting way of studying VanGogh’’. It was noted that the world is capable of ‘‘cre-ating mood’’ (both through the graphics and accompanying music), stimulating curios-ity and is very effective to mediate information about VanGogh. Another importantoften mentioned advantage was that the world ‘‘seems finished and usable’’. Still, itwas noted that the world was too ‘‘limited’’ as it did not have enough content to keeppeople there for a significant period of time.� Vdrama (a world for acting and scenography design featuring theatres from different

epochs) was unexpectedly considered most suitable not for its major purpose, but forfacilitating meetings and ideas exchange. Stages spread over an empty area were saidto give a space for creative solutions though too few guidelines for building made theworld to a certain extent confusing for the visitors.� Edutopia (a world for displaying educational projects, mostly on archeology and his-

tory). It was by some students evaluated as partly suitable for the role of ‘‘informationspace’’ (by outlook, though described as an ‘‘ugly outdoors museum’’). Still, retrievinginformation was said to be time-consuming. Among the drawbacks there was men-tioned ‘‘no interactivity, boring signs . . . no support for learning activation, dynamicshow and multi-sensual experiences as claimed on the corresponding webpage’’.� EcollegE (a world partly representing UCSC campus, with an environmental

emphasis). This world was said to serve as a successful and complete representationof a real university and provide a good impression of being at a school with a classicand simple structure, where big meeting rooms and shared whiteboard give good pos-sibilities for communication. Citing one of the essays, ‘‘information is more surveyablewhen presented in ordinary rooms . . . but than one misses something ‘‘fantastic’’ of thevirtual world’’. At the same time, it was noted that the suitability of this world forrepresenting the real campus is limited due to many dead, un-updated links.


� Globe (a theater museum). Globe was said to be ‘‘a good choice for those interested intheatre from different epochs’’, with a good museum-like organization, ‘‘thoughdetailed aspects could be better found from Google’’. Criticism included not enoughinformation and no interactive elements, generally ‘‘nothing that a portal does notmanage’’.

Generally, realistic structure components such as roads leading to buildings with clearsigns were considered positive as they allow to ‘‘map’’ surroundings better than e.g. tele-portation. Roads can also indicate that the way leads to something, giving the user ‘‘aninner peace’’ and triggering ‘‘the wish to see what awaits further forward in the horizon’’.In this context it is important that the structure is complete, without ‘‘dead ends’’ on theroads. Still, a complete absence of ‘‘unnatural’’ structure components such as teleports inGlobe, though adding to the realism, was evaluated as not fully efficient. It was alsoremarked in one of the essays that the efficiency of virtual worlds for information searchis ‘‘like exchanging a car for a horse’’, i.e. all the functionalities can be implemented sim-pler with other non-virtual tools. Therefore, worlds like VangGogh and Globe were saidnot to contain enough information to support their roles and thus have to be supple-mented with internet pages.

An important aspect is the ‘‘activity–passivity’’ issue in relation to the mode of learningoffered by the different worlds. For example, one of the essays notes: ‘‘In Globe and Van-Gogh world the user is supposed to learn by receiving information about the different top-ics in each of the worlds. In SciCentr the users are supposed to learn by performing variousactivities’’.

Originally, one of the major focuses of this study has been the collaborative aspect ofthe 3D CVEs, also because the exercise that the study is based on is a part of a CSCWcourse. Still, the feedbacks from students show that it is problematic to evaluate suchaspects as the studied worlds were mostly empty at the time of exploration. Thereforethe students needed to make assumption on how collaboration would function in the stud-ied virtual environments. Still, it appears from their analysis, as mentioned earlier in Sec-tion 2.1, that the place design plays a minor role for cooperation support compared tosuch aspects as instant messaging and audio support which are the same for all worldsin AWEDU.

2.3. Design suggestions for a virtual campus

After studying a number of educational worlds and associated design features and dis-cussing the suitability of these features for different educational goals from a more theo-retical perspective the students got a practical task of providing design guidelines for aconcrete example of 3D educational CVEs, more specifically a virtual campus representingNTNU. As mentioned in Section 1, it is one of the most popular types of educational vir-tual worlds. This subsection lists and summarizes the suggestions expressed by the studentsfor the design of such an ‘‘ideal’’ virtual campus.

Three of the groups suggested using a variant of ‘‘Archipelago’’ metaphor used in theworld Viras (Prasolova-Førland, 2004) that the students worked with in another exercisein the same course. The suggested variant of this metaphor implied different faculties andother entities in the university placed on virtual islands, probably as buildings with smallerbuildings/rooms representing courses. The bridges/roads, and in one case small islands


between the major ones, are meant to represent the cooperation directions and areasbetween different faculties and research environments. In addition, it was suggested touse the metaphor of a ‘‘cruise ship’’ and an ‘‘air balloon’’ floating above islands to denoteinter-disciplinary courses and cooperation areas. It was noted that the usage of this met-aphor will emphasize the ‘‘self-governing’’ nature of the faculties.

Additionally, two groups suggested solutions without particular resemblance to thephysical campus with more focus on the organizational aspects. An example is a buildingwith floors representing different student years or specific buildings/rooms dedicated toadministration, faculties and subjects.

The suggestions from all other groups implied some resemblance to the physical cam-pus or at least some parts of it. One of these groups suggested providing different solutionsto local and distant students, i.e. maximally realistic for the former to increase familiarityand ease of use, and more abstract, organization-focused for the latter to maximize thelearning effect. The following suggestions have been given:

2.3.1. Outlook

� The real campus resemblance should act as a major theme or ‘‘shell’’ to include addi-tional features, labs and private rooms. While the overall structure could be more rigidand regulated by the administrators, the students and employees should be able toextend and develop the campus within the overall guidelines.� Using highly realistic elements, such as canteens and lawns for socializing, auditoriums

for lecturing, teacher’s offices for consultations, and bus stops as teleportation pointsbetween the sub-campuses.

2.3.2. Structure

� ‘‘Shortcuts’’ in navigation, e.g. maps with information about destinations, teleportationlinks between faculties, and some modifications to the internal structure of the campus,such as collocation of the distributed sub-campuses and additional areas for meetingsbetween different research environments.� Combining different types of structuring: e.g. using the main corridor of the campus

and the doors to real auditoriums there as a metaphor, with the doors teleporting usersto rooms containing various educational resources.

2.3.3. Roles

� Faculty-driven ‘‘libraries’’ with important links and resources, together with rooms forspecific topics and advanced demonstration areas and labs.� Models of existing lecture halls dedicated to keep resources in specific courses or used

for live lecturing, with such advanced features as visualization of the students who needhelp from the teacher.� Private groups and student rooms (something not feasible in the physical university),

with associated facilities, such as document sharing, whiteboard, and features ensuringprivacy.


3. Principles for designing place metaphors

The preceding discussion allows to outline some design principles for place metaphorsin 3D educational CVEs, together with initial guidelines for a ‘‘perfect’’ virtual campus, asdiscussed further in this section. Also, the students’ experiences with the characterizationframework as an analytical tool suggest some directions for an extension and revision ofthe framework as summarized in the following.

3.1. Characterization framework

3.1.1. Outlook

� To ensure consistency of the avatar outlook and gestures and the functionality of theworld with its overall theme, the place outlook should be connected to the learnerand artifact dimensions. For example the appearance of the avatars, available gesturesand tools should be in harmony with the place design.� The diversity of student interpretations shows that the notion of ‘‘realistic’’ should be

nuanced further, e.g. resembling a concrete place, whether it is possible to have/constructthe same place in reality, the quality of graphics, but also authenticity, such as a an artist’sstyle.� The notion of ‘‘frontier’’ should be more directly connected to the notion of the user

activity and engagement in the development and extension of a world. The definitionshould also be extended, from ‘‘conquering land’’ to an ‘‘infinite’’ landscape waitingto be ‘‘filled’’ with more content.� An important aspect often mentioned in the essays but not fully captured in the frame-

work is to what extent the outlook is appealing, ‘‘exciting’’ and able to provoke thedesire to learn in the students.

3.1.2. Structure

� As the students repeatedly considered the freedom/rigidness of the place structure interms of the ‘‘freedom’’ of navigation, the notion of navigation should be included intothe structure dimension, i.e. to what extent the former is guided and limited by thestructure of the world.� As the rigidness/freedom of structure was commonly evaluated under the influence of a

number of underlying factors, there is a need for a more extensive differentiation ofstructure units for analysis and the differentiation of reasons for the structure beingrigid/free in different units, to avoid subjectivity and oversimplification.

3.1.3. Roles

� In terms of the roles played by the virtual places, there should be explicitly differentiatedbetween the design only allowing passive participation vs. activation and engagement ofusers, including interactive components and user possibilities for the co-construction ofthe environment.


� For the place role dimension, a greater degree of integration with the communicationalaspects of the learner dimension is required, since the most important facilities for e.g.meeting activities are according to the students the synchronous communication means(e.g. chat) and not the place design.� It should be differentiated between the actual/explicit roles played by a place (e.g. a lec-

ture hall where lessons regularly happen) and the roles the place can possibly play withthe given design (e.g. lecturing from a stage) or potentially with additional modifica-tions. It should be noted whether the provided facilities are used in the intendedway, e.g. meetings on ‘‘empty’’ areas instead of designated ones.� A new role/metaphor, possibly as a sub-role of ‘‘Demonstrations and exhibitions’’,

should be, as suggested by the students, a ‘‘CVE as a piece of art’’ or a ‘‘creative artisticenvironment’’.

It is interesting to compare the presented characterization framework for place meta-phors with other ones discussed in the literature. For example, Clark and Maher (2001)speak of virtual place in terms of spatial, semantic and functional paradigms. Here onecan draw parallels between the two frameworks, e.g. outlook and structure correspondingto the spatial dimension, while there can be established a relation between the role dimen-sion and the semantic and functional ones. Still, we believe that the framework presentedin this paper is more descriptive and detailed and therefore more suitable for a in-depthanalysis of place metaphors in practice.

3.2. Design features and the corresponding educational goals

Summarizing the students’ evaluations of the selected educational worlds allows toidentify some general trends.

3.2.1. Outlook

When speaking of outlook of different worlds and their potential suitability in educa-tion, one can conclude that creating the right atmosphere, as well as the aesthetic compo-nent is important. Therefore, a special care should be taken when considering the balancebetween the ‘‘mood’’, user friendliness and the introduction of additional tools, which,though contributing to efficiency, may affect the authentic ‘‘feel’’ as e.g. noted in connec-tion to Globe. The proper balance between the atmosphere and functionality variesdepending on the purpose, i.e. the former is more important in the worlds focusing onart and creativity while the latter is more crucial in the systems facilitating work and infor-mation retrieval.

In most of the studied worlds, with the exception of SciCentr, the outlook did not pro-vide enough indication of the frontier and was not recognized as such by the students.Therefore, educational worlds, especially the realistically looking ones should show moreclearly the extent to which the world is ‘‘finished’’ or open for further modifications as wellas after what principles the world is developed.

Generally, outlook features considered positive for all educational purposes are thoseproviding a good overview (which in many cases implies a rather compact world), visualseparation of logical items, a certain uniformity of constructions and a significant degreeof realism and simplicity (e.g. rooms with information), however without looking too‘‘boring’’. The latter aspect is important, therefore, where suitable, the possibilities of


3D virtuality to create ‘‘exciting’’ environments should not be neglected, including visual-ization means and interactive elements.

3.2.2. Structure

Based on the student evaluations, especially of SciCentr, the structure of a user-friendlyeducational world should be compact, natural, easy to follow, with a good overview andcomplete, i.e. without ‘‘dead ends’’. Natural components such as roads and road signs areusually preferable, for creating ‘‘mental maps’’ and an increased user confidence. Still, fora better efficiency, flexibility and a certain atmosphere, they can be combined with moreabstract ones such as teleportation links or ‘‘floating platforms’’. This also corresponds tothe results earlier presented in Prasolova-Førland and Divitini (2005). Also, the place struc-ture should be exploited more efficiently, for clear separation of logical items/topics and forindicating the overall plan and the possibilities/guidelines for the development of the world.

3.2.3. Roles

When identifying the roles played by the place, the most interesting factor is the discrep-ancy between the intended purpose and the provided facilities and design elements. Themost common discrepancies found during the study are the non-functioning elements suchas dead links and non-working demos, too little interactivity compared to the claimedgoals as well as too time-consuming and cumbersome navigation with chaotic overview.An important factor for how well the place plays its role is the completeness of the design,the feeling of being finalized, though it might interfere with the dynamicity of the worldand the possibilities for development. These factors might explain why the worlds foundin general most suitable for their purpose in this study are VanGogh and Globe, as bothare rather small with easy overview and look ‘‘finished’’. Still, most worlds are not capableof fulfilling their role alone, especially when presentation of information is concerned.Therefore they should be supplemented with other tools such as web pages. Generally,since in some cases the students perceived the roles so differently in the same worlds,the designers should put more focus on evaluating the actual usage vs. the intendedone. This suggests also a greater focus on the overall social, educational and organiza-tional context when evaluating the suitability.

The results of this study, especially those concerning the realism of the outlook and the‘‘atmosphere’’ it provides as well as the need for a natural and intuitive navigation, are in linewith the existing studies of human behavior in the virtual environments, see e.g. Jeffrey andMark (1999, chap. 7), Anderson, Ashraf, Douther, and Jack (2000) and Slater et al. (2000).All these studies show that even in virtual places humans follow the conventions adopted inthe real world, such as keeping social distances, grouping when talking or moving, preferring‘‘natural’’ navigation modes and adjusting the behavior according to the context. Therefore,when designing a virtual place it is important to find a balance between recreating a naturallylooking and recognizable environment on one side, and introducing additional functionalityfor better efficiency, not possible in the physical world, on the other.

3.3. Design guidelines for an ideal virtual campus

Based on the design solutions suggested by the students in Section 2.3 and the generalprinciples for 3D educational worlds discussed above, we can arrive at the followinggeneral design guidelines for a virtual campus representing a real university:


3.3.1. Outlook

� The overall outlook/theme of the virtual campus should at least partially resemble thereal university and convey its ‘‘atmosphere’’. It should provide a clear and understand-able overview of the major units of the university. Outlook of the various parts of thecampus should be differentiated according to the types of activities performed there(e.g. work/socializing). The ‘‘lower’’ elements of the hierarchy (e.g. lecture halls andworkrooms) might not benefit from the one-to-one reality resemblance, or on the con-trary, exhibit unrealistic features/designs if necessary for the enhanced and more effec-tive educational experience.� There should be, if feasible, a possibility to provide different customizable views of the

campus for different student groups and educational situations, e.g. a simplified 2Dview of the organizational structure of the university, and a 3D realistic representation,with multiple interconnections between the two systems.

3.3.2. Structure

� The major structure should, at least partially, resemble the structure of the real univer-sity. It should be rather rigid and controlled by the administrators, while structureslower in the hierarchy can be developed by the students or teachers to ensure a flexibleand dynamic development of the campus according to the current needs. There shouldbe corresponding tools available, as well as the mechanisms for keeping such develop-ment in accordance with the adopted rules and design themes.� The navigation in the virtual campus should be as natural and intuitive as possible, but at

the same time compact and significantly simplified compared to the real one, with short-cuts/teleportation links, menus and maps with logical and understandable structure,shorter distances, simplified walking paths and additional navigational modes such as‘‘flying’’.

3.3.3. Roles

� The virtual campus shall clearly represent the administrative, scientific and pedagogical-related features of the university with the corresponding facilities.� The virtual campus should contain resources and tools to support a broad variety of

activities normally present on a university campus, including information resources(virtual ‘‘libraries’’), groupware tools, interactive demonstration and simulation facili-ties (such as virtual labs), and so on. The choice of appropriate tools (e.g. a 2D webpagevs. a 3D scene) needs to be done carefully in every situation depending in the needs ofthe learners, the nature of the task and so on. The resources in the virtual campusesneed to be regularly updated, to attract visitors and to reflect the development in thephysical ‘‘prototype’’.

4. Using 3D CVEs for education: additional challenges

In the preceding discussion, we have elaborated on the major challenges for developing3D CVEs for educational purposes, mostly focusing on the design of the virtual place.


Still, it is important to note that place design is far from being the only factor that deter-mines the success of an educational world. The suitability of a particular CVE in certaineducational situations depends on a number of other issues as elaborated below.

4.1. Learning content

Most of the 3D educational CVEs are used as a part of a certain course. Therefore,when designing such an environment, it is important to have in mind the major type oflearning involved, e.g. problem-based learning, exploratory learning, roleplaying or col-laborative learning. In this connection, choosing appropriate high-quality learning contentand the most appropriate way of its presentation, is of high importance. As recent researchshows (Pekkola, 2002; Prasolova-Førland & Divitini, 2005), not all types of content aresuitable for presentation in a 3D environment, such as text documents and abstract con-cepts. Therefore, the designers should not seek the goal of recreating all the curriculaoffered by the particular course/courses in a 3D CVE. The designer should choose educa-tional topics and concepts where the 3D visualization and simulation will have clearadvantages comparing to the more traditional presentation modes such as slides, articlesand diagrams. The examples of such content can be computer graphics, as shown in e.g.(Prasolova-Førland et al., 2005), art, modeling and simulating chemical reactions and bio-logical processes (e.g. AWEDU: Cheemet, Vangogh, SciCentr), visualization of complexdata sets etc, design and architecture (Borner, 2001; Maher & Simoff, 2000), recreating his-torical settings (e.g. AWEDU: Edutopia, Linkworld) and so on.

We have already discussed the design elements that according to students make theunderstanding of the presented material easier, such as clear separation of topics, easynavigation and overview. Also, in (Prasolova-Førland & Divitini, 2005) we proposed anumber of guidelines for presenting educational content in a 3D CVE. A central challengein this context is the balance and proper connection between the text, 2D and 3D elements.As shown in e.g. (Deuff, Devoldere, & Chanclou, 2005), a 3D virtual space provides amore ‘‘wholesome’’ learning experience for a student as opposed to a 2D web page bycombining different media in one environment. To exploit this strength fully and to beattractive for the students, the transition between different media layers should be smoothand unobtrusive. For example, it is often not feasible to present large amounts of textinside a 3D world due to e.g. the limited view angle of the user. Most of the textual mate-rial should therefore be made available outside the world via pop-up windows or by link-ing to external web pages. The links to such external materials are associated with 3Dobjects inside the virtual environment, which makes it important to ensure that the con-nection is apparent to the viewer.

4.2. Embodiment, communication and cooperation support

Other aspects that determine the suitability of a 3D CVE for a given educational pur-pose can be the choice of avatars, facilities for synchronous and asynchronous communi-cation and tools for cooperation support. For example, systems like AWEDU offer arelatively limited standard selection of avatars, which mostly reflect the outlook and cloth-ing of the Western world (Dickey, 2000). Therefore, the cultural diversity among thepotential students in a global context is not reflected fully. This might be a hindrancefor multicultural educational experiences as it limits the means for expression of the


students’ identity and belonging. The same applies for the choice of artifacts and the build-ing blocks such as pre-made buildings with the outlook of ‘‘castles’’ in Active Worlds(www.activeworlds.com) but none resembling e.g. ‘‘pagodas’’ (Wyeld, Prasolova-Førland,& Chang, 2006).

The body language and verbal expression means available in AWEDU are according tostudent feedbacks rather poor for educational situations that require extensive communi-cation and socialization. Generally, using 3D CVEs for groupwork can in some cases beproblematic as discussed in (Pekkola, 2002). For example, the usage of such an environ-ment can appear disruptive to a student’s social communication and schoolwork, as onehas to specifically enter a 3D world to contact other learners there while it is usuallynot possible to transfer one’s MSN contacts to the virtual environment. In the case whenall deliveries and the official communication with the teacher happen through a LMS(Learning Management System), as is the practice at NTNU, the student has to discon-tinue his activities in the virtual world to post a question to the tutor or deliver exercisereport, even if these are directly relevant to his/her work in the 3D CVE.

To overcome these limitations, an educational 3D CVE should ideally supportadvanced communication facilities such as video and audio-conferencing. Also, it shouldallow a seamless integration with the widely used tools such as MSN, mobile, shared doc-ument editing, and the prevailing LMS (Learning Management System) used at the par-ticular educational institution.

4.3. Social and organizational factors

The success of a 3D CVE and its suitability for specific educational purposes is oftendepending on the factors outside the virtual world, such as the overall organizationaland social situation, which affects the extent of usage. Many 3D CVEs experience theso-called ‘‘critical mass problem’’. For example, in all the worlds of the whole AWEDUthere are often only one to two users simultaneously. When there are only a few users,it is not very motivating to come online or contribute to the development of the world.Therefore, without a significant critical mass on a regular basis, a 3D CVE risks becominga ‘‘ghost’’ world or being used only sporadically. In some cases the original purpose of theworld does not require constant activity of users in the virtual environment if it is forexample created only for scheduled meetings. Still, worlds meant for continuous activitiessuch as development of student projects (for example, Viras; see Prasolova-Førland, 2004)benefit from a constant and active participation for regular updating of the content andeffective collaboration between the learners.

Such active usage often requires involvement in a wide range of courses and also admin-istrative activities. It is especially important in the case of a virtual campus. A successfuladoption of a 3D CVE representing a real campus requires a broad deployment at differentlevels of the corresponding university, to create a sufficient critical mass and motivate thelearners to use the campus on the daily basis.

4.4. Technological development

Student feedbacks show that the quality of graphics of virtual worlds created withActive Worlds technology is not high enough to provide a sufficient realism and keepup with the modern 3D games that many young people have experience with. There exist

http://www.activeworlds.com


educational projects involving much more advanced computer graphics such as thosebased on Second Life (www.secondlife.com). Nevertheless, the hardware requirementsimposed by such systems are often above the average level in university computer classes.Therefore, the challenge in this context lies in finding the balance between the cost andresource demand on one side and the visualization efficiency and graphics quality onthe other.

Another central challenge in connection with using 3D CVEs in a modern school oruniversity environment is the mobility support. The recent trend shows a greater focuson mobile technology in learning, There have also been presented some mobile solutionsalso in connections with 3D CVEs (McArdle, Monahan, & Bertolotto, 2006). The possi-bility for students to access a virtual environment and attend events there via widely useddevices such as cell phones and PDAs might contribute to a greater involvement of thelearners. This implies the necessity of developing specific interfaces for mobile applicationsadjusted for the particular usage scenarios and technical characteristics of the devices suchas simplified graphics and navigation, communication protocols, and interaction facilities.

5. Conclusions

This paper raises a number of questions: How should 3D educational CVEs be designedto suit different educational purposes? What place metaphors are typically used? Whichdesign features are beneficial and which are not? How could the virtual place design insuch worlds be analyzed in a systematic way?

To give a partial answer to these questions and initiate a discussion on the mentionedissues this paper presents a case study where place metaphors in a number of 3D educa-tional CVEs are analyzed. The result of the study is a set of design principles for develop-ment of general 3D educational worlds, and in particular the guidelines for designingvirtual worlds resembling real universities. Also, the paper discusses the suitability ofthe adopted characterization framework as an analytical tool for future analysis of educa-tional CVEs, suggesting some revisions and additions.

The presented list of guidelines and challenges is by no means final and open for furtheriterations and additions. The major goal of this paper was rather to trigger a discussion onthe design and usage of 3D CVEs in education, the goal which we believe has beenachieved here.

The approach we used has a number of limitations. In this case study, only studentsfrom one university have participated. Another limitation of the performed analysis hasbeen the difficulty to acquire enough information about the goals and context aroundthe explored educational worlds. Still, we believe this approach is justified to provide aninitial, starting set of recommendations and guidelines that will be revised and updatedafter considering several other systems and involving students from other institutions.

An important issue to consider during an analysis of such systems is to what extentother factors than the virtual place design influence the suitability of a 3D CVE in a con-crete educational situation. These factors can be the embodiment of the learner, tools forfacilitating communication and cooperation and the presentation of the learning content.Factors outside the virtual world can influence the outcome as well, such as the overallorganizational and social context. There are also educational situations where other typesof tools, such as BSCW and MSN, would always be more appropriate. All these factorsneed to be explored further, providing another direction for future research.

http://www.secondlife.com


References

Anderson, J., Ashraf, N., Douther, C., & Jack, M. A. (2000). Participatory design study of user requirements fora shared virtual meeting space. In Proceedings of PRESENCE 2000 – 3rd international workshop on presence,

Delft, The Netherlands (CD-ROM).Borner, K. (2001). Adaptation and evaluation of 3-dimensional collaborative information visualizations. In

Proceedings of UM 2001, workshop on empirical evaluations of adaptive systems, Bavaria, Germany (pp. 33–40).

Clark, S., & Maher, M. L. (2001). A virtual learning environment that provides a playful approach through asense of place. In Proceedings of playful design learning forum, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia,

Australia. Retrieved September 22, 2006 from http://www.arch.adelaide.edu.au/games/forum/papers/22_SenseOfPlay_SC.pdf.

Corbit, M., & DeVarco, B. (2000). SciCentr and BioLearn: two 3D implementations of CVE science museums. InProceedings of the 3rd international conference on collaborative virtual environments (pp. 65–71). San Francisco,CA, United States: ACM Press.

Deuff, D., Devoldere, N., & Chanclou, I. (2005). A proposal for visualizing learning materials in a 3D space. InProceedings of CELDA 2005 (pp. 441–444). Lisboa, Portugal: IADIS Press.

Dickey, D. (2000). 3D Virtual worlds and learning: an analysis of the impact of design affordancesand limitations in Active Worlds, Blaxxun Interactive, and Onlive! Traveler; and a study of theimplementation of Active Worlds for formal and informal education. Dissertation. The Ohio StateUniversity.

Gifford, B. R., & Enyedy, N. D. (1999). Activity centered design: towards a theoretical framework for CSCL. InProceedings of CSCL 1999, Palo Alto, CA, USA (pp. 189–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jeffrey, P., & Mark, G. (1999). Navigating the virtual landscape: coordinating the shared use of space. In A.Munro, K. Hook, & D. Beynon (Eds.), Social navigation of information space (pp. 112–131). Springer-VerlagLondon Ltd.

Maher, M. L. (1999). Designing the virtual campus as a virtual world. In Proceedings of CSCL 1999. Palo Alto,

CA, USA (pp. 376–382). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Maher, M. L., & Simoff, S. (2000). Collaboratively designing within the design. In Proceedings of co-designing

conference 2000 (pp. 391–399). Coventry, UK: Springer.McArdle, G., Monahan, T., & Bertolotto, M. (2006). 3D collaborative virtual environments for e-learning and m-

learning. In Proceedings of the 5th IASTED international conference on Web-based education 2006 (pp. 37–42).Puerto Vallarta, Mexico: ACTA Press.

Neal, L. (1997). Virtual classroom and communities. In Proceedings of ACM GROUP 1997 (pp. 81–90). Phoenix,USA: ACM Press.

Pekkola, S. (2002). Critical approach to 3D virtual realities for group work. In Proceedings of

NordiCHI’02: second Nordic conference on Human–computer interaction (pp. 129–138). Aarhus,Denmark: ACM Press.

Prasolova-Førland, E. (2004). Virtual spaces as artifacts: implications for the design of educational CVEs.Cyberworlds in Education. The International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (JDET), 2(4),94–115.

Prasolova-Førland, E. (2005). Place metaphors in educational CVEs: an extended characterization. InProceedings of the 4th IASTED international conference on Web-based education 2005 (pp. 349–354).Grindelwald, Switzerland: ACTA Press.

Prasolova-Førland, E., & Divitini, M. (2002). Supporting learning communities with collaborative virtualenvironments: different spatial metaphors. In Proceedings of ICALT 2002 (pp. 259–264). Kazan, Russia: IEEELearning Technology Task Force.

Prasolova-Førland, E., & Divitini, M. (2005). Supporting collaborative construction of knowledge: lessonslearned. In Proceedings of the 8th IASTED international conference on computers and advanced technology in

education, CATE 2005 (pp. 147–152). Oranjestad, Aruba: ACTA Press.Prasolova-Førland, E., Sourin, A., & Sourina, O. (2005). Place metaphors in educational cyberworlds: a Virtual

Campus case study. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on cyberworlds, CW 2005

(pp. 221–228). Singapore: IEEE CS Press.Schroeder, R., Huxor, A., & Smith, A. (2001). Activeworlds: geography and social interaction in virtual reality.

Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 33(7), 569–587.

http://www.arch.adelaide.edu.au/games/forum/papers/22_SenseOfPlay_SC.pdf

http://www.arch.adelaide.edu.au/games/forum/papers/22_SenseOfPlay_SC.pdf


Slater, M., Howell, J., Steed, A., Pertaub, D.-P., Gaurau, M., & Springel, S. (2000). Acting in virtual reality. InProceedings of ACM collaborative virtual environments, CVE’2000 (pp. 103–110). San Fransisco, USA: ACMPress.

Wyeld, T. G., Prasolova-Førland, E., & Chang, T.-W. (2006). The 3D CVE as a cross-cultural classroom. InProceedings of the 2nd international GameSetandMatch conference 2006 (pp. 568–573). Delft, the Netherlands:Episode Publishers.

analyzing place metaphors in 3d educational collaborative virtual environments

Documents