using virtual worlds: what the research says susan … virtual worlds: what the research says 2...

Using Virtual Worlds: What the Research Says 1

Using Virtual Worlds: What the Research Says

Susan Dass

George Mason University

May 11, 2010


Abstract

The success of Second Life, an Internet-based 3D user-created virtual world, has supported

wider use of virtual worlds, especially as a learning environment. Virtual worlds include a

variety of inherent characteristics that can be leveraged in accordance with the alignment of

learning outcomes, learning theory, pedagogical model, instructional strategy, and learning

activities. The use of an avatar provides the means to interact and create within the virtual

world, to communicate and collaborate, and to develop a sense of presence in the virtual

world. From an educational perspective, pedagogical models are being examined for their

application to virtual worlds as well as new models that are emerging attuned to the inherent

characteristics of a virtual world. This paper draws upon current research to summarize the

key factors and applicable principles that helps to inform the design of virtual world as a

learning environment. Existing and new pedagogical models are reviewed through case

histories. Additionally, student receptivity and perceptions of virtual worlds as a learning

environment are discussed as well as student performance in a virtual world as evidenced in

the literature. Continued research will provide a means to better understanding of learning

transfer and how to better design a virtual world learning environment.


Introduction

Although some virtual worlds have been around as early as 1997 and even earlier as text-

based, the mass cultural appeal and success of Second Life, an Internet-based 3D user-created

virtual world, has supported wider use of virtual worlds (Kelton, 2008; de Freitas, 2008; Wagner

& Ip, 2009). Instead of asking who’s doing it, EDUCAUSE (2008) noted that a better question

would be who’s not doing it. Individuals, businesses, schools, and government use virtual worlds

for a variety of reasons, including meeting, sharing, collaborating, communicating, socializing,

providing services, conducting business, or creating learning environments (EDUCAUSE, 2008;

de Freitas, 2008; Robbins & Butler, 2009; Wang & Braman, 2009). From an educational

perspective, virtual environments can provide classroom space, house resource materials, or

support self-contained stand-alone courses conducted entirely within the virtual world (Clark,

2008). “Virtual worlds can offer students activities that are both hands-on and minds-on, making

it possible for students to replicate classic experiments or perform laboratory activities that might

be too dangerous, too expensive, or too time-consuming in the real world” (Clark, 2008, para 1).

The sense of presence, togetherness, and ‘thereness,’ is often cited as the draw to virtual worlds

(EDUCAUSE, 2008; Clark, 2008; Robbins & Butler, 2009). Kelton (2008) posits that “educators

using virtual worlds today realize that it is a means to an end, a tool available for teaching and

learning” (p. 22).

This paper draws upon current research to summarize the key factors and applicable

principles that helps to inform the design of a virtual world as a learning environment. The paper

will differentiate virtual worlds from games and will discuss the inherent characteristics of

virtual worlds. Through this discussion, the importance and significance of the selection of

pedagogical models, instructional strategies, and subsequent learning activities will become


evident in the design of a virtual world. As such, a brief overview of example pedagogical

models used to date in the research will be presented to appreciate the relevance of pedagogy.

Several research case histories will be summarized to review student receptivity and perception

of virtual worlds and student performance using virtual worlds as a learning environment. This

review will also indicate the lack of standardization in evaluation instruments and the range of

factors that can be measured as part of an evaluation process for virtual worlds, thus making it

very difficult to conduct a meta-analysis. This paper begins with a discussion of virtual worlds

and their inherent characteristics.

Virtual Worlds and Inherent Characteristics

There are different types of virtual worlds (see Robbins & Butler, 2009). They can be

purposeful in nature or social in nature. Purposeful worlds are games or targeted training such as

for emergency medical response (Wagner & Ip, 2009). Social worlds offer more opportunities

for communication. Virtual worlds have often been perceived as being games but they are not.

Virtual worlds do not have prescribed rules or inherent goals, but rather, they offer the ability to

create, change, and control the environment (Kelton, 2008). Gamers may feel lost when

transitioning to virtual worlds as there is no goal and no inherent direction in terms of what to do

in a virtual world. They become bored and thus exit the world, never to return (Kelton, 2008).

Even in a class of instructional technologists, where one might assume the technologists would

be intrinsically motivated to investigate an instructional technology, they were also found to be

at a loss as what to do while in the virtual world (Sullivan, 2009). It would seem that users need a

goal or motivation to explore and interact with a virtual world.

It’s important to understand the inherent characteristics of a virtual world so these

characteristics can be exploited in the design of a learning space. Foremost is the use of an


avatar by the user. An avatar provides not only a visual representation of the user but also a

psychological immersion (Delgarno & Lee, 2010). Through the use of the avatar, the most

commonly cited characteristics of a virtual world include: presence, awareness, communication,

and collaboration. Presence is explained by the sense of space and ability of the avatar to interact

with the environment (de Freitas, Rebolledo-Mendez, Liarokapis, Magoulas, & Poulovassilis,

2010; De Lucia, Francese, Passero, & Tortora, 2009; Dickey, 2005a). There is awareness of

others and of on-going activities; a means to communicate through text and audio; and an ability

to collaborate through the use of programmed tools (De Lucia et al., 2009). Others have noted

the ability for virtual worlds to offer learner-control (de Freitas and Neumann, 2009); to provide

a temporal and spatial sharing of an environment (De Lucia et al., 2009); and induce a sense of

belonging to a community (De Lucia et al., 2009). Kapp and O’Driscoll (2010) has also

categorized the characteristics of a virtual world into seven sensibilities: the sense of self; the

death of distance; the power of presence; the sense of space; the capability to co-create; the

pervasiveness of practice; and the enrichment of the experience. All these are virtual world

characteristics that can be leveraged; however, technologies do not cause learning but rather

afford opportunities that may lead to learning (Dickey, 2005a; Dalgarno & Lee, 2010; Winn,

2002). For example, presence and learning are strongly related: increasing presence also

increases learning and performance (De Lucia et al., 2009). So it is how the learning space

leverages presence to increase learning.

But there is another virtual world characteristic that is implied and not necessarily

explicitly defined in the current research and that is immersiveness. The immersive nature of a

virtual world learning environment is fostered by the aforementioned characteristics, but

immersiveness is not defined by them. The research and literature to date implies that the


immersive nature is exemplified only when the learner actively interacts with the virtual

environment, the content and context are interrelated, and the user has impact or persistence

through creation; it is learning by doing in an authentic, relevant context (Kapp & O’Driscoll,

2010; Hew & Cheung, 2010). Being immersed in a learning space does not imply the learner is

experiencing immersiveness. Watching a video in a virtual world lecture hall on how to create a

marketing plan is not the same as creating and implementing a marketing plan in a virtual world

to see how many customers are attracted to buy a product. There is a degree of immersiveness

depending how real the experience and how much influence the user has on the environment, not

just a passive participant (Dreher, Reiners, Dreher, & Dreher, 2009).

In order to begin to merge these inherent virtual world characteristics into a useful design

model or framework, Hew & Cheung (2010) recognized ‘usage of virtual worlds’ as another

means to understand or categorize the different ways virtual worlds have been applied. They

noted three main uses: “(1) communication spaces, (2) simulation of space (spatial), and (3)

experiential spaces (‘acting’ on the world)” (p. 33). Dickey (2005a) employed a four point

framework to compare the characteristics of different virtual worlds: inscription tools, discourse

tools, experiential tools, and resource tools. Inscription tools allow the user to create in-world

objects although Winn (2002) expands this by stating inscription tools provide a means for

students to externalize their understanding of what they are learning such as through the creation

of text and graphics. Discourse tools support communication; experiential tools deal with

interacting with the environment; and resource tools provided a means to share information.

Dickey (2005b) also reviews two case histories of a virtual world implementation and

differentiates each implementation based on whether the virtual world was used as an

asynchronous formal learning space or a synchronous informal learning environment.


All of these inherent characteristics can be enveloped within the virtual world learning

environment. However, they must be explicitly programmed and leveraged in the learning

environment. Based on the above discussion, different types of learning spaces may be created

that leverage one or many of the inherent characteristics of virtual worlds. The types of

implementation might then be categorized as:

asynchronous distance learning space (content repository);

synchronous distance learning space (formal meeting);

exploratory or discovery learning space (interact with virtual world content);

collaborative learning space (share ideas);

social learning space (recreation and discussion);

immersiveness learning space (content with context, interaction, impact, culture)

An example of an asynchronous space would be creating a space to house information

related to a domain or learning need; in its most basic form, an unattended library or kiosk

(Dickey, 2005b) or perhaps a repository of class materials such as the course syllabus,

assignments, or rubrics. An example of a synchronous space would be creating a meeting place

for scheduled formal lectures that support student questioning (Dickey, 2005b; O’Connor, 2009).

An exploratory or discovery space provides a means to explore and interact with content. On

Genome Island in Second Life, students can conduct experiments to explore genetics (Clark,

2008). A collaborative space provides the tools necessary to share ideas where the tools might

support communication through text chat, VoIP, and gesture panels as well as collaborative tools

such as slide presenters (De Lucia et al., 2009). A social space supports informal discussions

whether the discussions are class related or not (Bronack et al., 2008). The immersiveness space

supports student interaction in a contextualized learning environment with the appropriate


cultural backdrop. An example of an immersiveness space required students to build and run a

Second Life online store to learn and apply business and system development principles (Wagner

& Ip, 2009). In another case of an immersiveness learning space, to teach English as a second

language, Second Life was implemented as a synchronous distance learning space with some

exploration of Second Life conducted as a directed group activity. In this joint research effort

with an America university, 20 Chinese undergraduate students majoring in English interviewed

an assigned American partner in Second Life to practice English skills at designated locations

and times. In this case, the ability to communicate with a native English speaker on a variety of

topics is more ‘immersive’ than discourse with an instructor or didactic lecture or computer-

based training product. However, for this to truly represent an immersive experience in Second

Life, the student would need to interact in an unstructured format. Post study, the instructor

noted that semi-structured or improvised interactions within Second Life would further promote

learning as well as provide additional opportunities to learn about American culture (Wang,

Song, Xia, & Yan, 2009).

Although the virtual world characteristics have been enveloped into ‘spaces,’ it is not

meant to imply that they must be spatially separated in the learning environment. However,

some case histories have specifically created separate spaces that provide different functionalities

whereby visual cues and metaphors are used to alert the user to the expected function of the

space (Bronack et al., 2008). In the case of Genome Island, levels of a wall-less building

provided distinct areas of learner activities while an outdoor deck with seat cushions was

intended for a discussion area (Clark, 2008). In another case, small buildings were collocated

and made available for simultaneous, multiple small group collaborative work spaces (Chang,

Gütl, Kopeinik, & Williams, 2009).


Some researchers have noted that if the virtual world is only used as a synchronous

distance learning environment, then the potential to use virtual worlds in a manner different from

traditional methods is lost (Dreher et al., 2009). One might then wonder why bother with the

time and expense of creating a virtual world for a synchronous learning environment. It has to

do with the value one places on the inherent characteristics of presence, awareness,

communication, and collaboration. In essence, it is the emphasis on interaction, real-time

discussion, and shared experiences (Calongne, 2008). In one study, a distance learning course

was transitioned to a synchronous distance learning course whereby Second Life served as a

presentation and meeting area (O’Connor, 2009). The new approach allowed the geographically

dispersed students to virtually meet their cohorts, to sense their personalities, to work

collaboratively, and to learn from peer presentations. It additionally allowed for guest lecturers

to present directly to the class. These were valued additions to the course. Alternatively, this

does not imply creating a virtual world environment for all learning activities. If the activity

relies solely on social networking, then consider using a technology that is more familiar to the

students such as a blog, not a virtual world; identify the most appropriate technology to use to

meet the class needs (Wang & Braman, 2009).

The value that one places on the inherent characteristics of the virtual worlds will depend

on one’s belief in how learning takes place and the selection of a pedagogical model reflecting

that belief and as aligned with the desired learning outcomes. The types of learning spaces

previously described (asynchronous, synchronous, exploratory, collaboratively, social, and

immersive) can be envisioned to align with learning taxonomies. The asynchronous and

synchronous learning spaces may be well-suited for objectivist or behaviorist environments and

be associated with lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Bloom’s taxonomy classifies learning


outcomes into six levels of increasing cognitive requirements: knowledge, comprehension,

application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2007). The

exploratory space may be better suited for applying and understanding concepts and principles

which corresponds to mid-level Bloom’s taxonomy. The collaboration and social spaces provide

the means to support a more constructivist environment where social negotiation becomes an

important factor in learning. The immersiveness space reflects upper level Bloom’s taxonomy in

a more constructivist learning environment that can include context and culture. Leveraging

which inherent characteristics of a virtual world will depend on pedagogical implications. The

next section provides a brief review of pedagogy and its significance in the design of a virtual

world.

Pedagogical Implications

The design of any learning space whether 3D virtual world, 2D distance learning,

traditional computer-based, or classroom, begins with aligning learning outcomes with a learning

theory and pedagogical model. This leads to selecting instructional strategies and subsequently

learning activities appropriate for the learning outcomes. This type of instructional design

process leads to effective learning. Clark (2003) noted that “learning is the result of instructional

methods, regardless of the media used to deliver those methods” (p. 14). Many virtual world

researchers recognize the importance of this process and have reported on the importance of

developing appropriate activities for the desired learning outcomes (Jarmon, Traphagen, &

Mayrath, 2008; Jarmon, Traphagen, Mayrath, & Trivedi, 2009; Mayes and de Freitas as cited in

de Freitas and Neumann, 2009; Mayrath, Sanchez, Traphagan, Heikes, & Trivedi, 2007;

O’Connor, 2009; Schiller, 2009; Wang & Braman, 2009).


In one case history (Mayrath et al., 2007), Second Life was integrated into a two-

semester undergraduate world literature and rhetoric course. One instructional objective dealt

with the use of visual and verbal rhetoric as seen reflected in the campus architecture. The

Second Life activity required the students to construct an ideal campus in Second Life.

Frustrated students found the activity as irrelevant to the course objectives. The programming

requirements were initially beyond the capabilities of the students. In the second semester, one

learning objective dealt with exploring leadership through role models. The corresponding

Second Life activity required the students to take on the persona of their role model and provide

a presentation in Second Life of that person. The second semester activity was ranked

consistently higher across all survey items causing the authors to conclude that student feelings

towards Second Life will depend in part on how well the activities align with the instructional

objectives and context.

Learning Theories and Pedagogical Models

The most often referred to learning theory in the design of a virtual world learning

environment is constructivism. Constructivism is based on the general view that “learning is an

active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge” (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996, p.

171). The learner is an active participant; “the situations, activities, and social interactions are

constantly challenging the learner’s understandings, which results in new meanings” (Dabbagh

& Bannan-Ritland, 2005, p. 167). In contrast, objectivist theory assumes knowledge is acquired

and implies that knowledge is external to the individual, independent of context. Knowledge can

be mapped to an individual without need for the student to interpret as this is accomplished by

the teacher (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; Jonassen, 1991). It is not uncommon to consider

objectivism and constructivism as two opposites on a continuum of learning theories (Dabbagh,


2009; Jonassen, 1991; Walsh, 2004) for which each theory may serve a purpose. Objectivist

principles may more appropriately align with introductory knowledge (Jonassen 1991as cited in

Ertmer & Newby, 1993) while constructivist principles may better align with higher order

thinking and are represented higher in Bloom’s taxonomy (Walsh, 2004).

Other learning theories noted in the virtual world research are constructionism and social

constructivism. Constructionism is similar to constructivism but differs in that it assumes

learning is enhanced when the student creates personally meaningful artifacts (Dreher et al.,

2009; Sullivan, 2009). In social constructivism, knowledge is socially constructed; learning is

social in nature as in a community of practice; and the learner progresses from novice to expert

under the guidance of expert community of practice members (Bronack et al., 2008). A good

application of social constructivism in a virtual world was the use of the virtual world for

learning English as a second language (Wang et al., 2009). In this case, the students had to

interact socially with English speaking students to practice to become expert English speakers.

Several pedagogical models have been developed based on the learning theory of

constructivism. Many have been explicitly applied to the design of a virtual world learning

environment. Problem-based learning is a type of constructivism in which the students address a

given problem and it is assumed that they have no formal prior learning of the domain (Dabbagh

& Bannan-Ritland, 2005). Applying this model and employing a virtual world learning

environment, students were to develop training solutions in which they were to assess the extent

to which Second Life could be used as an instructional technology (Good, Howland, &

Thackeray, 2008). The course focus was on the process of the problem solving and not

necessarily the content. Another constructivist based pedagogical model, action learning, was

used in another case history. In action learning, individuals learn from each other by working in


real problems and reflecting on their experiences; it follows a cycle of action, experience,

understanding, and planning for new action to repeat the learning cycle (Wagner & Ip, 2009). In

this case history, the students were to build, experience, and operate an online Second Life store

applying business and system development principles (Wagner & Ip, 2009). Experiential

learning is yet another constructivist based pedagogical model. Here, “learners build deep

understanding and expertise by cycling through the four steps of the experiential learning cycle:

concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active

experimentation” (Kolb et al., 2002 as cited in Jarmon et al., 2009, p. 170). In this case history,

the graduate students came from different academic disciplines to collaboratively deliver a

project. The project was to provide a means of sharing the concept of sustainable urban homes

by developing an interactive replication of the proposed home in Second Life, and subsequently

included an online ribbon cutting ceremony. The project required the coordination of efforts and

communication across multiple stakeholders of various backgrounds (Jarmon et al., 2008;

Jarmon et al., 2009).

While these learning theories have been applied directly to virtual worlds, they and others

are being re-examined to assess how the affordances of virtual worlds can be exploited to

support each theory. New learning theories are being developed as well. The Presence Pedagogy

(P2) Model is based on a social constructivist philosophy (Bronack et al., 2008). It adheres to

ten tenets which are described in the context of a virtual world: ask questions and correct

misconceptions; stimulate background knowledge and expertise; capitalize on the presence of

other; facilitate interactions and encourage community; support distributed cognition; share tools

and resources; encourage exploration and discovery; delineate context and goals; foster reflective

practice; and utilize technology to achieve and disseminate results. Serendipitous interactions are


core to this model but the authors note that creating “an environment that effectively capitalizes

on the presence of others requires careful planning and thought and is fostered by well-designed

spaces” (Bronack et al., 2008, p. 63).

Instructional Strategies and Activities

In a constructivist learning environment, the instructional strategies will promote:

authentic learning activities, problem solving, collaboration and social negotiation, exploration,

hypothesis generation, role-playing activities, articulation, reflection, multiple perspectives,

modeling and explaining, coaching, scaffolding, and self-directed learning (Dabbagh & Bannan-

Ritland, 2005). It becomes evident how virtual worlds can directly support many of these

strategies, thus making constructivism a good fit for application to virtual worlds. These same

instructional strategies may also apply to social constructivism, presence pedagogy,

constructionism, and other theories in varying degrees of application commensurate with the

assumed underlying theory. In the case of the learning theory cybergogy, the dexterous learning

domain addresses the user’s ability to interact with the interface of the virtual learning

environment, such as moving the avatar, using the cameras, and working with objects (Scopes,

2009). As part of this theory, instructional strategies and activities need to be developed to

address those types of learner needs. O’Connor (2009) also noted the same type of ‘dexterous’

learner needs for users to interact in a virtual world and recommends that instructional designers

include learning objectives that specifically target the user’s ability to work in the virtual

environment.

Instructional strategies and activities in constructionist and constructivist learning

environments are learner-centered and student performance is generally not measured by

standardized tests. In these environments, the strategies and ensuing activities result in the


development of artifacts that reflect a student’s externalization of their understanding of the

content (Schiller, 2009). These artifacts then aggregate into a portfolio, commonly for peer- and

self-assessment. Since each virtual world learning environment has unique capabilities, each

will need to be assessed for its affordances relative to the desired instructional strategies and

activities. Inherent to Second Life is a slide presentation board, brainstorming board, and

whiteboard that are readily available to support specific learning activities (Chang et al., 2009;

Jarmon et al., 2009; O’Connor, 2009). Additionally, students can create and store note cards in a

folder system that can be kept or shared by the students (Good et al., 2008). Text chat transcripts

can be saved for documentation (Schiller, 2009) while the built-in Second Life camera and

Machinima can be used to document places visited (O’Connor, 2009). Machinima is a Second

Life tool that supports the video recording of what is happening on the screen. It may better

convey to an audience the places visited and the experiences encountered by the user. Other

functionalities may be specifically programmed into the virtual world. In the case of Second

Life, some have programmed a collaborative document sharing tool that makes use of Google

docs (Chang et al., 2009; Good et al., 2008; Schiller, 2009), expanded the slide presenter and

collaborative capabilities through SLoodle, a combination of Second Life with an open-source

learning management system Moodle (De Lucia et al., 2009); and created a dynamically loaded

presentation board (De Lucia et al., 2009).

Implications for Design

In the case of de Freitas & Neumann (2009), it’s not just the new individual affordances

of virtual worlds; it’s the use of immersive learning that “implies a shift from considering and

designing learning tasks to choreographing learning experiences as a whole, mediated by

structured and semi-structured social interactions” (p. 82). Learning outcomes are not single


stand-alone units matched to instructional strategies and activities, albeit that’s still important;

but by using a more exploratory approach, learning may in fact rely more on learning scenarios

whereby multiple learning outcomes may be intertwined for design and assessment and linearity

in learning is diminished. Extending the experiential learning model by Kolb (2002) (as cited in

de Freitas & Neumann, 2009), a new exploratory model was developed that inserts a new step,

‘exploration;’ making the learning cycle: experience, exploration, reflection, abstract

conceptualization, and testing (active experimentation). This new step, exploration, specifically

addresses learning through collaborative activities, communication, and observations (de Freitas

& Neumann, 2009) – these are some of the inherent characteristics of a virtual world noted

previously.

Similar to de Freitas & Neumann, (2009), Kapp and O’Driscoll (2010) has also

transitioned the training design process from learning tasks to learning experiences. Kapp and

O’Driscoll (2010) have developed design principles “to create engaging episodic interactions

that lead the learner along an optimal flow state of challenge and reward as they rapidly – but

often not consciously – assimilate new learnings along the way” (p. 70). These design principles

are broken into two categories; the first are the grounding principles: instructionally grounded

and reflectively synthesized. The remainder define the experiential principles of: participant

centered, contextually situated, discovery driven, action oriented, consequentially experienced,

and collaboratively motivated. Similar to the P2 Model, these tend to align with constructivist

type learning theories. These design principles are then encapsulated within a macrostructure of

agency, exploration, connectedness, and experience to support the design process. Each

macrostructure is associated with certain learning archetypes (similar to learning activities) and

these archetypes are continuing to be developed and assigned to a macrostructure. Scopes


(2009) has retroactively applied these principles through the application and extension of Kapp

and O’Driscoll’s learning archetypes to three case histories to investigate the applicability and

implementation of the design principles. The use of the learning archetypes was found to be an

effective support in the design of a virtual world learning environment. Additionally as part of

that study, the pedagogical model cybergogy (Wang, 2005 as cited in Scopes, 2009) is extended

to be based on four domains: cognitive, emotional, dexterous, and social. The latter domain is

from Weng’s (2006) Model of Cybergogy for Engaged Learning (as cited in Scopes, 2009).

So it is evident that existing learning theories are being re-examined for the affordances

offered by virtual worlds as well as new theories and pedagogical models that are being

developed specifically attuned to virtual worlds. As noted previously, the selection of a learning

theory and pedagogical model helps to align the selection of instructional strategies and activities

with the desired outcomes. Additionally, these same instructional strategies and activities may

simultaneously serve as student assessment mechanisms.

Second Life: Student Receptivity, Perception, and Performance

Most of the research conducted used Second Life as the virtual world although other

virtual worlds can be found in the literature. For example, a proprietary virtual world was created

in one case history (Sourin, Sourina, & Pasolova-Førland, 2006) and two other researchers made

reference to Active Worlds (Dickey, 2005a ; Bronack et al, 2008). Regardless of the specific

virtual world, the research found in the literature addressed three topics: student receptivity,

student perceptions, and student performance as related to virtual worlds as a learning

environment, albeit most research focused on student perception.


Student Receptivity

Receptivity refers to the user acceptance of a new technology. Many models exist that

capture the nature of user acceptance of technologies in general (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, &

Davis, 2003). However, in the two studies that specifically targeted the nature of student

acceptance of Second Life as a learning environment, both used the Technology Acceptance

Model (TAM). “TAM posits that two beliefs – Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived

Use (PU) – determine one’s Behavioral Intention (BI) to use a technology” (Shen & Eder, 2009,

p. 226 ). The goal of these two studies was to determine the variables that influence the

behavioral intention of the person to accept and use virtual worlds as a learning environment.

Knowing these variables and their relationships can help in the design and implementation of a

virtual world as a learning environment.

In one study, Shen and Eder (2009) were interested in undergraduate business students’

acceptance and intention to use virtual worlds for educational purposes. In particular, they were

interested in empirical evidence that would suggest that 18 to 34 year olds perceive the expected

value of virtual worlds similar to the way industry and researchers suggest. Using TAM and its

extended studies, computer playfulness, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety were

evaluated as antecedents to PEOU while the relationship between PEOU, PU, and BI were also

examined. In the study, students were to conduct Second Life activities, some collaboratively.

Post-course, the students completed a seven-point Likert scale questionnaire targeting these

variables as well as collecting information on demographics, current use of networking sites, and

prior knowledge of Second Life. The majority of the respondents (68.8%) had never even heard

of Second Life before the class and only 3.9% had a Second Life account that they used

regularly. In contrast to the TAM and its extended studies, the data indicated that PEOU did not


directly influence the student’s BI to use Second Life in a learning environment and computer

anxiety had no significant effect on PEOU. Others have also found that PEOU did not directly

impact BI but rather through PU (Davis, 1989; Keil, Trues, & Mixon, 1995; Venkatesh, 2004 as

cited in Shen & Eder, 2009). Shen and Eder (2009) interpreted the findings from this study to

indicate that use of Second Life as a learning environment is plausible; its use needs to account

for student perceived usefulness; and activities should be collaborative to encourage social

interaction.

In another study by Fetscherin and Latteman (2008), several variables were investigated

to assess user acceptance of Second Life based on TAM. Each variable included a group of two

to five items (statements) to be rated on a five-point Likert scale. For example, the variable

‘perceived ease of use’ included the item: easiness to learn to operate the system, while the

variable ‘perceived usefulness’ included the item: Second Life improves communication with

other people. A convenience sampling approach was used based on emails and notices sent to

Second Life users. 249 online surveys were collected and the results analyzed quantitatively to

validate their initial hypotheses on variable relationships. Several statistical techniques were

applied to validate the data. The results indicated that the “perceived value of communication,

cooperation, and communication channels on virtual worlds” (p. 240) are the most important

determinant in the adoption of virtual worlds with perceived usefulness as next most important.

However, it should be noted that the sampling used subjects already using Second Life who may

have a different perspective than those with limited or no prior knowledge of Second Life.

These studies indicate that student receptivity of Second Life as a learning environment

relies on student perceived usefulness and the value of collaboration and communication.

Without further studies on user acceptance, these findings may indicate to instructional designers


the importance of aligning learning objectives, strategies, and activities with these significant

receptivity variables. Additionally, findings from these types of receptivity studies may be

useful to inform the nature of survey instruments for student perceptions of virtual worlds as a

learning environment.

Student Perceptions

Student perceptions were obtained mostly through course evaluations on the use of the

virtual world. Evaluations were collected from survey instruments, basically Kirkpatrick level 1

type surveys. Although many instruments targeted the same type of data such as ease of use, the

individual test items were different in each survey. The researchers performed and reported on

quantitative analyses of their particular survey instruments. Wang and Braman (2009) noted that

even though the students enjoyed Second Life, found it useful as a learning environment, had the

knowledge to run Second Life, only 58.3% felt it was easy to use, and hence only 45.8% would

use Second Life on a regular basis. In another case, the virtual application was replacing the

classroom lecture by a virtual world synchronous lecture (De Lucia et al., 2009). The survey

instrument intended to measure the researcher’s defined inherent characteristics of a virtual

world: presence, communication, awareness, perceived sociability, and the virtual environment.

The 32 presence test items measured across four variables: control, realism, sensory, and

distraction. The findings indicated high presence perception even though the students only used

text chat (no audio). It was also noted that the presence test items may not be applicable to

collaborative environments, i.e., to areas where more than one person is interacting. In another

case (Jarmon et al., 2008), it was reported the students enjoyed the virtual world and it increased

their engagement in the course but the students had mixed feelings in it facilitating collaboration

and communication. This was the same case history noted previously where half the students felt


the team project was irrelevant to the course. In another case history (Schiller, 2009), the

evaluation test items focused on learner motivation, attitude, and ease of use. The results were

positive with noted exception that moving the avatar was difficult.

As more case histories were reviewed, it was found that most of the research is

descriptive in nature, that is, describing the current of state of being and relying on survey

instruments that measure student perceptions and attitudes about the use of virtual worlds. Many

offer anecdotal information and personal impressions that lack generalization across a broader

population (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010). The nature of student assessment for learning constructivist

type environments also precludes test score data for quantitative analysis. Additionally, the

relevance and authenticity of the specific activity conducted in the virtual world will have impact

on student perceptions as was noted previously with the example of the activity being perceived

as having little relevance to the course objectives. Given the number of variables affecting the

reported results, it becomes difficult to conduct a meta-data analysis on the reported results.

For many, there were lessons learned that explain the student perceptions. For example,

the affect of the amount of time spent on orientation. Orientation covering virtual world

functionality and skill sets required for course completion is really mandatory. As noted

previously, one researcher noted that orientation should be part of the learning objectives to

promote the importance and set time aside for accomplishment (O’Connor, 2009). In another

case history, the ease of use of the avatar was rated lowest of the survey items but perhaps to no

surprise as four people were to share one avatar during in-class time though it was considered to

increase group cohesion by having to jointly accomplish the activity (Schiller, 2009). Another

confounding variable in attempting to do any time of meta-data analysis was the type of activity

and the application. In one case history, the study focused on the use of the virtual world for


synchronous class presentation (De Lucia et al., 2009). Comparing student perception of this

application to one in which the students are required to develop an online business seem

incompatible, at least without further investigation. Additionally, the anecdotal and suggested

recommendations may actually be application specific.

Student Performance

Limited information was found on student performance as related to the use of virtual

worlds. Wang and Braman (2009) reported on a case history where a class was required to write

scholarly papers. Four groups of four students were selected to write on the impact of virtual

worlds on business through first hand investigations of Second Life. These students were said to

have outscored others based on quality, quantity, and peer assessment of the papers. However,

the instructors did note that the novelty of the topic may have been more motivational than other

topics. In another case history (Sourin et al., 2006), a computer graphics course on shape

modeling indicated a 14% increase over prior course exam scores. The virtual world course

allowed the students to work online, create shapes, sculpt the shapes, and save in a showcase

type room to share with others. This case history also points to how well the affordances of the a

virtual world were applied: the three dimensionality of the virtual world supported the three

dimensional shape functions and the showcase room supported peer-review feedback through

imagery and multiple viewpoints.

In general, the researchers found the use of virtual worlds to be positive with caveats:

making sure the activity is relevant, the students have the virtual world skills necessary to

accomplish the activity, and the technical requirements of the computer meet the needs. The

latter comment was repeated resoundingly across the research.


Conclusion

Virtual worlds provide a learning environment where time and space can be manipulated

and students can learn and practice without risk or consequence. The virtual world affords

opportunities to learn through its sense of presence, awareness, collaboration, and

communication capabilities. Additionally, the immersive capability that allows students to

interact with the culture, community, and economy of the virtual world in the context of learning

is giving cause to rethink current pedagogical models and give rise to new models that place

more emphasis on the inherent characteristics of virtual worlds. Most virtual world learning

environments to date tend to be more aligned with constructionism, social constructivism, and

constructivist pedagogy. The research to date suggests that designers need to approach a

learning problem as with other instructional design problem: identify the desired learning

outcomes, develop learning objectives, and identify an appropriate pedagogical model,

instructional strategies, and learning activities. Research also indicates that successful

implementation of virtual worlds as a learning environment requires activities that are relevant,

realistic, and collaborative in nature. Although not fully exploiting the capabilities of the virtual

world, using it as a replacement for the classroom or an asynchronous distance learning class has

merit through its ability to create a sense of presence and belonging to a community; important

factors to improve learning. However, many noted the lack of general design guidance to

appropriately leverage the instructional affordances of a virtual world; especially applicable to

the philosophy that learning objectives may now be intertwined as opposed to singular learning

events. Continued research will provide a means to better understand learning transfer in virtual

worlds and how to better design these environments. There is much room for research in this still

young and developing technology.


References Bronack, S., Sanders, R., Cheney, A., Riedl, R., Tashner, J., & Matzen, N. (2008). Presence

pedagogy: Teaching and learning in a 3D virtual immersive world. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 59-69. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Calongne, C.M. (2008). Educational frontiers: Learning in a virtual world. EDUCAUSE Review,

43(5). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/EducationalFrontiersLearningin/163163

Chang, V., Gütl, C., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). Evaluation of collaborative learning

settings in 3D virtual worlds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 4(S3), 6-17. doi:10.3991/ijet.v4s3.1112

Clark, M. 2008. Genome Island: A virtual science environment in Second Life. Innovate, 5 (6).

Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue6/Genome_Island-__A_Virtual_Science_Environment_in_Second_Life.pdf

Clark, R. (2003). Building expertise: Cognitive methods for training and performance

improvement. Washington DC. International Society for Performance Improvement. Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2005). Online learning: Concepts, strategies and

application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dabbagh, N. (2009). Constructivism: And its implications on instruction and learning.

PowerPoint Slides. Retrieved from George Mason University Blackboard website: http://gmu.blackboard.com/webct/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?

British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x

de Freitas, S. (2008). Serious virtual worlds: A scoping study. Joint Information Systems

Committee (JISC), London: Coventry University, Serious Games Institute. de Freitas, S. & Neumann, T. (2009). The use of ‘exploratory learning’ for supporting immersive

learning in virtual environments. Computers & Education 52(2), 343-352. de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010).

Learning 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), 69-85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x


De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Computers & Education, 52(1), 220-233. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.001

Dickey, M. (2005a). Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and

constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1/2), 121-137. doi:10.1080/10494820500173714

Dickey, M. (2005b). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies

of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439-451. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00477.x

Dreher, C., Reiners, T., Dreher, N., & Dreher, H. (2009). Virtual Worlds as a Context Suited for

Information Systems Education: Discussion of Pedagogical Experience and Curriculum Design with Reference to Second Life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 211-224. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery

of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

EDUCAUSE. (2008). 7 things you should know about Second Life. Retrieved from

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7038.pdf Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical

features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Fetscherin, M., & Lattemann, C. (2008). User acceptance of virtual worlds. Journal of Electronic

Commerce Research, 9(3), 231-242. Retrieved from Computers & Applied Sciences Complete database.

Good, J., Howland, K., & Thackray, L. (2008). Problem-based learning spanning real and virtual

words: A case study in Second Life. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 16(3), 163-172.

Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-

12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x

Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., & Mayrath, M. (2008). Understanding Project-Based Learning in

Second Life with a Pedagogy, Training, and Assessment Trio. Educational Media International, 45(3), 157-176. Retrieved from ERIC database.


Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual World Teaching, Experiential Learning, and Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Communication Course in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53(1), 169-182. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39 (3), 5-14. Kapp, K., and O’Driscoll, T. (2010). Learning in 3D: Adding a new dimension to enterprise

learning and collaboration. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kelton, A.J. (2008). Virtual worlds? Outlook good. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(5). Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/VirtualWorldsOutlookGood/163161

Mayrath, M., Sanchez, J., Traphagan, T., Heikes, J. & Trivedi, A. Using Second Life in an

english course: Designing class activities to address learning objectives. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Morrison, G., Ross, S, and Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, New

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. O'Connor, E. (2009). Instructional and design elements that support effective use of virtual

worlds: What graduate student work reveals about Second Life. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 213-234. doi:10.2190/ET.38.2.j

Robbins, R.W., & Butler, B.S. (2009). Selecting a virtual world platform for learning. Journal of

Information Systems Education, 20(2), 199-210. Schiller, S. (2009). Practicing Learner-Centered Teaching: Pedagogical Design and Assessment

of a Second Life Project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(3), 369-381. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Scopes, L. (2009). Learning archetypes as tools of cybergogy for a 3D educational landscape: A

structure for eteaching in Second Life. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southampton, England. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/66169/1/Learning_Archetypes_as_tools_of_Cybergogy_for_a_3D_Educational_Landscape_-_Lesley_J.M._Scopes_2009_V2.0.pdf

Shen, J., & Eder, L. (2009). Intentions to Use Virtual Worlds for Education. Journal of

Information Systems Education, 20(2), 225-233. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Sourin, A., Sourina, O., & Prasolova-Forland, E. (2006). Cyber-learning in cyberworlds. Journal

of Cases on Information Technology, 8(4), 55-70. doi: 10.4018/jcit.2006100105


Sullivan, F. (2009). Risk and Responsibility: A Self-Study of Teaching with Second Life. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(3), 337-357. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information

technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Retrieved from Computers & Applied Sciences Complete database.

Wagner, C. & Ip, R. (2009). Action learning with Second Life – A pilot study. Journal of

Information Systems Education, 20(2), 249-258. Walsh, A. (2004). Constructivism and objectivism: Are they mutually exclusive? Retrieved from

http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/TeachingTrainingLearners/content/article_5233.htm

Wang, C., Song, H., Xia, F., & Yan, Y. (2009). Integrating Second Life into an EFL program:

Students' perspectives. Journal of Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 2(1), 1-16. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Wang, Y., & Braman, J. (2009). Extending the Classroom through Second Life. Journal of

Information Systems Education, 20(2), 235-247. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.

Winn, W. (2002). Current Trends in Educational Technology Research: The Study of Learning

Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331-351.

using virtual worlds: what the research says susan … virtual worlds: what the research says 2...

Documents