This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted
for publication in the following source:
Gregory, Susan, Gregory, Brent, Reiners, Torsten, Fardinpour, Ali, Hillier,
Mathew, Lee, Mark, Jacka, Lisa, Butler, Des, Holloway, David, Grant,
Scott, Hearns, Merle, Flintoff, Kim, Jegathesan, Jegatheva (Jay Jay), Ellis, David, McDonald, Marcus, Stokes-Thompson, Frederick, Gaukrodger,
Belma, Zagami, Jason, Campbell, Chris, Wang, Xiangyu, Salinas, Jamie,
Loke, Swee-Kin, Scutter, Sheila, Newman, Christine, Gu, Ning, Schutt,
Stefan, Farley, Helen, Bogdanovych, Anton, Trescak, Tomas, Simoff,
Simeon, Steel, Caroline, Neuendorf, Penny, Bower, Matt, Orwin, Lindy,
Kerr, Tom, Warren, Ian, Wood, Denise, Miller, Charlynn, Mathews, Shane,
Linegar, Dale, Knox, Vicki, Masters, Yvonne, Brown, Ross, Meredith,
Grant, Atkins, Clare, Giovanangeli, Angela, Le Rossignol, Karen, Cram,
Andrew, Muir-Cochrane, Eimear, Basu, Arin, Jacobson, Michael, & Larson, Ian
(2013)
Virtual worlds in Australian and New Zealand higher education: Remembering the past, understanding the present and imagining the future.
In Carter, H, Gosper, M, & Hedberg, J (Eds.) Electric Dreams - ascilite
2013 Conference Proceedings Sydney.
Macquarie University, Australia, pp. 312-324.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/64096/
c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Submitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appearance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
Virtual worlds in Australian and New Zealand higher
education: Remembering the past, understanding the
present and imagining the future
Sue Gregory
Brent Gregory
Torsten Reiners
School of Education
University of New England
UNE Business School
University of New England
Curtin Business School
Curtin University
Ali Fardinpour
Mathew Hillier
Mark J.W. Lee
Curtin Business School
Curtin University
Teaching & Educational Development
Institute
The University of Queensland
School of Education
Charles Sturt University
Lisa Jacka
Des Butler
David Holloway
School of Education
Southern Cross University
Faculty of Law
Queensland University of Technology
School of Information Systems & Technology
University of Wollongong
Scott Grant
Merle Hearns
Kim Flintoff
School of Cultures, Languages & Linguistics
Monash University
School of Foundation Studies
Manukau Institute of Technology
Curtin Teaching & Learning
Curtin University
Jay Jay Jegathesan
David Ellis
Marcus McDonald
School of Physics
The University of Western Australia
School of Education
Southern Cross University
School of Health Sciences
RMIT University
Frederick Stokes-Thompson
Belma Gaukrodger
Jason Zagami
Learning & Teaching Unit
University of South Australia
Flexible Learning
Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology
School of Education & Professional Studies
Griffith University
Chris Campbell
Xiangyu Wang
Jamie Garcia Salinas
School of Education
The University of Queensland
School of Built Environment
Curtin University
School of Social & Behavioural Sciences
The University of Queensland
Swee-Kin Loke
Sheila Scutter
Christine Newman
Higher Education Development Centre
University of Otago
School of Medicine & Dentistry
James Cook University
eLearning Services
Queensland University of Technology
Ning Gu
Stefan Schutt
Helen Farley
School of Architecture & Built Environment
University of Newcastle
Centre for Cultural Diversity & Wellbeing
Victoria University
Australian Digital Futures Institute
University of Southern Queensland
Anton Bogdanovych
Tomas Trescak
Simeon Simoff
Computing & ICT
University of Western Sydney
Deans Unit School of Computing,
Engineering & Math
University of Western Sydney
School of Computing, Engineering &
Math
University of Western Sydney
Caroline Steel
Penny Neuendorf
Matt Bower
School of Languages & Comparative
Cultural Studies
The University of Queensland
Flexible Education
Canberra Institute of Technology
Department of Education
Macquarie University
Lindy McKeown Orwin
Tom Kerr
Ian Warren
Australian Digital Futures Institute
University of Southern Queensland
Faculty of Business & Economics
Macquarie University
School of Humanities & Social Sciences
Deakin University
Denise Wood
Charlynn Miller
Shane Mathews
School of Communication, International
Studies & Languages
University of South Australia
School of Science, IT & Engineering
University of Ballarat
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
Dale Linegar
Vicki Knox
Yvonne Masters
Oztron
School of Behavioural, Cognitive & Social
Sciences
University of New England
School of Education
University of New England
Ross Brown
Grant Meredith
Clare Atkins
School of Information Systems
Queensland University of Technology
School of Science, IT & Engineering
University of Ballarat
School of Business & Computer Technology
Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology
Angela Giovanangeli
Karen Le Rossignol
Andrew Cram
Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences
University of Technology, Sydney
School of Communication & Creative Arts
Deakin University
Navitas Professional
Eimear Muir-Cochrane
Arin Basu
Michael Jacobson
School of Nursing & Midwifery
Flinders University
School of Health Sciences
University of Canterbury
CoCo Research Centre
The University of Sydney
Ian Larson
Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Monash University
3D virtual reality, including the current generation of multi-user virtual worlds, has had a long
history of use in education and training, and it experienced a surge of renewed interest with the
advent of Second Life in 2003. What followed shortly after were several years marked by
considerable hype around the use of virtual worlds for teaching, learning and research in higher
education. For the moment, uptake of the technology seems to have plateaued, with academics
either maintaining the status quo and continuing to use virtual worlds as they have previously
done or choosing to opt out altogether. This paper presents a brief review of the use of virtual
worlds in the Australian and New Zealand higher education sector in the past and reports on its
use in the sector at the present time, based on input from members of the Australian and New
Zealand Virtual Worlds Working Group. It then adopts a forward-looking perspective amid the
current climate of uncertainty, musing on future directions and offering suggestions for potential
new applications in light of recent technological developments and innovations in the area.
Keywords: virtual worlds, 3D multi-user virtual environments, simulation, gamification,
augmented reality, natural interfaces
Introduction and background
Higher education institutions across Australia and New Zealand have been utilising the affordances of 3D
virtual worlds (VW) for research, teaching and learning for a number of years, some since as early as 1979
(Gregory et al., 2012). The Australian and New Zealand Virtual Worlds Working Group (VWWG), to which the
authors of this paper belong, was established in 2009 and consists of almost 200 educators, educational
designers/developers and researchers with a diverse interest in VWs. Almost all of the universities in the two
countries, a number of Australian TAFE institutions and private higher education providers as well as several
New Zealand polytechnics and institutes of technology are represented in the membership of the VWWG.
A variety of VW platforms have been used across the institutions but the majority have been using Second Life
(SL), OpenSim and, more recently, Unity3D, Jibe and Minecraft. The background of some of the institutions
will be discussed in relation to their use of VWs for learning and teaching, placing the reader in context. Firstly,
a short literature review provides an overview of the use of VWs in higher education institutions. The following
section discusses how VWs have been used in the past at authors’ institutions. The next section provides an
understanding of the present and finally imagining the future with some concluding remarks in relation to VWs,
past, present and future. Thirty-two members of the VWWG from 18 Australian and New Zealand institutions
responded to a survey requesting information about the trends affecting VWs at their institution. Thirty-four
members responded to a request on how they were using VWs in the past, present and future. Their responses
are outlined in this paper. Overall, 52 authors have contributed to the discussion in this paper.
Literature Review
In the early 1980s virtual reality emerged as an innovative technology that changed the way we interact with a
computer. Immersion in an environment was assisted by the ability to move and view in three dimensions (3D)
within the environment and by the use of synchronous communication with other users. The increase in access
to both higher capacity computer hardware (storage, graphics and memory) and higher speed connectivity to the
Internet has facilitated the ability to connect to work, study and entertainment anywhere, anytime, using 3D multiuser virtual environments. In our discussion, we define a VW as a computer-based, immersive, 3D multi-user
environment that simulates real (or imaginary) life, experienced through a graphical representation of the user.
A great deal of literature has emerged in the past 20 years in relation to the potential strengths and learning
benefits associated with the pedagogical use of VWs (see, for example, Dalgarno & Lee, 2010; Hew & Cheung,
2010; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011; Wang & Burton, 2012). Many educators have seen the potential for VWs
and have pursued their use in higher education. For the past three years the VWWG has documented the use of
VWs in higher education in Australia and New Zealand (Gregory et al., 2010, 2011b, 2012; Hearns, 2011). In
this paper we continue to describe what universities are doing and also consider where they are going. A strong
message from the literature is the need for sound learning design and pedagogy that fully utilises the potential of
the VW (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011; Salmon, 2009; Savin-Baden et al., 2010). There
is also some way to go in the areas of IT management and logistics of VWs, not to mention user literacy
(Dudeney & Ramsay, 2009; McDonald, Ryan et al., 2012). Despite the existence of VWs over a significant
period of time we are perhaps still in an exploratory phase as we are mapping out best practice often without
institutional support, resulting in an approach that is less than systematic. Salmon (2009, p. 526) suggests, “we
need much stronger visions to help us get ready to point the way to evidence based research, rather than merely
‘reacting’.” Collins (2008, p. 60) also advocates an imaginative approach to reframing the way we think and talk
about VWs, that they are more of “an exciting new laboratory” or “a giant sandbox” rather than a “technology
application”. VWs are a way to step into our collective imaginations in a manner that we have never been able
to do before. In this paper, the authors combine their analysis of emerging trends and developments with their
imaginations to collectively envision the future for VWs in education.
Remembering the past
In this paper twenty-nine institutions from the VWWG come together to discuss the context of teaching,
learning and research in a VW from either their personal and/or institution’s point of view. When exploring joint
papers presented by VWWG at ascilite over the past three years (see Gregory et al., 2010, 2011, 2012), it can be
seen there has been much hype around the use of VWs for teaching, learning and research. However, this initial
exuberance has subsided and been replaced with a more pragmatic approach to their use. At this point it appears
that higher education institutions are either opting out of using VWs, or are continuing on a “business as usual”
path with very few opting for large new initiatives. Those that continue to utilise VWs do so either having
already decided to centrally support an institutional VW presence, some at reduced levels or are continuing to
use VWs in a limited capacity, typically relying on the efforts of individuals or small teaching teams. In a
number of cases the reliance on a few key individual champions has meant that when those individuals move on,
the use of VWs diminishes considerably or ceases in their institution; too often this occurs without a digital
preservation strategy in place resulting in resources being lost to the community.
Understanding the present
VWs provide a highly flexible and engaging facility for students and staff to build scenarios and simulations,
virtual meeting places and a platform to investigate how online virtual environments can meet teaching and
learning needs into the future. The diverse and active communities in VWs and the incredible range of resources
available keep many institutions active in their research, teaching and learning in VWs. There remains much
enthusiasm on the use of VWs amongst the VW educational community but issues such as bandwidth
availability for students, institutional infrastructure and support blockages, the reliance on specialist skills
needed to use VW educational development tools, the sharing of innovations and awareness of the capabilities
of VWs in the general academic population are still barriers at many institutions that need to be overcome
before wider adoption can be achieved.
Many academics continue to teach because of the pedagogical advantages afforded by these environments (both
for on-campus and off-campus learners) and because of the learning opportunities that might not exist or be
possible in other environments. They also recognise new learning opportunities that arise as the technology
behind the VW environments improves and the technology that gives users access to the environment improves
(e.g. NBN, tablets, smartphones, etc.). They continue to research because learning in these environments (as in
many environments) provides opportunities for research; some of these opportunities are unique to the
environments; these environments facilitate the collection of data in ways that might not be available in other
environments; and, comparisons of the same learning related phenomenon can be made between VW
environments and other environments which may highlight aspects that would not necessarily be obvious
without such comparison.
Table 1 outlines the way in which VWs are currently being used at each of the 19 institutions surveyed for this
paper. The table details how the technology is supported (whether on an ad-hoc basis through the efforts of
individual academics or teaching teams, often funded by grants, or through centralised institutional funding and
support), the VW used, the disciplines that are using VWs and the nature of the use at each institution. SL is still
the most common VW in use (15 of the 19 institutions), however it remains the sole VW at only 5 institutions.
Alternatives are on the rise with approximately half (10) of the institutions using OpenSim (an open source
equivalent of SL that can be installed on an institutions’ server, individual PCs or on USB devices) and eight
institutions are using Unity3D. Other VWs used include Sim-on-a-Stick (SoaS – a VW wholly contained and
usable on a USB thumb drive), Jibe or Kitely being used at one institution each with two trialling Minecraft.
There is much experimentation being undertaken to find the “right” VW for the various institutions’
requirements. Custom developed VW systems are in a tiny minority with the majority still looking to readily
available platforms.
Institutions are using VWs for a variety of research, learning and teaching activities. The 19 surveyed
institutions reported activities being undertaken that include: role play activities (9); machinima (video captured
from within a VW) (4), virtual tours (5); PhD students (2); staff or faculty development (2); careers services (2);
institutional marketing (2); and, although not reported in the table, all institutions are using VWs for research,
collaboration and communication. Individuals also reported that VWs are being used for scenarios that aim to
develop a range of employability or “soft” skills. Table 1 summarises these findings.
Table 1: Summary of institutional use of virtual worlds
Institution and Support
Basis (Central support or
ad-hoc use)
Curtin University
Ad-hoc
Griffith University
Ad-hoc
James Cook University
Ad-hoc
Manukau Institute of
Technology
Central support
3D virtual
world used
Disciplines
Nature of use
SL, OpenSim,
Unity3D,
Minecraft,
Augmented
Reality
Unity3D,
Minecraft, SL,
OpenSim,
Cloud Party
OpenSim,
Unity3D
SL, OpenSim
Business, Physics,
Building, Health
Sciences, Logistics and
Supply Chain
Trials, simulations, student activities,
projects, retention.
Education
Simulations, machinima, tours,
demonstrations and student projects/builds.
Health
Demonstrations
Foundation Studies,
Language Literacy and
Numeracy, Language
Culture and History
Languages, Pharmacy,
Orientation, Outreach
Interactive demonstrations, tours, group
activity, guest speakers, student activities,
game based activities, simulation and role
play.
Student activities, role play, low-level AI,
virtual tableting facility, process simulation,
campus orientation and exhibitions.
Student activities, group work,
collaboration and projects.
Monash University
Local support/Ad-hoc
SL, Unity3D
Nelson Marlborough Institute
of Technology
Central support
Queensland University of
Technology
Central support
RMIT University
Ad-hoc
Southern Cross University
Central support/Ad-hoc
University of Ballarat
Central support
SL, OpenSim,
Kitely
Languages
SL
Law, Education,
Marketing
Machinima for demonstrations and
scenario, tours and marketing.
SL
Role-play and group activities.
University of New England
Ad-hoc
SL
Health Science,
Medicine
Nursing, Business,
Education, Building
Science, Information
Technology,
Engineering, Marketing
Education, Pharmacy,
Accounting
University of Otago
Central support
The University of
Queensland
Central support/Ad-hoc
OpenSim
Medical Education
SL, OpenSim,
Unity3D,
Customplatform
OpenSim, SL
Faculty Development,
Education, Pharmacy,
Statistics, Health
SL, Jibe
Careers
SL
Art and Film, Anatomy,
Physiology, Human
Biology, Education,
Outreach
Nursing
University of South Australia
Central support
University of Southern
Queensland
Ad-hoc
The University of Western
Australia
Local Support/Ad-hoc
University of Wollongong
SL, OpenSim,
SoaS
SL
Unity3D
Careers
Student created resources for teaching.
Design analysis and critical evaluation.
Demonstrations, marketing, support
environments, role play, collaboration and
cooperation.
Show, practice examples, role play, guest
lectures, virtual tours, PhD, research,
machinima and meetings.
Role play (clinical decision-making and
peer assessment).
Faculty development, PhD research space,
virtual compounding dispensary and
student activities.
Services, resource delivery, virtual site
visits, scenarios, role play, soft skill
development and careers.
Virtual career fair, machinima and
demonstrations.
Demonstrations, student activity,
simulations, public exhibitions,
competitions, education outreach,
demonstrations and machinima.
Role play and scenarios.
Local Support/Ad-hoc
Victoria University
Ad-hoc
Unity3D
University of Western
Sydney
Central Support
SL, OpenSim,
Unity3D,
iClone,
Augmented
Reality
TAFE Construction,
Biotechnology,
Engineering
Computing and ICT,
Industrial Design,
Digital Humanities, eHealth and Health
Sciences, Linguistics
Role play, simulation, tours and embedded
energy efficiency calculators.
Immersive simulation environments for
research and teaching, student created
resources, augmented reality and robot
integration.
Offline, standalone VWs such as SoaS are not affected by bandwidth, with use at a number of primary schools
showing the ability to offer least some of the same pedagogical goals as online VWs. The current trend towards
browser-based access to VWs makes it easier for staff and students to access VWs directly, which bring role
play and machinima for distance education students into reach. Machinima is being used to contextualise
otherwise abstract concepts and principles. Intranet versions of VW servers make the development of internal
secure grids possible. Mobile VW clients, to facilitate ad hoc, ubiquitous usages of VWs in educational
scenarios are another area that is seeing an increase in use.
VWs are being used to cater for large numbers of students seeking an education while struggling with work and
family constraints. The utilisation of VWs enables groups of students removed from the campus to work in
collaboration on projects that enhance their learning experiences. They enable lecturers to provide activities that
would be impossible in the real world with the current economic constraints imposed on tertiary institutions.
Research in VWs is being encouraged at some institutions, particularly in areas that will lead to improved
retention and success of students. Universities need to create a supportive environment for the development of a
wide range of virtual learning environments in terms of policy, the academic environment, practical support
(particularly in relation to computing) and networking infrastructure and preservation.
VWs, 3D virtual environments and simulations have now been embedded in a number of institutions. While not
widely used across all disciplinary areas, it is likely that their use will continue to grow and develop over time,
although their growth is more likely to be driven by individuals rather than the collective institution. On the
other hand, the novelty of using VWs for learning and teaching has worn off for some, as has the momentum,
particularly given advances in cloud computing and the use of tablet technologies which increasingly promise to
streamline core curriculum delivery.
Could it be that we are at a cross roads, perhaps at the point at which WV technology stops being an "emerging"
technology and moves to more mature level? While the initial exuberance and hype surrounding VWs like SL
has passed, the underlying platforms on which it is built, along with 3D engines like Unity3D are now relatively
stable and mature technologies that allow a range of VW environments to be built and used. However, the future
is anything but set and we will continue to see research into the use of VW platforms as educators search for the
right platform to meet their specific needs and seek to incorporate the emerging technologies of the future.
Imagining the future
The authors, all experts in the use of VWs for research, teaching and learning, take on the challenge of
imagining how VWs will be used in the future. The following section features some of the ideas that emerged as
a result of a Delphi like process used by the authors. This first involved an online survey of the group which was
then followed up with iterative editing cycles to arrive at the headings below.
Increase in the fidelity and realism of virtual worlds
VWs will continue to improve in quality, leading to even greater levels of visual, auditory and other sensory
immersion, opening the door to greater opportunities for authentic learning.
Increase in fidelity and quality
Over time, VWs will improve in terms of the fidelity with which they are able to simulate aspects of the real
world and the quality of the user experience that they are able to deliver. While VW platforms increase in their
efficiency to display more detail with less data, the bandwidth demands are likely continue as more is expected.
Bandwidth and technological issues may no longer be an obstacle to accessing VWs for many in Australia if the
NBN lives up to its promise while others may be increasingly left behind. Software platforms, available Internet
bandwidth and end-user hardware will provide even greater levels of immersive fidelity, flexibility of design
(environment, pedagogy, tasks) and use, and acceptance by learners. VWs will have caught up to the look and
feel and overall quality of more advanced video games and therefore better accepted by all stakeholders as a
pedagogical alternative. They will increasingly come closer to the (positive) image of the virtual environment
outlined in the book, Snow Crash (Stephenson, 1992). As a result there will be much more interactivity between
stakeholder avatars and greater opportunity for creativity. There will be a single avatar, with one inventory for
just one life that goes across all platforms. There will be a consolidation in the number of VW platforms.
Voice/text
Voice and text communications will be improved to appear in line with face-to-face communication. Lipsyncing will be enhanced and facial expressions replicated. VW technology has already moved some way
towards being able to achieve this at present with reasonably accurate lip-syncing being available.
Blurring of boundaries between the real and the virtual
The increase in the fidelity of virtual VWs themselves will also need to be matched by increases in the ability
for people to interact with them in more realistic ways. Currently, most VWs do not keep up with the variety of
input and display technology that is available. VWs are intended to be immersive but many still rely on
keyboard, mouse and 2D monitors placed on desktops as their interface. Future VWs will need to break down
these barriers in order to enable a truly interactive, immersive and mobile experience by taking advantage of the
full range of devices and approaches that are available. The availability of VWs through a multiplicity of
interaction devices and mobile computing platforms will blur the boundary between the VW and the real world.
Metaverse roadmap suggests we think of the future of VWs “not as virtual space but as the junction or nexus of
our physical and virtual worlds” (Smart, Cascio & Paffendorfs, 2007, p. 4).
Mobility
Mobility will increase in terms of options for user access. Mobile technologies featured prominently in the
recent NMC reports for Australia and New Zealand and are consistently listed as being on the immediate, shortterm (one year or less) horizon (Johnson et al., 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). VWs increasingly work across
platforms including mobile devices such as tablets and phones with increasing ease as the capabilities of the
mobile devices improve and the capacity of mobile networks to which these devices are connected increase.
Quick Response (QR) codes are already being used to facilitate easy access to particular locations and objects
within a VW using mobile devices. These are two-dimensional barcodes that can be photographed using the
camera of a mobile phone or similar device as an alternative to typing a URL. New devices such as Google
Glass will facilitate even greater mobile access and given the augmented reality style interface that is within the
regular field of vision of the user, this will lead to VW access being available at anytime, in any place. Such a
confluence of technologies should mean that for those with access to the devices and networks, access/usability
issues would be greatly reduced over time.
Rich and intelligent blended learning
The fusion of virtual worlds and artificial intelligence will continue to provide authentic augmented
environments tailored for specific pedagogical strategies. The resulting technology supports the integration of
contemporary e-research and blended learning, for example in the area of digital humanities (Bogdanovych et
al., 2012). Specialised artificial intelligence techniques will provide the authenticity of the look and behaviour of
the populations in these environments. For instance, virtual cities can be populated with diverse crowds of
virtual agents that genetically preserve their ethnic features through the generations (Trescak et al., 2012).
Augmented reality
Augmented reality (AR) technology has been in existence for many years, but is only beginning to enter the
mainstream in higher education. It was identified by the 2010 Australia–New Zealand edition of the Horizon
Report published by the New Media Consortium (NMC) as having likely time-to-adoption of two to three years
(Johnson, Smith, Levine & Haywood, 2010), and by the NMC’s 2011 Technology Outlook for New Zealand
Tertiary Education as having a time-to-adoption of four to five years (Johnson, Adams & Cummins, 2011). AR
is a “live, direct or indirect, view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or
supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data” (Wikipedia,
2013). AR offers great promise for a greater blending of the real and virtual that will produce new educational
opportunities. This is likely to include a social and multi-user augmented reality as has been seen with the
development of 2D mobile social media tools. Examples of AR applications in health sciences and veterinary
science education include imposing the internal anatomy of a body over that of a live video view of a real body
for a simulated look inside the body or for virtual surgery practice. Students in history or archaeology could
view landscapes or cityscapes to see views of how the location appeared in the past using mobile devices or
HUD devices such as Google Glass, while students in architecture could view how a building design would sit
in the landscape. Industrial and product design students could use AR models to assimilate their designed
artefacts in 3D allowing for rapid changes such as shape, colour and texture to be done in real time. Today
simple interactive AR models can be manipulated. This is done by using AR markers that are printed on paper
that can be viewed through AR viewer applications showing a video feed of the scene with the 3D model
superimposed in context. The user can move, rotate or block portions of the marker to produce changes in the
model, for example, rotate a 3D exploded view of components of a car or tap on a virtual drum kit to produce
musical tunes. Other examples include 3D car racing games that can race different users, spacecraft that can be
created and moved or 3D models of shoes where users can change their attributes. Since AR can also be
triggered by GPS and locative data, it can be used to reveal relationships between physical locations and other
relevant information, e.g., as a navigation aid or associating indigenous knowledge with artworks on display.
Head-mounted displays
By using a head-mounted display, users will be able to fully immerse themselves in the VWs, providing the
sensory illusion of actually being there. Preliminary research shows that users of devices such as the Oculus Rift
have a higher perception of immersion and develop a near “haptic” feeling of virtual objects (Reiners, Wood &
Gregory, under review). While such displays have been in existence for many years, their decreasing cost, size
and weight in recent years have allowed them to enter the commercial mainstream. 3D stereoscopic glasses
targeted at home users are now widely available for gaming and 3D video viewing purposes.
Gesture-based and other natural user interfaces
Through advances in, and mainstreaming of, 3D motion sensing technologies, gesture-based movement will
become readily available so that what one is doing in the real world is enacted and represented through the
avatar in the VW. Those in the VW will be able to see body language displayed through the avatars. The NMC,
in its 2010 Horizon Report for Australia and New Zealand, predicted that gesture-based computing would enter
the higher educational mainstream within four to five years (Johnson et al., 2010), and affirmed this prediction
in the 2011 Technology Outlook for New Zealand (Johnson et al., 2011). The 2012 Technology Outlook for
Australia again echoed this, though using the broader term “natural user interfaces” (Johnson et al., 2012).
Empowered by such innovations, educators will be better placed to design interactive tactile learning tasks in a
VW to engage students and encourage the achievement of superior educational outcomes. Haptic gloves are an
example that have been around for many years allowing tactile and gesture based movements. Such devices,
along with movement based sensors such as Kinect and Razer Hydra, will continue to find uses enabling VW
participation to become all the more real, with many senses being used (Yeom, 2011).
Embodiment
Avatars will increasingly be capable of looking like their user and consequently immersion by students learning
in a VW will become more intense. More realistic body language and animations for avatars will become
mainstream. There will be easier and more intuitive ways to “trigger” avatar actions but live streaming
movement is still some distance away from coming to fruition. Low-cost equipment like the Kinect and software
packages like iClone can produce more lifelike body language and gestures, which enriches the interactions
between avatars and provide more realistic learning opportunities.
Holographs
VWs will eventually come off the computer screen and be projected holographically, providing even greater
dimension to the learning experience. Cisco recently began marketing holographic telepresence
videoconferencing systems (see VanDervoort, 2013) that have the potential to greatly improve the sense of copresence experienced by geographically distributed users.
Wearable technology
The most recent NMC Technology Outlook for Australia and New Zealand identifies wearable technology as
being within the four-to-five-year adoption horizon (Johnson et al., 2013). Such technology will give people the
ability to wear devices on their bodies as accessories or as part of their clothing and be inworld whilst
undertaking other activities. Devices like Google Glass will enable this to occur where someone can continue to
undertake their work in the real world, but have virtual inworld activities that they are participating available
through their glasses. Wearable computing will be enabled as the size of computing devices continues to shrink
and their power increase, allowing individuals to take a VW with them on the go.
Learning design, pedagogy and assessment in virtual worlds
Given the increases in fidelity, interaction quality and availability, the range of potential educational uses for
VWs will continue to expand. In the future, the level of understanding of what is best taught using VWs would
need to be more clearly defined and research-based. This body of knowledge will have built up over time and
will provide a far better understanding of pedagogy and of the best utilisation of VWs for a given teaching and
learning outcome.
Authentic learning
There will be an increase in pressure to ensure that research, learning and teaching will be authentic. Tasks
should offer opportunities to examine problems from different perspectives, require collaboration, reflection and
seamless integration with assessment (Herrington, Reeves & Oliver, 2010). Authentic tasks should have real
world relevance and match it as nearly as possible. VWs are especially suitable for engaging in situated role
plays (Carroll, Anderson & Cameron, 2006; Flintoff, 2009) to facilitate authentic activities. Authenticity will be
bought about with more realistic storylines and assessment based on the story context and decision points.
Authentic learning scenarios undertaken in VWs will provide opportunities for the learner to understand
concepts and practise learning that may be impossible to do in real life.
Combining individual, asynchronous and synchronous collaborative learning
A dichotomy has emerged in that both multi-user or live synchronous activity in a VW and closed VWs where
students can self-explore scenarios as many times as they like is occurring. Self-paced activities could involve
the use of bots (non-player characters), machinima, or SoaS. Indeed it could be argued that taking a flexible,
non-time dependent resource like a VW and constraining it is to retard its potential. However, if we were to
consider the higher-order thinking processes involved when a student is given the opportunity to evaluate the
inworld design of a peer, or engage in a complex multifaceted problem scenario, then the asynchronous task
would have educational merit. VWs will be increasingly used for student self-practice sessions in this manner.
These branches have the potential to be mutually complementary. Examples could be:
Students performing certain activities in standalone versions of various VWs (e.g. SoaS);
Preparing items or projects to be displayed in a location in a multi-user VW environment such as SL or
OpenSim for other people to see and evaluate;
Practicing a range of skills before launching into the bigger more chaotic multi-user environment;
Making parts of machinima in the standalone environment for incorporation into a larger machinima that
may be finished off or shown in a multi-user environment;
Preparing individual assignments for submission to the teacher or peers for marking.
Action-based learning assessment
Learning in VWs established its importance and its place in VW studies during the last decade and consequently
assessment played an important role in the process. Different projects were developed to assess students’
learning in VWs. VirtualPREX (Gregory et al., 2011) is a 3D immersive virtual professional experience
environment, using formative assessment to provide pre-service teachers with teaching experiences. Stealth
assessment, as defined by Shute et al (2009, p. 299), is “embedded assessments … so seamlessly woven into the
fabric of the learning environment that they are virtually invisible” and “can be accomplished via automated
scoring and machine-based reasoning techniques to infer things that would be too hard for humans (e.g.
Estimating the value of evidence-based competencies across a network of skills)”. Al-Samadi et al. (2012)
proposed a framework to design assessment and feedback for serious games using stealth assessment. VWs
provide users with a chance of experiencing real-life situations to learn by acting in these environments. Actionbased learning assessment method (ALAM) (Fardinpour & Reiners, under review) enables virtual training
environments to recognise avatars’ actions, which are the reflection of human-user actions, classify these
actions, and eventually analyse and evaluate them. ALAM uses an open taxonomy to be applicable in every 3D
virtual environment and action recognition system. Currently, action-based learning assessment is used in virtual
training environments as a specialised form of VWs, but this assessment method, or its components, can be
extended and adapted into different virtual environments such as games, VWs, virtual learning environments,
and virtual training systems. Immersive technologies have dramatically developed in recent decades. From the
first uses of virtual reality in early sixties (Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993) to today’s advance immersive
technologies, the main idea was to immerse users into a VW and provide them a life-like experience in learning,
entertainment, business, etc. Modelling, together with analysing human behaviour, performance and skills via
VWs, needs the identification and evaluation of conducted actions. This is the significant contribution of ALAM
as well as the taxonomy of actions in virtual training environments, to the future advancements in VWs.
Anonymity
The ability to have an anonymous avatar will continue to be the choice of the user. Many educators insist on
their students having avatars that are not known to others for authentic role-play activities, such as playing the
role of a primary school student in a teaching practice scenario (Gregory, 2011); or so that the student can state
how they feel without the knowledge that others know who they are. This is sometimes important for the more
shy students who will often, in a live classroom situation, avoid participating in classroom discussions due to
various reasons, including the perceived risk of – ridicule, lack of confidence or not wanting to stand out.
Anonymity can assist in avoiding these feelings.
Simulations and scenarios where immersion elements are important
VWs will be able to provide simulations in difficult situations students may possibly face in their careers. This
will include complex interpersonal scenarios that will equip graduates of the helping professions with
interpersonal skills developed at a higher level for increasingly complex working environments.
Game-based learning and gamification
The next few years will see greater convergence between VWs and games, with more widespread acceptance of
gamification in teaching and learning. Game-based learning appears under the “two to three years” time-toadoption section in two NMC reports (Johnson et al., 2011, 2012). It seems likely that immersive game
environments will be leveraged towards learning activities – the shifts in the Minecraft community already
reflect this (Reiners et al., 2012). VWs such as Minecraft can be used in all levels of schools and there will be a
shift towards these types of worlds. A simple interface with minimal user investment will continue to greatly
facilitate the ad hoc user, especially where inworld person-to-person interaction is the intention and the virtual
space need not be very complex. A whole range of VWs will become ubiquitous such as the Internet is now.
Game like VWs have become accepted.
Scalability and interoperability of virtual worlds
Currently the majority of content that is created in a particular VW is locked into that space. In line with the
open access movement in other areas of scholarship and education in the future, strategies will be developed and
technologies increasingly chosen for their ability to share content across the education community. There will be
easier movement of avatars, builds and artefacts between VWs that will encourage economies of scale in the
education resource development space. Work with open standards and build techniques with such tools as
OpenSim, SoaS and meshes will allow us to more towards achieving that goal.
Open access/integration
Trends towards open access and open standards in education communities will lead to there being “Open
Access” virtual repositories where designs for virtual spaces, re-usable components for building virtual spaces,
software tools, pedagogical designs, lesson plans and the like can be shared, taken, tested and improved upon
(Boyd & Ellis, 2013). Similar such repositories for 3D CAD files are already being used by the additive
manufacturing movement sharing or commercialising their designs for 3D environments or 3D printers. Lack of
standardisation of formats is limiting the direct transfer at the moment; yet merging is anticipated for future
applications. Verification of 3D objects in VWs before printing, enhancing documents with 3D designs, or
having 3D objects as gifts in social games are just a few examples benefiting from a common standard for
encoding 3D models. Ideally there should be no limitation on inworld tools. VWs should move for greater
integration to third party applications such as OpenOffice or Skype, social networking tools and Smart Boards.
The move towards the use of open technology standards could assist this process but it remains to be seen in
light of proprietary vendor interests. It may take open source alternatives to spur this on just as OpenSim has
proved an alternative pathway to sharing WV objects and builds.
Scalability
There will be greater ability to tailor the size and constraints of the virtual space to suit the learning task. When
a great number of users interacting at the same time or a free roam approach is favoured, then the current
offering of “worlds” suit well. When tasks like role-play are the goal, perhaps smaller discrete virtual spaces are
better suited. Being able to offer bespoke discrete virtual spaces is currently available via SoaS and Jibe, but we
should see more design and intent built with this in mind.
Machinima
Machinima will continue to have a place in VW teaching. The use of machinima enables students to learn
through VW technology without students having to log into the VW and participate in activities. A good
example of this is the work done in Queensland University of Technology in Law (Butler, 2012), Central
Queensland University in Accounting (Muldoon, Jones, Kofoed & Beer, 2008), University of New England in
Pharmacy (Gregory et al, 2012) and the University of Western Australia which hosts the largest machinima
competitions in SL (Highley & Jegathesan, 2013). Machinima is affordable when the $1800 annual cost of a SL
island (taking into consideration of the 50% educational discount) is apportioned across students over several
years – and is more affordable than real life video for producing simulations (or even less if VWs like OpenSim
are used). Individual academics can use machinima as a cost effective, broad canvas for the creation of
simulations and authentic learning environments. This compares favourably with real life video which requires
substantial funding and be limited in terms of the locations that are practically available (Butler, 2012).
Machinima is a cost effective means to contextualising abstract principles, to depict scenarios that resemble
situations that students may encounter in real world practice and provides a context for future students who may
use a VW as a teaching resource.
Conclusion
The present sees VWs at somewhat of a crossroads facing a number of obstacles such as the lack of familiarity
of academics with VWs technology, lack of awareness of its affordances, general IT literacy of the academic
and student populace, professional development/training availability, institutional infrastructure blockages, ease
of use (or not) of the tools available to build VW spaces (especially by the average academic), little institutional
intent or guidelines for curation of VW assets, bandwidth availability for those not on broadband or multiple
users in one area, along with the inherent technological/physics limits to mobile/wireless bandwidth. Given
these factors, it is likely that over the medium term, the proponents of VWs in education need to be
concentrating on having VWs work on current and near term hardware (PCs, iOS/Android tablets) that are in
student homes and academic environments now. However, research and knowledge will forge on. Specialist
applications will see cutting edge input and visualisation technologies move forward and while these may well
be hampered in the medium term by more mundane factors such as “fashion” (as it has done for countless clever
devices in the past) for use outside of a lab, eventually these will reach the stage of a light weight Google Glass
style interface at which point they will make their public debut. Over time, VWs will become increasingly
accepted by institutions as part of the educational landscape and improvements in the usability, compatibility
and mobility of VW technologies will allow increasing numbers of academics take advantages of what VWs
have to offer. The advances expected in the fidelity of the technology, the ability for multiplicity of expected
access opportunities via the use of natural interaction and mobility coupled with an increase in pedagogical
knowledge will ensure a strong future for VWs in the teaching and learning arena.
References
Bogdanovych, A., Ijaz. K. & Simoff S. (2012), The city of Uruk: teaching ancient history in a virtual world,
LNCS, 7502, 28–35.
Boyd, W. & Ellis, D. (in press) Sketching up new geographies: Open sourcing and curriculum development.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.
Butler, D. (2012). Second Life machinima enhancing the learning of law: Lessons from successful endeavours.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3), 383–399.
Carroll, J., Anderson, M. & Cameron, D. (2006) Real players? Drama, technology and education. Stoke-onTrent, UK: Trentham Books.
Collins, C. (2008). Looking to the future: Higher education in the metaverse. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(5), 51–63.
Dalgarno, B. & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 10–32.
Dudeney, G. & Ramsay, H. (2009). Overcoming the entry barriers to Second Life in higher education. In C.
Wankel & J. Kingsley (Eds), Higher education in virtual worlds: Teaching and learning in Second Life (pp.
11–28). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Fardinpour, A. & Reiners, T. (under review). Action-based Learning Assessment Method (ALAM): Evaluating
goal-oriented actions in virtual training environments.
Flintoff, K. (2009) Second Life/simulation: Online sites for generative play. In M. Anderson, J. Carroll & D.
Cameron (Eds), Drama education with digital technology (pp. 202–221). London, UK and New York, NY:
Continuum.
Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Hillier, M., Jacka, L., Schutt, S., Ellis, D., … McCarthy, A. (2012). Sustaining the
future through virtual worlds. In M. Brown, M. Hartnett & T. Stewart (Eds), Future Challenges –Sustainable
Futures. Proceedings ascilite Wellington 2012 (pp. 361–368). Wellington, New Zealand: Massey University
and ascilite. http://www.ascilite2012.org/images/custom/gregory,_sue_-_sustaining.pdf
Gregory, B., Gregory, S., Wood, D., Masters, Y., Hillier, M., Stokes-Thompson, F., …Yusupova, A. (2011a).
How are Australian higher education institutions contributing to change through innovative teaching and
learning in virtual worlds? In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds), Changing Demands,
Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011 (pp. 475–590). Hobart, Australia: The University of
Tasmania and ascilite.http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/ papers/Gregory-full.pdf
Gregory. S., Lee, M.J.W., Ellis, A., Gregory, B., Wood, D., Hillier, M., … McKeown, L. (2010). Australian
higher education institutions transforming the future of teaching and learning through virtual worlds. In C.
Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (Eds), Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an
Unknown Future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 (pp. 399–415). Sydney, Australia: The University of
Queensland, and ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/Ascilite%20conference%20
proceedings%202010/Gregory-full.pdf
Gregory, S., Dalgarno, B., Campbell, M., Reiners, T., Knox, V. & Masters, Y. (2011b). Changing directions
through VirtualPREX: engaging pre-service teachers in virtual professional experience. In G. Williams, P.
Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite
Hobart 2011 (pp. 491–501). Hobart, Australia: The University of Tasmania and ascilite.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/GregoryS-full.pdf
Hearns, M., Diener, S., Honey, M., Cockeram, J., Parsons, D., Champion, E., … Gregory, S. (2011). He ara hou
ka tu mai: NZ institutions of higher learning unpacking demands and facilitating change. In G. Williams, P.
Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite
Hobart 2011 (pp. 571–579). Hobart, Australia: The University of Tasmania and ascilite.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Hearns-concise.pdf
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C. & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W. S. (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), 33–65.
Highley, S. & Jegathesan, J.J. (2013) In three dimensions, art, machinima and the virtual university. The
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 7(2), 43–57.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Levine, A. & Haywood, K. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report: Australia–New Zealand
Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams, S. & Cummins, M. (2011). Technology Outlook for New Zealand Tertiary Education
2011–2016: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams, S. & Cummins, M. (2012). Technology Outlook for Australian Tertiary Education 2012–
2017: An NMC Horizon Report Regional Analysis. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Freeman, A., Ifenthaler, D. & Vardaxis, N. (2013). Technology
Outlook for Australian Tertiary Education 2013–2018: An NMC Horizon Project Regional Analysis. Austin,
TX: The New Media Consortium.
McDonald, M., Ryan, T., Sim, J., James, J., Maude, P., Scutter, S. & Wood, D. (2012). Multidiscipline role-play
in a 3D virtual learning environment: Experiences with a large cohort of healthcare students. In M. Brown,
M. Hartnett & T. Stewart (Eds), Future Challenges – Sustainable Futures. Proceedings ascilite Wellington
2012 (pp. 622–632). Wellington, New Zealand: Massey University and ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au
/conferences/wellington12/2012/images/custom/mcdonald%2c_marcus_-_multidiscipline.pdf
Mikropoulos, T.A. & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical
research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780.
Muldoon, N., Jones, D., Kofoed, J. & Beer, C. (2008). Bringing ‘second life’ to a tough undergraduate course:
Cognitive apprenticeship through machinimas. In R. Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds), Hello! Where are you in
the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008 (pp. 653–657). Melbourne,
Australia: Deakin University and ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/
muldoon.pdf
Pimentel, K. & Teixeira, K. (1993). Virtual reality: Through the new looking glass. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Reiners, T., Wood, L., Chang, V., Guetl, C., Herrington, J., Teräs, H. & Gregory, S. (2012) Operationalising
Gamification in an Educational Authentic Environment. In P. Kommers, T. Issa & P. Isaías (Eds), IADIS
International Conference on Internet Technologies & Society 2012 (pp. 93–100). Perth, Australia: IADIS.
Reiners, T., Wood, L. & Gregory, S. (under review). Experimental study on technology-induced authentic
immersion in virtual worlds for education.
Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3),
526–538.
Savin-Baden, M., Gourlay, L., Tombs, C., Steils, N., Tombs, G. & Mawer, M. (2010). Situating pedagogies,
positions and practices in immersive virtual worlds. Educational Research, 52(2), 123–133.
Shute, V.J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M.I. & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and
embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody & P.
Vorderer (Eds), Serious games: Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). New York, NY: Routledge.
Smart, J.M., Cascio, J. & Paffendorf, J. (2007). Metaverse Roadmap: Pathways to the 3D Web. A cross-industry
foresight project. http://www.metaverseroadmap.org/MetaverseRoadmapOverview.pdf
Stephenson, N. (1992). Snow crash. London, UK: Penguin.
Trescak, T., Bogdanovych, A., Simoff, S. & Rodriguez, I. (2012). Generating diverse ethnic groups with genetic
algorithms. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology (VRST
'12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, (pp. 1–8).
VanDervoort, O. (2013). Cisco rolls out holographic telepresence video conferencing. TMCnet.com. Retrieved
from http://www.tmcnet.com/topics/articles/2013/06/03/340325-cisco-rolls-out-holographic-telepresencevideo-conferencing.htm
Wikipedia. (2013). Augmented reality. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality
Yeom, S. (2011). Augmented reality for learning anatomy. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland
(Eds), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011 (pp. 1377–1383).
Hobart, Australia: University of Tasmania and ascilite. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11
/downloads/papers/Yeom-concise.pdf
Author Contact Details
Sue Gregory, School of Education, University of New England, Australia, sue.gregory@une.edu.au
Brent Gregory, UNE Business School, University of New England, Australia, bgregory@une.edu.au
Torsten Reiners, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Australia, t.reiners@curtin.edu.au
Ali Fardinpour, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Australia, ali.fardinpour@student.curtin.edu.au
Mathew Hillier, Teaching & Educational Development Institute, The University of Queensland, Australia,
m.hillier@uq.edu.au
Mark J.W. Lee, School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Australia, malee@csu.edu.au
Lisa Jacka, School of Education, Southern Cross University, Australia, lisa.jacka@scu.edu.au
Des Butler, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Australia, d.butler@qut.edu.au
David Holloway, School of Information Systems & Technology, University of Wollongong, Australia,
david@metaversejournal.com
Scott Grant, School of Cultures, Languages & Linguistics, Monash University, Australia,
scott.grant@arts.monash.edu.au
Merle Hearns, School of Foundation Studies, Manukau Institute of Technology, New Zealand,
Merle.Hearns@manukau.ac.nz
Kim Flintoff, Curtin Teaching & Learning, Curtin University, Australia, k.flintoff@curtin.edu.au
Jay Jay Jegathesan, School of Physics, The University of Western Australia, Australia, jay.jay@uwa.edu.au
David Ellis, School of Education, Southern Cross University, Australia, david.ellis@scu.edu.au
Marcus McDonald, School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Australia, marcus.mcdonald@rmit.edu.au
Frederick Stokes-Thompson, Learning & Teaching Unit, University of South Australia, Australia,
Frederick.Stokes-Thompson@unisa.edu.au
Belma Gaukrodger, Flexible Learning, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, New Zealand,
kiwibelma@gmail.com
Jason Zagami, School of Education & Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia, j.zagami@gmail.com
Chris Campbell, School of Education, The University of Queensland, Australia, chris.campbell@uq.edu.au
Xiangyu Wang, School of Built Environment, Curtin University, Australia, xiangyu.wang@curtin.edu.au
Jamie Garcia Salinas, School of Social & Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia,
jaime.garciasalinas@uqconnect.edu.au
Swee-Kin Loke, Higher Education Development Centre, University of Otago, New Zealand,
swee.kin.loke@otago.ac.nz
Sheila Scutter, School of Medicine & Dentistry, James Cook University, Australia, sheila.scutter@jcu.edu.au
Christine Newman, eLearning Services, Queensland University of Technology, Australia,
christine.newman@qut.edu.au
Ning Gu, School of Architecture & Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Australia,
Ning.Gu@newcastle.edu.au
Stefan Schutt, Centre for Cultural Diversity & Wellbeing, Victoria University, Australia,
Stefan.Schutt@vu.edu.au
Helen Farley, Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland, Australia,
Helen.Farley@usq.edu.au
Anton Bogdanovych, Computing & ICT, University of Western Sydney, Australia,
A.Bogdanovych@uws.edu.au
Tomas Trescak, Deans Unit School of Computing, Engineering & Math, University of Western Sydney,
Australia, tomi.trescak@gmail.com
Simeon Simoff, School of Computing, Engineering & Math, University of Western Sydney, Australia,
S.Simoff@uws.edu.au
Caroline Steel, School of Languages & Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of Queensland, Australia,
c.steel@uq.edu.au
Penny Neuendorf, Flexible Education, Canberra Institute of Technology, Australia,
Penny.Neuendorf@cit.edu.au
Matt Bower, Department of Education, Macquarie University, Australia, matt.bower@mq.edu.au
Lindy McKeown Orwin, Australian Digital Futures Institute, University of Southern Queensland, Australia,
Lindy.McKeown@usq.edu.au
Tom Kerr, Faculty of Business & Economics, Macquarie University, Australia, tom.kerr@mq.edu.au
Ian Warren, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Deakin University, Australia, ian.warren@deakin.edu.au
Denise Wood, School of Communication, International Studies & Languages, University of South Australia,
Australia, Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au
Charlynn Miller, School of Science, IT & Engineering, University of Ballarat, Australia,
c.miller@ballarat.edu.au
Shane Mathews, QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Australia,
sw.mathews@qut.edu.au
Dale Linegar, Oztron , Australia, dale@oztron.com
Vicki Knox, School of Behavioural, Cognitive & Social Sciences, University of New England, Australia,
vknox@une.edu.au
Yvonne Masters, School of Education, University of New England, Australia, ymasters@une.edu.au
Ross Brown, School of Information Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Australia,
r.brown@qut.edu.au
Grant Meredith, School of Science, IT & Engineering, University of Ballarat, Australia,
g.meredith@ballarat.edu.au
Clare Atkins, School of Business & Computer Technology, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, New
Zealand, Clare.Atkins@nmit.ac.nz
Angela Giovanangeli, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia,
Angela.Giovanangeli@uts.edu.au
Karen Le Rossignol, School of Communication & Creative Arts, Deakin University, Australia,
k.lerossignol@deakin.edu.au
Andrew Cram, Navitas Professional, Australia, Andrew.Cram@acap.edu.au
Eimear Muir-Cochrane, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Flinders University, Australia,
eimear.muircochrane@flinders.edu.au
Arin Basu, School of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, arindam.basu@canterbury.ac.nz
Michael Jacobson, CoCo Research Centre, The University of Sydney, Australia,
michael.jacobson@sydney.edu.au
Ian Larson, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Australia,
ian.larson@monash.edu
Please cite as: Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Reiners, T., Hillier, M., Lee, M. J.W. Jacka, L., Butler, D., Holloway,
D., Grant, S., Hearns, M., Flintoff, K., Jegathesan, J. J., Ellis, D., McDonald, M., Stokes-Thompson, F.,
Gaukrodger, B., Zagami, J., Campbell, C., Wang, X., Garcia Salinas, J., Loke, S-K, Scutter, S., Newman, C.,
Gu, N., Schutt, S., Farley, H., Bogdanovych, A., Trescak, T., Simoff, S., Steel, C., Neuendorf, P., Bower, M.,
McKeown Orwin, L., Kerr, T., Warren, I., Wood, D., Miller, C., Mathews, S., Linegar, D., Knox, K., Masters,
Y., Brown, R., Meredith, G., Atkins, C., Giovanangeli, A., Le Rossignol, K. (2013). Virtual worlds in
Australian and New Zealand higher education: Remembering the past, understanding the present and imagining
the future. In M. Gosper, J. Hedberg, H. Carter (Eds.) Electric Dreams. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2013. (pp. )
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney13/procs/newman.pdf
Copyright © 2013 Sue Gregory, Brent Gregory, Torsten Reiners, Ali Fardinpour , Mathew Hillier, Mark J.W.
Lee, Lisa Jacka, Des Butler, David Holloway, Scott Grant, Merle Hearns, Kim Flintoff, Jay Jay Jegathesan,
David Ellis, Marcus McDonald, Frederick Stokes-Thompson, Belma Gaukrodger, Jason Zagami, Chris
Campbell, Xiangyu Wang, Jamie Garcia Salinas, Swee-Kin Loke, Sheila Scutter, Christine Newman, Ning Gu,
Stefan Schutt, Helen Farley, Anton Bogdanovych, Tomas Trescak, Simeon Simoff, Caroline Steel, Penny
Neuendorf, Matt Bower, Lindy McKeown Orwin, Tom Kerr, Ian Warren, Denise Wood, Charlynn Miller, Shane
Mathews, Dale Linegar, Vicki Knox, Yvonne Masters, Ross Brown, Grant Meredith, Clare Atkins, Angela
Giovanangeli, Karen Le Rossignol, Andrew Cram, Eimear Muir-Cochrane, Arin Basu, Michael Jacobson, Ian
Larson
The author(s) assign to ascilite and educational non-profit institutions, a non-exclusive licence to use this
document for personal use and in courses of instruction, provided that the article is used in full and this
copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive licence to ascilite to publish this
document on the ascilite Web site and in other formats for the Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2013. Any other use
is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).
Addressing the Reviewer’s Concerns
Thank you to the reviewers for their useful comments/suggestions. Please see below how these concerns have
been addressed
REVIEWER 1.
The survey section refers to 18 institutional respondents -- however it appears that 19 respondents are listed in
Table 1. This needs to be clarified and/or corrected.
Thank you for finding this error. The correct number, 19, has been adjusted.
There are some minor typos that should be picked up in a final proofing e.g. " a short literature provides "
presumably read "a short literature review provides" (page 1).
The paper has been reread with minor typographical errors being corrected. The word “review” has been added
to the sentence outlined above.
REVIEWER 2.
This paper serves as a useful review of the state of play of the use of virtual world applications in higher
education.
Thank you, we hope so.
An aspect that is missing from this paper is a review of the research that has examined the effectiveness of using
these learning environments. Ie. is there empirical evidence to support the use of these kinds of virtual
applications? If this could be added to the paper then it would provide a more analytical critique of the use of
virtual worlds in higher education.
Space limitations have restricted the authors in going into depth in relation to empirical evidence of the
effectiveness of using a virtual world for teaching and learning, but has alluded to several instances of research
that has been undertaken, such as the following citations in the paper: Bogdanovych, A., Ijaz. K. & Simoff S.
(2012); Butler, D. (2012); Carroll, J., Anderson, M. & Cameron, D. (2006); Collins, C. (2008); Gregory, S.,
Gregory, B., Hillier, M., Jacka, L., Schutt, S., Ellis, D., … McCarthy, A. (2012); Gregory, B., Gregory, S.,
Wood, D., Masters, Y., Hillier, M., Stokes-Thompson, F., …Yusupova, A. (2011a, Gregory. S., Lee, M.J.W.,
Ellis, A., Gregory, B., Wood, D., Hillier, M., … McKeown, L. (2010); Gregory, S., Dalgarno, B., Campbell, M.,
Reiners, T., Knox, V. & Masters, Y. (2011b); Hearns, M., Diener, S., Honey, M., Cockeram, J., Parsons, D.,
Champion, E., … Gregory, S. (2011); Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W. S. (2010); McDonald, M., Ryan, T., Sim, J.,
James, J., Maude, P., Scutter, S. & Wood, D. (2012); Muldoon, N., Jones, D., Kofoed, J. & Beer, C. (2008);
Reiners, T., Wood, L., Chang, V., Guetl, C., Herrington, J., Teräs, H. & Gregory, S. (2012); Trescak, T.,
Bogdanovych, A., Simoff, S. & Rodriguez, I. (2012).