See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/285580673
New applications, new global audiences:
Educators repurposing and reusing 3D virtual
and immersive learning resources
CONFERENCE PAPER · NOVEMBER 2015
READS
2
4 AUTHORS:
Sue Gregory
Brent Gregory
University of New England (Australia)
University of New England (Australia)
105 PUBLICATIONS 137 CITATIONS
20 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Denise Wood
Judy O'Connell
Central Queensland University
Charles Sturt University
79 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS
22 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Judy O'Connell
Retrieved on: 07 December 2015
ascilite2015
Australasian Society for Computers in Learning and Tertiary Education
Curtin University, Perth, Australia
Conference Proceedings
1
New applications, new global audiences: Educators
repurposing and reusing 3D virtual and immersive
learning resources
Sue Gregory
Brent Gregory
Denise Wood
Judy O’Connell
Scott Grant
Mathew Hillier
Des Butler
Yvonne Masters
Frederick StokesThompson
School of Education
University of New England
School of Information Studies
Charles Sturt University
Faculty of Law
Queensland University of
Technology
UNE Business School
University of New England
School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures
and Linguistic, Monash University
School of Education
University of New England
Learning and Teaching Services
Central Queensland University
Institute for Teaching and Learning
Innovation
The University of Queensland
Learning & Teaching Unit
University of South Australia
Marcus McDonald
Sasha Nikolic
David Ellis
Tom Kerr
Sarah de Freitas
Helen Farley
Stefan Schutt
Jenny Sim
Belma Gaukrodger
Lisa Jacka
Jo Doyle
Phil Blyth
Deborah Corder
Torsten Reiners
Dale Linegar
Merle Hearns
Robert Cox
Jay Jay Jegathesan
Suku Sukunesan
Kim Flintoff
Leah Irving
School of Health Sciences
RMIT University
Faculty of Business & Economics
Macquarie University
Centre for Cultural Diversity &
Wellbeing
Victoria University
School of Education
Southern Cross University
School of Languages and Social
Science
Auckland University of Technology
School of Foundation Studies
Manukau Institute of Technology
Business Systems and Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Engineering & Information Sciences
University of Wollongong
Learning and Teaching
Murdoch University
Medical Radiations
University of Auckland
Australian Digital Futures Institute
University of Southern Queensland
Curtin Business School
Curtin University
Faculty of Education, Science, Technology,
and Mathematics
University of Canberra
Curtin Teaching and Learning
Curtin University
School of Education
Southern Cross University
Australian Digital Futures Institute
University
of
Southern
Queensland
Flexible Learning
Nelson Marlborough Institute of
Technology
Faculty of Medicine
University of Otago
Oztron
School of Physics
The University of Western
Australia
Curtin Teaching and Learning
Curtin University
There continues to be strong interest among established, experienced academic users
of 3D virtual environments for their sustained educational use. Consistent with global
trends, they plan to further develop and optimise existing applications, reuse skills and
experiences gained to develop new applications, and to share and reuse existing virtual
resources. This is against a background of varied support from institutions, colleagues,
students, funding bodies and also changing understanding and awareness of virtual
environments and virtual reality by the general community as a result of consumer
developments such as the popularity of multi-user online role playing amongst both
children and adults, and the acquisition of technologies by companies with deeply
entrenched technologies. At the same time, the ongoing development and availability of
FP:109
121
new multiuser virtual environment platforms, associated peripherals and virtual reality
technologies promise new and exciting opportunities for educators to collaborate with
researchers on a global scale, while also exploring the affordances of these
technologies for enhancing the learning outcomes for an increasingly diverse and
distributed student population.
Keywords: 3D virtual worlds, immersive learning, repurposing, reusing, virtual
environments
Introduction and background
The Australian and New Zealand Virtual Worlds Working Group (VWWG) was established in 2009.
Since then, members of the VWWG have written papers for the ascilite conference providing an
update on the educational use of virtual worlds across the two countries. This year, following similar
interest globally, and in keeping with the New Media Consortium (NMC)’s (Johnson et al., 2015)
anticipated growth in the use of flipped classroom approaches and the educational applications of
wearable computers, ‘Makerspaces’ and the ‘Internet of Things’, Australian educators are beginning
to explore the potential of repurposing and reusing 3D virtual and immersive learning resources to
harness augmented spaces. A survey was sent to group members and 30 members, from 24
different institutions across Australia and New Zealand, provided feedback in relation to their current
use of 3D virtual and immersive learning environments and, in particular, how they are repurposing
and reusing learning resources, including objects, environments and pedagogical approaches.
Members of the VWWG provided several standout points to consider. A wide variety of applications
were reported as being used through 3D virtual immersive environments across a range of
disciplines. There is also a broadened definition of virtual worlds to now encompass 3D virtual
environments that include some platforms not traditionally seen to fit the virtual world category such
as SketchUp and Google Earth. The reduction in cost of additive technologies and use of other
technologies such as 3D printers has broadened the applications of virtual environments through a
combination and convergence of these technologies. There is also increasing focus on finding ways,
formats and platforms that allow greater sharing of resources. The limitations of some platforms (e.g.
hard to use/develop technically, too costly, closed systems, etc.) are pushing academics to explore
alternative platforms. In the past, there has been a lack of easily transferable virtual resources,
limiting sharing of pedagogical designs and virtual resource development skills across platforms.
With the anticipated continued growth in the open education resource movement, finding ways to
collaborate and share resources and knowledge globally will be an important goal if educators are to
more effectively engage learners in the use of these environments in ways that enhance learning,
teaching and assessment outcomes in a sustainable manner.
Literature Review
Immersive environments have provided instructional, autonomous and collaborative capabilities to
support the creation of educational materials and are best grounded in pedagogy rather than being
solely driven by the latest technology (Price, 2011). The pedagogical principles underpinning
adoption have applied equally to virtual and immersive worlds, single and multi-player environments
and related virtual technologies. Identifying the desired learning outcomes is fundamental in shaping
effective learning designs for virtual spaces, whether they utilise autonomous learning activities,
teacher led activities or participatory group experiences. Since the mid 1990s, virtual worlds have
supported a diverse range of activities, including: experiential learning (Jarmon 2008; De Mers,
2012); student perceptions of learning in virtual worlds (Lowe & Clarke, 2008; Huber & Blount,
2014); engagement with specific disciplinary material (Herold, 2009; Lee, 2009; Pereira et al., 2009;
Beebe, 2010; Teoh, 2012); supported training and role-play (Gregory et al., 2011; Gregory &
Masters, 2012a, 2012b; Neuendorf & Simpson, 2010; Slator & Chaput, 1996) or introduced multiplayer 3D games used to stimulate debates and discussion between peers on authentic or complex
topics (Brom, Sisler & Slavik, 2009). Drawing on an extensive review of research and field notes
from virtual learning environments, Jarmon (2012) found that 3-D virtual environments, in whatever
form, would be increasingly used as knowledge and social interaction management tools in the
foreseeable future.
FP:110
122
The modality of game-based learning is an emerging area of influence with approaches available to
create dynamic pedagogical agents of intrinsic motivation, mediated communication, supported selfrepresentation, sensory abilities or situational context responses (Leung, Virwaney, Lin, Armstrong &
Dubbelboer, 2013). The use of virtual worlds and mixed reality, coupled with game-based
mechanics, is bringing new opportunities to 3D immersive environments (Callaghan et al., 2013;
Charles et al., 2011) with game-based learning activities able to drive experiential, diagnostic and
role-play learning activities (Toro-Troconis, et al., 2012). Virtual worlds provide opportunities for
grounded experiences situated in understanding both practices and content as learners experience
the consequences of actions based on inquiry and/or gaming contexts (Vrasidas & Solomou, 2013).
Virtual environments can bring geographically distant students and staff together to provide a
connection with the main campus. Universities around the world have created thousands of satellite
campuses, both domestically and internationally, with the promise that distance is no barrier in
obtaining a high quality education (Leung & Waters, 2013; Waters & Leung, 2013). Eaton et al.
(2011), provide one such example, linking 16 campuses with 200,000 students and 7,500 staff using
Second Life.
Despite continued optimism by educators and researchers across disciplines who see value in
virtual worlds due to their immersive nature and global reach, a range of challenges continue to
hamper their wider use. These challenges include the complexity of technology development, forced
updates by vendors, ongoing costs, and a reliance on grant fixed term funding. Vendor and clientside system functionality and structures are still plagued by high levels of uncertainty in development
cycles, as well as being complex and difficult to operate for non-technical users (Gupta et al., 2014).
Educators need to reuse skills and experiences and share strategies and resources in order to
remain responsive to the still emerging nature of 3D immersive virtual environments. It has been
argued that the community of practice around virtual worlds in education had done much along this
rd
path and that now is an opportune time to work toward the 3 generation of virtual world tools
(McDonald, Gregory, Farley, Harlim, Sim, & Newman, 2014). McDonald et al. demonstrated that
mitigating many of the issues stated above would allow virtual worlds to continue up Gartner’s Slope
of Enlightenment. This has indeed been the case in moving from the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ in
2013 (Lowendahl, 2013) to the ‘Slope of Enlightenment’ in 2014 (Lowendahl, 2014) and then
towards the ‘Plateau of Productivity’ in 2015 (Lowendahl, 2015).
Rapid growth in consumer technologies, wearable computing and the use of technologies to
facilitate creativity and innovation through the collaborative development of digital artefacts
(‘makerspaces’), combined with the on-going rapid expansion of game types, platforms, experiences
and media-convergence, compels educators to address the challenges, opportunities and potential
of 3D virtual environments for more effective use of blended learning approaches to facilitate flexible
learning in augmented spaces (Johnson et al., 2015).
Method
Members of the VWWG participated in an online survey focussed on changing audiences and
applications as well as the repurposing and reuse of 3D virtual and immersive learning resources. Of
the 183 members invited, a small sample of 30 (16%) completed the survey. The small sample size
of respondents is due to the specialised nature of this group. Demographics, including discipline and
audiences taught (student, staff or other) were also collected. The survey data was manually coded
into themes and then the NMC Report (Johnson et al., 2015) themes provided a lens through which
member responses, relating to how they are repurposing and reusing using 3D virtual and immersive
learning resources, could be analysed. These themes include: important developments in
educational technology in higher education; significant challenges impeding technology adoption in
higher education; and key trends in accelerating technology adoption in higher education. The
findings from the study are reported in the following section.
Findings
To provide an overview of how the members of the VWWG are using 3D virtual and immersive
learning resources, respondents were asked to provide information on the ways in which they have
been using these spaces (see Figure 1), and the disciplines of use (see Figure 2). Members were
able to nominate more than one way in which they were using 3D virtual and immersive technologies
FP:111
123
(see Figure 1). Research activities undertaken by educators were the main ways in which these
spaces were reported to be used by members of the VWWG, closely followed by simulations,
machinima, role-plays and presentations.
3%
2% 2%
1%
Research
Simulations
Machinima
Role-plays
Presentations
Virtual tours
Discussions
Game design
Virtual lectures
Virtual guest lectures
Career planning
Laboratory experiments
Other
Creative arts
15%
5%
5%
5%
14%
6%
8%
13%
10%
11%
Figure 1: Discipline and/or non-teaching areas being used
Ways in which 3D virtual and immersive environments are being used
To provide context, members were asked ways in which 3D and immersive environments were
being used at their institutions with respondents reporting a variety of ways. These responses are
clustered into four main themes including: the different types of learning and teaching pedagogies
incorporated into their learning, teaching and/or research spaces; the various types of learning and
teaching activities undertaken; the types of spaces created; and how they were used to interact with
others. Table 1 provides an outline of activities within each theme.
Table 1: Overview of ways VWWG members use 3D immersive environments
Pedagogical approaches used
Types of learning teaching activities
Creation of spaces/ teaching resources
Interaction with others
Transformative,
Teaching, training, discussion of
experiential
and learning materials, presentations,
contextual learning, assessment, role play, scenario
problem
solving, practice, treasure hunts, web
quests,
building,
scripting,
game-based
learning,
task- simulations, laboratory procedures,
based
learning, combining histories with actual site
integration
of reproductions, self and peer review
gamification
of performance, rapid prototyping,
phobia modelling and physiological
response tracking
Designing,
demonstration
of
business
models,
creating elements of
authentic learning that
enhances
situated
learning, collaborating
to create machinima,
developing resources
and
interactive
activities
Meetings,
remote
tutorials, community of
practice,
orientation,
resource
centre,
advertising,
international
events,
presentations, teaching
across
campuses,
career
development,
conferences,
socialising, research
In relation to the discipline (Figure 2), members of the VWWG reported that they were using 3D
virtual and immersive learning spaces (more than one discipline could be nominated) in education
(most often reported), health and business. Other responses included medicine, statistics, climate
change, health and safety training, multimedia, film, information systems, orientation and
engineering. The disciplines in which members reported that they least use these spaces, including
“other”, were history, law, visual and performing arts, information technology, tourism and pharmacy,
with no responses from hospitality, indicating that it was not being used by any of the current
members of the VWWG who completed the survey.
FP:112
124
2%
2%
2%
3%
3% 3%
2% 2%
25%
3%
5%
5%
5%
6%
16%
11%
6%
Education
Other
Health
Business
Science
Art
Engineering
Languages
Sociology
Architecture
Construction
Social and Behavioural Studies
History
Law
Visual and Performing Arts
Tourism
Pharmacy
Hospitality
Figure 2: Disciplines in which VWWG members are teaching using 3D immersive virtual
environments
Teaching audiences
Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of staff, students or other (which included
users outside their institution) who were their teaching audience/s. Table 2 provides an overview,
indicating that the largest audience was their students. Members were also asked to indicate if their
teaching audiences had changed from the past, with 31% indicating that they had. The majority,
69%, stated that they were still using 3D virtual and immersive spaces the same as they had in the
past.
Table 2: Teaching audience and type of variation
Type
of
audience
teaching
Percentage
Teaching audience different from the
past
Percentag
e
Staff
15%
Yes
31%
Students
Other
59%
26%
No
69%
As indicated in Table 2, the audience reported by the majority of respondents is students, followed
by colleagues, then professional staff through collegiate and global connections facilitated by
specific projects. Students enrolled in courses utilising 3D and immersive technologies include a
mixture of undergraduate and postgraduates, including PhD candidates, as well as those studying at
TAFE, or pathway students who are undertaking enabling courses. There has been a focus in some
institutions on offering training for workers within industry groups (for example in the mining and
construction sector for health and safety training).
Change of audience
VWWG members who indicated that their teaching audiences had changed in the past year were
asked to explain why this change had occurred. Respondents stated that they were now doing
things differently, with little work with students directly, their research had been completed, or the
uptake from other staff had not occurred. However, others felt their audiences had expanded
because the use of 3D virtual worlds was no longer limited to communication or visiting places.
These virtual environments now offer enhanced interactivity and authenticity. Consistent with NMC
report findings (Johnson et al., 2015), flipped classrooms and blended learning are being used more
extensively enabling a more flexible approach to learning and teaching. Several other members
stated that their audiences had extended in reach beyond their normal disciplinary field. Others
reported the use of these environments to facilitate community engagement, such as projects
involving students with disabilities and those with chronic illnesses, seeking to enhance the social
and communication skills of these groups.
Repurposing or reusing 3D virtual and immersive learning objects and environments
VWWG members were also asked to indicate how they were repurposing or reusing 3D virtual and
immersive environments. Their responses were able to be categorised using NMC 2015 themes
(Johnson et al., 2015).
‘Makerspaces’
FP:113
125
In a design and technology education context, the use of SketchUp as a virtual environment has not
only enabled the visualisation of designs in a 3D form, but also in combination with other
geographical technologies such as Google Earth, to develop and model designs. A virtual 3D
modelling capability is cost effective as certain design problems can be modeled virtually with no
resources being used. In recent years, the reduction in the cost of 3D additive and subtractive
manufacturing technologies has enabled designers to take that next step in the design process and
realise their design prototypes and has made these technologies, such as 3D printers, very
accessible. This growing area of interest is again consistent with the NMC report’s predictions that
the use of technologies to facilitate innovation and creative skills through ‘Makerspace’ environments
are likely to gain greater traction within the coming year (Johnson et al., 2015).
Cross-institutional collaboration and open education resources
Collaboratively, Australian and New Zealand universities’ colleagues are exploring ways in which to
share resources. As the textbooks and curriculum of the New Zealand students are slightly different
from those in Australia, members are looking to re-purpose existing virtual resources for use with
other institutions’ materials, as well as make their pedagogical materials available for use.
Resources have been developed for creating, sharing and storing ‘learning objects’. This is in line
with NMCs long-term trend of increasing cross-institutional collaboration (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 2).
3D models off the rack are often purchased when possible. For construction, this is possible, but
much more difficult in specialised fields such as pharmaceutical science. Many members access
material in Second Life that has been created by other colleagues around the world. There is a vast
resource pool which is easy to find and use rather than resorting to continually creating new
artefacts. Using these tools makes it easier for students to understand the systems when they see
them in operation. Other members have created their own resources to share across various virtual
worlds. Often, the resources/objects/environments are completely self-contained, sometimes
including the use of Heads Up Display (HUD). Many objects purchased from other creators have
come with limited IP rights that are manifest in restrictive permissions assigned to 3D objects, raising
barriers to sharing. An alternative is to recreate each object from scratch to ensure that there are no
IP right issues, however this is labour intensive and inefficient. But, at the same time, this is the only
alternative in some cases.
Many members report that they are not sharing their simulation work even though general 3D virtual
spaces have been created from existing resources and many are utilising open and free objects
within Second Life to construct larger builds. Assets created within Second Life for clinical education
and role-playing spaces have, to some degree, been packed up and then reused for projects of
similar need. However this has proved difficult and inefficient. This is especially so when virtual land
has been unfunded or closed. Builds using open platforms (such as OpenSim) rather than in closed
eco systems (such as Second Life) allow packing of objects in inventory archive (IAR) files or whole
sims in OpenSim archive (OAR) files, which are then are placed online for others to download and
use. Increasing cross-institutional collaboration and extending sharing of resources and pedagogical
practices are similarly identified in the NMC report (Johnson et al., 2015) as global trends, which
pose significant challenges, hence the report’s prediction that achievement of such goals may still be
five or more years away. 3D scanned objects can be created for reuse; for example, authentic
spaces can recreate the shape and surface markings of an Egyptian tomb so that scanned objects
can be placed within it, providing further context for excavation techniques and object descriptions.
Teaching complex thinking and creative problem solving
The NMC 2015 report (Johnson et al., 2015) suggests that the teaching of complex thinking will
become increasingly important in the next two-three years. Although the NMC report describes
complex thinking as beyond creative problem solving and decision making, suggesting complex
thinking will require graduates who are able to manage ‘big data’ and be able to take advantage of
the latest tools and techniques to solve complex problems and influence systemic change, several
VWWG members report using 3D virtual and immersive environments to foster critical thinking,
creative problem solving and clinical decision making. Multiple sources of information such as
patient case history, blood test results, ECG, radiology information (such as MRI, CT or ultrasound
images, etc) are being used for clinical decision-making. Students make informed decisions by
selecting the correct objects in the right sequence. The clinical tutor is available to assess/challenge
student knowledge and understanding. Students are located all across the continent so the virtual
meeting space is ideal.
FP:114
126
Machinima is being utilised to support learning in areas as diverse as law, accounting, pre-service
teacher education and climate-related decision making. Machinima, using techniques akin to film or
television shows (including detailed set dressing, multiple camera angles and post production sound
effects), can be utilised to depict complex and engaging narratives for learning. When combined with
simulated documents they are capable of creating immersive environments which is an important
success factor in online and technology-based learning. Students are inspired to learn by such
environments because they are involved in authentic tasks such as negotiation, interpretation of
documents and evaluation of evidence, and can appreciate the relevance of what they are studying
to their future careers. Moreover, unlike clinical programs, such learning environments are scalable
and can offer the same realistic learning experiences for large cohorts of students, regardless of
mode of study. It is a cost effective alternative to real world video for educators in the context of
limited financial support for development of multimedia resources. Machinima produced by students
as evidence of learning can be curated and used as exemplars or resources. Machinima tasks have
a real world focus with activities that closely replicate those undertaken by professionals in practice.
Existing resources are also being reused for language learning and teaching purposes in Second
Life. Objects can be adapted for language practice. Second Life still has the largest community of
language learners and volunteers. The use of VWWGs for language learning provides students with
the opportunity to communicate and collaborate with peers globally while also fostering their ability to
use language in ways that support critical thinking in authentic contexts.
Convergence of wearable computers and consumer technologies
The NMC report (Johnson et al., 2015) predicts that wearable technology will see significant growth
in the coming year and will increasingly be applied in higher education. Several VWWG respondents
reported that they already utilise wearable technology in their teaching and research. In particular,
the use of the Oculus Rift has been used to immerse students and/or staff during training and
professional development sessions.
The current trend in teaching in 3D immersive virtual environments has been through the integration
of gamification; i.e. the distinction of gamification and serious gaming and how this can be
represented in virtual 3D environments. Serious gaming enables the modeling of complex bodily
functions and for players to explore within the confines of game mechanics. Students appreciate a
well-designed simulation that is both fun and also assists them to build knowledge in an assessable
area. Game design is important when gamifying online interactions; however, finding the best
solution to encourage site exploration and deep learning is difficult. By using game engines, many
assets created outside of those environments can be easily shared. The languages used to drive
most 3D engines are similar if not the same. 3D immersive virtual environments have been used for
refinement via the introduction of a few new mechanisms for engagement. Consideration of how the
spaces are revitalised to allow more independent engagement whilst still providing meaningful
scaffolding and feedback via automated mechanisms has been explored. Many existing virtual
worlds have the potential to be converted to be more game-like as a simulation. NMC reported the
relevance of gamifying learning for students (Johnson, et al., 2015).
Teacher education – transference of skills across platforms
The virtual world of Twinity has been used to ascertain whether skills that are learned in Second Life
and activities that had been used there could be transferred to another virtual world. In terms of the
social presence of virtual worlds that helps to support first year transition, Twinity was very
successful. Part of what has been tested was the difference between synchronous meetings in a
virtual world and those held via webinar software with students. As both were done via typed chat
rather than voice, there was a distinct similarity in method of learning and teaching, but the webinar
did not have the same visual impact as the virtual world. Students commented both in chat and
evaluations about the positive interactivity of Twinity. Sim-on-a-Stick has been used in primary
schools to demonstrate to pre-service teachers that it was possible to use the technology in the
school environment. In so doing, sharing of objects and environments between primary school
students and schools takes place. Primary school builds were taken into the virtual world to create a
learning space for pre-service teachers so they could see what was possible for children to produce
and learn to build.
Research
FP:115
127
Much research has been undertaken in 3D immersive environments and here we provide just some
examples of what members of the VWWG have used them for. One research study relates to the
use of virtual environments by young people who have Autism Spectrum Disorder, particularly in
terms of developing their socialisation skills. The Virtual Lab is premised on developing both social
skills and personal interests in technology, so the platforms used vary considerably. The most
common 3D immersive environment used is Minecraft, especially by the younger groups, with older
groups using Unity 3D, Unreal or other 3D game engines, as well as specialist game creation tools
such as Sploder, Game Maker and RPG maker. Lab mentors (who are programmers and designers)
help participants create their own games and develop both social and coding skills. 3D virtual worlds
are used as learning tools for improving socialisation and IT skills rather than for their own sake as
teaching environments. Some of the software being used, such as iSee, does not provide sharable
objects with the exception of maps, which can be shared. This is the concept of combining
entrenched technology (e.g. webcam conferencing) with more recent technology (e.g. 3D virtual
environments). This allows users to obtain a greater sensory experience by feeling more engaged
with other participants (Safaei et al., 2014). Research in the area of intercultural competence and
study abroad suggests that students benefit more if they have prior experiential learning to raise
awareness of their world-views and identities. Second Life is proving to be a very useful tool for this
as it challenges assumptions and stereotypes, highlighting ways of communicating and developing
resilience, critical reflection and deep learning. Research is the backbone of the NMC report
(Johnson et al., 2015) and the VWWG community continue researching to ensure that they have the
evidence to support their findings.
Challenges and how they have been overcome
The NMC report (Johnson et al., 2015) documents several challenges facing educators over the
coming five years and beyond. These challenges include blending formal and informal learning and
adapting to the convergence of a range of technologies, digital literacy, teaching complex thinking
and competing models of education. Several of these challenges are evident in the responses from
the VWWG community documented in this section.
One of the major challenges reported by members has been the cost of purchasing and developing
the 3D immersive virtual environments and keeping up with the shifting landscape. These challenges
have not yet been overcome in all institutions. With some institutions, central support and technical
problems remain the most significant problem and without grant money, development is almost
impossible. The level of digital literacy of students remains a significant problem also, making offcampus use of 3D immersive virtual environments more work, as different pedagogical approaches
require exploration. Access for students remains a key issue where not all students have quality
Internet access. At this stage it is not possible to make virtual world engagement compulsory in
courses for that reason. However, some participation is compulsory where computer technology can
be guaranteed, such as for on-campus students or students outside the campus who have the
required technology.
Software based on a Cube 2 engine, and developed by an independent group of educators has also
been used, though development and support for this software has been haphazard at best. The
limitations of the program often remain unaddressed, despite a large user community. These
limitations include the lack of a truly web-based platform for delivery. Other platforms have been
explored as a means of achieving the same outcome, such as Minecraft, but the compromises
required, including sacrificing authentic surface-mapping for game-play, seem difficult to overcome.
General recognition that virtual worlds have a place in higher education has been a challenge for
members of the VWWG. Virtual world affordances and advantages have not been well articulated.
There is also a general impression that virtual worlds (as associated with Second Life) are ‘done’
and ‘last year’s news’. This may not have been helped by the extreme over hyping of virtual worlds.
There is still a perception that virtual worlds are in the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’ to the point they
are a ‘dirty word’ in some areas. Last year’s move up the Slope of Enlightenment (Lowendahl, 2014)
does not seem to have filtered through and bolstered popular perception of virtual worlds in
education. There is currently a lack of recognition by university management in wanting to fund any
work in this area. One of the initial challenges was skepticism about the value of using virtual worlds.
However, once used for a while, people were able to see why they were beneficial. There has been
FP:116
128
a lack of support from many institutions and pre-conceived ideas from students and staff about the
value of virtual worlds in relation to teaching and learning. Sometimes this has included constant
restructuring and downsizing, which made it difficult to build alliances and partnerships with
colleagues in the area of education technology innovation. This has been overcome by working
largely outside institutions.
External scripters and modellers have been hired to do a lot of work to develop some virtual
environments. The costs involved are often high and have limited what can be done. To overcome
this, members have undertaken to learn as much about these areas as possible so that there is
flexibility to continually develop new ideas, new projects and to optimise current virtual resources.
Some items that could be used as part of learning and teaching needs can be purchased readymade from the Second Life market, but they are often only able to fulfill part of specific needs and
therefore need to be modified. Sometimes these objects can lack the permissions necessary to carry
out modifications. These types of items also cannot be transferred to other virtual world platforms
such as OpenSim. More often than not, members have developed these items themselves, or where
funding is available, people have been hired to develop them.
Barriers and/or enablers for sharing and/or reuse of 3D virtual world objects/environments
Familiarity with a virtual environment can be both an enabler and barrier for object sharing. Those
who use the same 3D engines are more likely to do more sharing than developers using a different
platform. Object formats, such as those used in 3D animation programs, need to be standardised in
the same way as audio, graphic and video files. The following list identifies enablers and barriers for
sharing or reusing 3D virtual world objects and/or environments. The list of barriers is much more
substantive than the enablers.
Enablers
Members valued that free objects are available in virtual worlds such as Second Life and OpenSim
and that creators of these objects are willing to share. Many objects purchased in these
environments, either for free or for a small fee, are provided with permission to enable these objects
to be reused or modified. Members also value world-editing software that enables cut-and-paste
operations or 3D volumetric object creation between worlds. These digital assets can also be
exported easily and saved as single files, including entire worlds. The availability of more open
systems providing mechanisms for sharing objects within and beyond given grids or networks is
valued. The virtual world community collaborates and shares common teaching and learning tools,
often due to being open source. Mailing lists alert educators as to who may have objects available
for reuse.
Being part of the virtual world community helps educators with regards to sharing virtual world
objects, within networks such as the VWWG. Communities of practice have been established and
connected outside virtual worlds, such as via blogs and social media, and even attending
conferences in person is highly valued. An increase in the quantity and quality of research
completed and reported by virtual world educators is an enabler, and finding someone who is willing
to mentor has always been valued by VWWG members.
One of the biggest enablers is the increasing power of mobile technologies in making virtual worlds
accessible to more people than ever before. This makes virtual world education highly
mobile/portable and accessible.
Barriers
Unfortunately, many barriers remain to repurposing and reusing 3D virtual objects and
environments. The reasons are myriad and many are presented here. Potential users are often
unaware of what is available to modify and reuse. Some users are still unwilling to share their
objects and/or environments. Many objects are of poor quality or are unable to be modified. While
many ready-made items may be suitable for use in educational scenarios, they often lack the rights
to be transferred to other platforms or even shared with other educators on the same platform. Often
creators who offer their items for sale in, for example, Second Life, are not willing to customise their
items for more focused educational use or to allow transfer to other platforms. This rigidity means
that items cannot be used and have to be created from scratch. Sometimes, when a world/space
disappears, the assets go with it because the user was unable to save a copy from the designer.
FP:117
129
Time was reported by many members as a major barrier, such as a lack of time to search available
resources in virtual worlds, a lack of time to train staff in the practice of using the virtual world. Also,
there is still a lack of common infrastructure, language and repositories for sharing. Some members
also felt that being able to ‘sell’ things in Second Life for ‘real money’ may actually provide a barrier
to sharing. Facilitating cross-institutional sharing of resources are considered more challenging
barriers to overcome in the longer term, anticipating this process may take more than five years to
resolve (Johnson et al., 2015).
Integration of scripts from different objects has been seen as a barrier. Scripts on objects function
well within specific objects, but shared communication between objects relies on overall similar
communication strategies.
The major issue with the virtual world of Second Life is it is a closed system, i.e. objects are not
likely to be exported to other systems. Therefore, more developments have a single purpose and
functionality. Scripts could be used in other objects, however it was not straightforward and
management is very limited. Without an established user-base or support community, development
of a 3D immersive world can easily get bogged down in the need to solve multiple small problems.
Having an easy way to distribute the world online can quickly indicate whether it was truly viable as a
means of doing effective online learning. However, it was felt that both closed (Second Life) and
open (OpenSim) virtual worlds still require considerable technical skill to use/build and so are
beyond the practical reach of many academics without investing considerable time in learning the
technical details. This is a medium-term priority consistent with the NMC report’s anticipated more
widespread adoption and acceptance of the sharing of open resources within the next three to four
years.
There is general public perception that virtual words are predominantly for gaming rather than
education. Some members felt that students should be encouraged to develop virtual worlds using
gaming techniques. Getting talented developers has always been seen as a barrier and users need
to identify others with sufficient levels of skill to undertake the various tasks individuals have in mind.
This has been difficult, both from the perspective of availability and interest, and also cost.
Institutional barriers have been discussed for many years. Members are still frustrated that many of
the barriers have not been removed over time. These continuing barriers include the cost to the
average consumer in terms of time and money; inappropriate infrastructure by having only one lab in
the whole institution set up to run virtual worlds; security/firewall issues; locked down
hardware/systems on campus; an ‘off the shelf’ policy from the management of IT support services
who just want to ‘buy the license’ to solve pedagogical/technical/ procedural issues; centralised
training, knowledge and financial support; lack of funding and foresight; and an inability to think
outside of the box.
One major institutional barrier reported by many respondents was that it was difficult to get virtual
worlds accepted alongside other online learning environments within their institutions. Institution
level understanding and support to develop ‘mainstream’ approaches was required. It was also
difficult to get other faculty members involved and obtaining the continuing support of management.
Recognition and support for the specific values/affordances of virtual worlds were required. The
NMC report describes the challenge of providing appropriate reward and recognition for educators
undertaking innovative learning and teaching as one of the ‘wicked problems’ on the horizon to be
addressed in the longer term.
Some respondents felt that promoting machinima as an alternative to traditional videos for
presenting messages and aiding decision-making was a way of overcoming many of the barriers to
using virtual worlds within their institutions. Many academics could use machinima as an alternate
method to using a virtual world with their students yet still provide the immersive experience that
these 3D environments offer. By the use of machinima, convincing some colleagues of the value of
such learning environments, when they have personal ideologies that do not embrace such
methods, may be easier.
Conclusions
A concerted national push to raise the profile of the 3D immersive virtual world use in tertiary
education is needed - it appears that knowledge and awareness of the potential is not yet being
realised despite the recognition by Gartner and a move to the Slope of Enlightenment (Lowendahl,
FP:118
130
2015). There are new hardware and software platforms being developed constantly that provide new
and potentially more flexible environments in which educators can create even richer and more
streamlined educational experiences. With the popularity of 3D virtual environment platforms for
younger users, and more importantly, the growing recognition by their parents of the potential uses
of 3D virtual environments, the future should see growing numbers of tertiary students who have
literally grown up using virtual worlds of one kind or another. As existing platforms are refined and
new ones developed based on the experience of developing and using existing platforms, it will
become easier and easier for non-expert educators to develop the kinds of environments and
activities suitable for their specific teaching needs. The reputation of virtual worlds in general
appears to be improving over time as a diverse range of platforms and uses are being developed
that are attracting a more mainstream audience.
Despite the ups and downs of virtual worlds in education over the last few years, they continue to be
used in a variety of ways across a range of disciplines and research into their use for a whole range
of end purposes has continued unabated until now. The results of the survey indicate there are
many changes in the ways in which members are now using virtual worlds for learning and teaching.
Within the context of higher education, the use of virtual worlds is still a relatively new and emerging
area and the results of the survey indicate a continually shifting and settling within pedagogical
practices, institutional support, academic and student attitude, perceived effort versus result and the
affordances of specific platforms. Virtual worlds are part of the technology in education continuum,
however there remains an ongoing persistence and resilience by educators integrating virtual worlds
in teaching practices, despite the challenges. In keeping with the NMC 2015 reported themes,
members of the VWWG felt that development/reuse/repurpose of virtual environments in higher
education are important, there are still significant challenges impeding technology adoption and have
outlined key trends in accelerating technology adoption in higher education. Further data needs to
be collected internationally to expand on and confirm these results.
References
Beebe, M. (2010). Virtual learning. Creative Nursing, (3), 99.
Brom, C., Šisler, V., & Slavík, R. (2010). Implementing digital game-based learning in schools:
augmented learning environment of “Europe 2045.” Multimedia Systems, 16(1), 23–41.
Callaghan, M. J., McCusker, K., Losada, J. L., Harkin, J., & Wilson, S. (2013). Using game-based
learning in virtual worlds to teach electronic and electrical engineering. Industrial Informatics,
IEEE Transactions on, 9(1), 575–584.
Charles, D., Charles, T., McNeill, M., Bustard, D., Black, M. (2011). Game-based feedback for
educational multi-user virtual environments. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 42(4),
638–654.
De Mers, M. N. (2012). Second Life as a surrogate for experiential learning. In M. Thomas (Ed.),
Design, implementation, and evaluation of virtual learning environments, 77–92.
Eaton, L. J., Guerra, M., Corliss, S., & Jarmon, L., (2011). A statewide university system (16
campuses) creates collaborative learning communities in Second Life, Educational Media
International, 48, 43–53.
Gregory, S., Dalgarno, B., Campbell, M., Reiners, T., Knox, V., & Masters, Y. (2011). Changing directions
through VirtualPREX: Engaging pre-service teachers in virtual professional experience. In G. Williams,
N. Brown, M. Pittard, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th ASCILITE Conference. Hobart,
Australia: University of Tasmania. Retrieved
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs/GregoryS-full.pdf.
Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012a). Comparison of role-plays in a virtual world. In P. Jerry, Y.
Masters, & N. Tavares-Jones (Eds.), Utopia and a garden party: Experiential learning in virtual
worlds, 45–56. Oxford, United Kingdom: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
Gregory, S., & Masters, Y. (2012b). Real thinking with virtual hats: A role-playing activity for preservice teachers in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(Special
issue, 3), 420–440.
Gupta, M., Jin, S., Sanders, G. L., Sherman, B. A., & Simha, A. (2014). Virtual Worlds: A Review. In
M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Inventive approaches for technology integration and information
resources management, 162–212. Hershey, PA.
Herold, D. K. (2009). Virtual Education: Teaching media studies in Second Life. Journal of Virtual
Worlds Research, 2(1). https://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/380/454.
FP:119
131
Huber, E., & Blount, Y. (2014). Second life for assessing postgraduate learning: Student
Perspectives. In S. Kennedy-Clark, K. Everett, & P. Wheeler (Eds.) Cases on the assessment of
scenario and game-based virtual worlds in higher education, 36–73. Hershey, PA.
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.
Jarmon, L. (2012). Homo Virtualis: Virtual worlds, learning, and an ecology of embodied interaction. In
M. Thomas (Ed.), Design, implementation, and evaluation of virtual learning environments, 58–76.
Hershey, PA.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC horizon report: 2015
higher education edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Lee, P. D. (2009). Using Second Life to teach operations management. Journal of Virtual Worlds
Research, 2(1), https://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/431/464.
Leung, S., Virwaney, S., Lin, F., Armstrong, A., & Dubbelboer, A. (2013). TSI-enhanced pedagogical
agents to engage learners in virtual worlds. International Journal of Distance Education
Technologies (IJDET), 11(1), 1–13.
Leung, M. H., & Waters, J. (2013). British degrees made in Hong Kong: an enquiry into the role of
space and place in transnational education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14, 43–53.
Lowe, C., & Clark, M. A. (2008). Student perceptions of learning in a virtual world. Proceedings of
the 24th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved
from http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/08_13442.pdf.
Lowendahl, J-M. (2013). Hype Cycle for Education, 2013. Report G00251104, 25 July. Gartner Inc,
http://www.frankiejackson.net/uploads/2/1/1/6/21168820/hype_cycle_for_education_201_251104
.pdf.
Lowendahl, J-M. (2014). Hype Cycle for Education, 2014. Report G00263196, 23 July. Gartner
Inc, http://www85.homepage.villanova.edu/timothy.ay/TOP3090/hype_cycle_for_education.pdf.
Lowendahl, J-M. (2015). Hype Cycle for Education, 2015 Report G00277499, 8 July, Gartner Inc
McDonald, M., Gregory, S., Farley, H., Harlim, J., Sim, J., & Newman, C. (2014). Coming of the third
wave: A move toward best practice, user defined tools and mainstream integration for virtual
worlds in education. In B. Hegarty, J. McDonald, & S.-K. Loke (Eds.), Rhetoric and Reality:
Critical perspectives on educational technology. Proceedings ascilite Dunedin 2014 (pp. 161–
170).
Neuendorf, P., & Simpson, C. (2010). Redesigning role-plays for a virtual world in health education.
In Z. A. et Al (Ed.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific (pp. 3546–3550). AACE.
Pereira, A. M., Martins, P., Morgado, L., & Fonseca, B. (2009). A virtual environment study in
entrepreneurship education of young children. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research,
2(1), https://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/article/view/406/459.
Price, C. (2011). The path between pedagogy and technology: Establishing a theoretical basis for
the development of educational game environments. In Gaming and Simulations: Concepts,
Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 273–295). Hershey, PA: doi:10.4018/978-1-60960195-9.ch117.
Safaei, F., Pourashraf, P., & Franklin, D. (2014). Large-scale immersive video conferencing by
altering video quality and distribution based on the virtual context, Communications Magazine,
IEEE, 52, 66–72.
Slator, B., M., & Chaput, H. (1996). Learning by learning roles: A virtual role-playing environment for
tutoring. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Third international conference on
intelligent tutoring systems (Vol. 1086, pp. 668–676). Berlin, German: Springer-Verlag.
Teoh, J. (2012). Pre-service teachers in second life: Potentials of simulations. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, (4), 415.
Toro-Troconis, M., Roberts, N., Smith, S., & Partridge, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions about
delivery of game-based learning for virtual patients in Second Life. In N. Zagalo, L. Morgado, & A.
Boa-Ventura (Eds.) Virtual worlds and metaverse platforms: New communication and identity
paradigms, 138–148 (2012). Hershey, PA.
Vrasidas, C., & Solomou, M. (2013). Using educational design research methods to examine the
affordances of online games for teacher learning. Educational Media International, 50(3), 192–
205.
Waters, J., & Leung, M. (2013). A colourful university life? Transnational higher education and the
spatial dimensions of institutional social capital in Hong Kong, Population, Space and Place. 19,
155–167.
FP:120
132
Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Wood, D., O’Connell, J., Grant, S., …, & Irving, L. (2015). New applications,
new global audiences: Educators repurposing and reusing 3D virtual and immersive learning
resources. In T. Reiners, B.R. von Konsky, D. Gibson, V. Chang, L. Irving, & K. Clarke (Eds.), Globally
connected, digitally enabled. Proceedings ascilite 2015 in Perth (pp. FP:109- FP:121).
Note: All published papers are refereed, having undergone a double-blind peer-review process.
The author(s) assign a Creative Commons by attribution licence enabling others
to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon their work, even commercially, as
long as credit is given to the author(s) for the original creation.
FP:121
133