The prefect mix: Designing the best virtual environment for immersive learning

ETEC 511
Wong, Ka Wai (Alice)
Overview

This is an exploratory paper aimed to discuss elements that contributes to

successful learning in virtual environment. In particular, this paper examines the

technical component, pedagogical views and users perspectives that may serve as key

factors for successful learning in a virtual environment (VE). Virtual environment

(VE) is defined as a virtual space where individuals have a specific role or task. Given

the advance in modern technology, there has been limited review to consider the

technical and the pedagogical aspects that contributes to successful learning and

engagements in a virtual environment.

Theme and argument

Assessing variables that influence learning in virtual environments (VE) is a

recent topic in educational technology. Currently, scholars are investigating the

factors that positively contribute to learning in virtual reality space. Wang, Patrina &

Feng (2015) noted that specific technical components (i.e. chatbot and time machine)

predict an increase of user interactions in a virtual immersive language-learning

environment. Ibanez et. al (2011) also found similar positive correlations between the

use of chatbots and language learning. Mishra and Koehler (2006) suggest that

educators have to mindfully integrate knowledge of technology in their pedagogy in

order to use technological tools effectively. Additionally, user experience also

contributes to successful learning in virtual worlds. More specifically, user will

engage more when they feel that their environment is real and authentic (Wang,

Patrina & Feng 2015). Users’ perspective about the software’s usefulness also

positive correlates to the amount of participation (Chow 2016). Learning happens

more effectively when users are fully immersed in the VE.

The argument

This paper attempts to engage readers in a thoughtful discussion about

implications of virtual reality in education and to analysis the possible factors that

contributes to the effectiveness of content delivery through virtual reality. Effective

learning happens when VE designers includes specific technological components,

consider game-based inquiry learning and promote authenticity. VE designers should

consider these three key aspects when designing a virtual learning space.

Technological component that enables feedback is often correlated with successful

learning in VE. When integration is pedagogical founded, users are more engaged.

Additionally, users’ perspective of authentic learning experience also determines how

they interact with the targeted content.

The background

Analyzing the components to make virtual learning environment (VE)

effective is a relatively new field of research. Limited studies provide comprehensive

review of successful VE designs. To ensure better more effective learning experience

in VE, this essay aims to review current literature about variables that fosters learning

in virtual worlds. There are many technical components that enhance users’ learning.

Some include interactive artifacts such as chatbots or scenario based tools such as

time machine. Kim & Ke (2015) suggests that transformative information also plays a

key role in encouraging communication between virtual participants. Others thought

that activities that encourage experimenting and role-playing not otherwise possible in

reality are key contributors to a successful learning experience (Wang, Patrina & Feng
2015). Chow (2016) suggests that competent users’ online presence will be enhance if

they perceive the software is easy to use and is useful.

Current successfully pedagogy follows the TPCK framework. More

specifically, game-based inquiry VE learning offers a unique perspective about online

learning. Interestingly, game-based inquiry learning outperform normal classroom in

regards to conceptual understanding of chemistry (Chee & Tan 2012). The

researchers claimed that the intervention program was successful because the VE

offered a space for students to experiment and to apply chemistry knowledge and

skills. They also argue that a balance of first person and third person experience

enhance learning experience (Chee & Tan 2012). Through the use of game-based

learning, students were able to implicitly obtain essential knowledge (Chee & Tan

2012). Similarly, Vrellis, Avouris and Mikropoulos (2016) argue that problem-based

learning also promotes positive learning outcomes that equate to learning in the

classroom. Furthermore, augmented reality (AR) provides a similar avenue to deliver

content. Similar to VE, AR offers designers to add layers to users’ environments. In

summary all of these components contributes to the success of content learning.

Technical considerations

The use of digital learning artifacts such as chatbot in VE has been positively

received. In particular, chatbot acts as a source of knowledge users can refer to and or

a guide to help navigate the virtual world. The positive reception of the use of chatbot

was found in many VE studies. Some researchers use chatbot “to transmit information

to the students by simulating typical Spanish people conversation. Chatbots encourage

students to approach them when their avatars in their surroundings, once done
chatbots perform interactive dialogues with the student. These behaviors contribute to

the acquisition of listening and writing skills in our Spanish learning environment”

(Blanca Ibáñez et. al. 2011, p.7). In Wang, Patrina & Feng’s (2015) study, they found

that the presence of a chatbot and time machine positively correlates with VE

participation. The wise chemist in Chee & Tan’s 2012 experiment is also a useful

resource to refer to when student require additional knowledge to solve problems.

One may also notice that besides chatbot, there is often a way to be exposed to

novel and or impossible scenarios. Here users are expose to opportunities that may

not otherwise be possible. In Wang, Patrina & Feng (2015), these were ‘time

machine’ (i.e. a device to transport you to new place) to practiced language skills. In

another study, students were able to role-play as a restaurant server to practice

fraction computations (Kim & Ke 2016). In Chee & Tan’s lab, users are confronted

with chemistry problems in a fictional town Alkhimia. In order to survive and proceed

to the next level, users have to utilize their knowledge about separating liquids in

order produce ammunition for a weapon to escape a dangerous laboratory. In another

example, students are situated in Madrid and are asked to use their Spanish

knowledge in order to find The Prado Museum (Blanca Ibáñez et. al. 2011). Together,

all of these scenarios are impossible or difficult to attain in real life. Hence, designers’

ingenuity to develop intricate and imaginative narratives in VE is essential helps

support user’s learning.

Another key element that determines the success learning in VE is an

experimental space independent of the narrative. Most visibly, in Chee & Tan’s lab,

students can experiment with different chemicals in a safe environment. Quite

possibly, it is in the failure of these experimentations that students acquire new

knowledge. Likewise, Kim & Ke (2016)’s also offers a designated space (i.e. text

chat) for students to collaboratively work out their mathematical thinking and

verbalize their cognition. “Through virtual activity-oriented mathematical

communication, students can be encouraged to externalize, refine, and better develop

their mathematical thinking” (Kim & Ke 2016, p.165). Perhaps this is similar to what

some researchers like Blanca Ibáñez were referring to, the need “to provide natural

text chatting with non-player characters, textual tagging of virtual objects, automatic

reading of texts in learning sequences and the orchestration of learning activities to

foster collaboration” (Ibáñez et.al. 2011, p.2). Although mostly based on self-reports

and interviews, these results imply that these digital learning artifacts benefit users

and should be part of the starting toolkit for developers when designing new virtual

worlds for education.

Pedagogical Foundations

Given the previous discussion about the positive impact of specific digital

artifact such as chatbot, our next question is: do digital artifacts alone contribute to a

successful learning experience through virtual environments? This section provides an

overview of the implication of the pedagogical approaches in VE.

“What is dangerous is not technology. There is no demory of technology, but rather

there is a mystery of its essence.” (Heidegger 1977). Heidegger wants to emphasize

the importance of the mindful use of technology. Mishra and Koehler (2006) also

echo Heidegger’s ideas. “The incorporation of a new technology or new medium for

teaching suddenly forces [educators] to confront basic educational issues because the
new technology or medium reconstructs the dynamic equilibrium among all three

elements” (Mishra & Koehler 2006, p.1030). Mishra claims that the Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) provides a detail framework about how

technological knowledge needs to be fully intergraded with our pedagogical and

content knowledge. Despite VE as a novel teaching tool, good teaching is still

dependent of purposeful integration of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge

(Mishra & Koehler 2006).

As discussed, learning happens beyond drill and practice. When Vrellis,

Avouris, Mikropoulos (2016) compared learning in the VE and PBL based scenario,

contrary to their initial hypothesis, they found no statistic significant between the

groups that employ the same activity in a real or virtual place. This demonstrates the

importance of choosing appropriate pedagogical perspectives. Analyzing the current

VE research, most studies are grounded in constructivism. Students are often placed

in situations (i.e. situated learning) and asked to actively use learned information and

skills to solve problems and complete tasks. To demonstrate, Chee & Tan (2012)’s

game-based inquiry study supports that the conceptual competency of chemistry

arises from the student’s need to fully understand key information highlighted through

the game. The experimental group outperformed the control group in conceptual

understanding and effectiveness of separation task in high school chemistry. Thus, it

appears that many successful techniques are related to a game based or problem base

inquiry model of learning. In most cases, students participate in situated learning with

opportunities of cooperative/collaborative learning (Blanca Ibáñez et.al 2011).

 With closer examination, Chee & Tan (2012) attribute the success of their

program to the interplay of first person and third person perspective. The significant

here is that learning by virtually performing task in first person perspective –

embodying experience – is vital to acquiring scientific knowledge. When users are

shown the first person perspective, time in VE becomes experiential learning. More

specifically, the interplay of first person and third person perspective fosters

conceptual understanding.

Social learning is also an important aspect of constructivism (Discroll 2011).

In the previous discussion, distributed cognition aids learners to work cooperatively to

reach a learning goal outlined in VE. Consider Girvan & Savage’s (2010) Communal

Constructivist pedagogy for VE. The researchers highlights six key strengths of

communal constructivist pedagogy: “interaction with the environment to construct

knowledge; active collaboration; engagement in knowledge construction; publishing

of knowledge; transfer of knowledge between groups; and a dynamic and adaptive

course” (Girvan & Savage 2010). These researchers found that the communal

constructivist nature of the virtual worlds encouraged the students to ‘better’ their

knowledge and pass on information to new groups (Girvan & Savage 2010). To gain

access to the museum in these virtual worlds, individual students only receive certain

pieces of information. Thus, forcing them to interact with other users in order to

exchange information. To fully harness the benefits of using VE for education, the

program should be constructive in nature, provide first person experiential learning

and offers collaborative learning opportunities.

Importance of users’ perspectives

 When consulting literature on the importance of users’ perspective, two key

findings emerged. First, authenticity of VE is important. Users have to believe it is

important to solve the task in immersive technology. User’s feelings of presences

have been widely studied (Vrellis, Avouris and Mikropoulos 2016). These researchers

argue that participant’s perception of presence is positively linked to their satisfaction

about the VE. Kim & Ke (2016) suggests that hints and feedback increased

opportunities to engage in content and hence promote active participation. Chee &

Tan (2012) reports that students were more confident as learners and that they

perceived themselves more like a scientist when they experienced the virtual lab.

Second, user computer competence and preference is also important. Some

users in were unsure how to navigate or orientate themselves in Madrid, however, the

social learning component allowed other users to help them get started(Ibáñez et. al.

2011). Chow (2016) found that the perceive ease of use of the VE predicts the amount

of engagement students have in VE.

Challenges in designing effective VE for learning

There are a few challenges that can inhibit the effective design of a VE for

learning. In particular, there are legal and moral issues at an individual and ecological

level. First, it takes time and money to develop VE games. These tools appear to

benefit only the schools that can afford it. However, current blended copyright and

copyleft help resolve stress of sharing cumulative and or open source software,

allowing better tools at an affordable advance products for VE designers (Vasudeva

2012). Instead of recreating technology with similar functions, designers can use and
embed pre-existing digital artifacts and programs. Thus, allowing these tools to be

more easily accessible for educators to share and use to achieve learning goals.

Besides legal issues, there are some moral issues involved. For example, since

the millennium is already immersed in the ‘technococoon’ (Rosen et. al. 2014), fun

learning programs also encourage online participation. With some age group,

exposure the use of media was positively correlated with ill health.

Physical and mental issues at an individual level should be considered before

proceeding to mandate the use of VE in education. For example, all VE learning

programs involve role-playing. Turkle(2004) cautions that some people perceive

“cyberspace [to be] a place to act out unresolved conflicts, [they use it [to play and

replay characterological difficulties on an exotic stage. For others, it provides an

opportunity work through significant personal issues, to use the new materials of

cyperbsociality to reach new resolutions” (Turkle 2004, p.22). Humans tend to “use

the virtual to reflect constructively on the real”(Turkle 2004, p.22). This can lead to

detrimental consequences and leads people away from the learning. Moreover, Turkle

(2004) also warns the dangers of relational artifacts. At times, chatbots can be

perceived as relational artifacts and people may develop tendencies to abuse this. On

a similar note, the companionship of a chatbot for learning resonates with the idea that

people “[lack] the capacity for solitude” (Turkle 2013). Combine with social learning,

VE for education suggests that independent learning is less valued in comparison to

collective learning. Furthermore, as global citizens, designers should customize VE

learning avoid ‘intellectual neo-colonialism’ (Rivard 2013). Although these ideas may
seem extreme, there are serious implications when VE is used before critical issues

are fully considered.

Beyond VE – Augmented Reality

In comparison to VE, Augmented Reality(AR) is the newer platform for

learning interactions. Here, students use a portable device to navigate a space. Layers

of information or instructions can be added so users can ‘interact’ with or learn more

about the physical space. Research in AR may inform VE research and practice. AR

learning programs may have similar applications as VE. Wu, Lee, Chang & Liang

2012 suggests these learning applications of AR: “[it] could enable (1) learning

content in 3D perspectives, (2) ubiquitous, collaborative and situated learning, (3)

learners’ senses of presence, immediacy, and immersion, (4) visualizing the invisible,

and (5) bridging formal and informal learning” (Wu, Lee, Chang, Liang 2012, p.43).

Also, AR offers some solutions to the challenges VE face. AR research

suggests that unlike VE, AR resolves pedagogical need for authenticity. Perhaps

similar to the chemistry lab virtual game study (Chee & Tan 2012) AR allows users to

navigate using first person perspective highly enhances learning. Moreover, “playing

virtual games in real spaces may raise students’ context sensitivity, and result in

making more informed decisions considering all environmental-related factors” (Wu,

Lee, Chang & Liang 2012, p.44).

Nonetheless, similar to VE, success of AR depends on participatory – roles,

location and task. Anchored in situated and distributed learning, AR learning tools

require users to actively participate in their learning. The use of AR also bridges the
gap between formal and informal learning. In particular, during field trips, virtual

tours can track students and their position to provide information for the elements in

their surroundings. In other cases, the use of AR can be context independent.

Learning from AR, VE should better redirect and refocus learner’s attention to social

task without overwhelming with the artificial environment and task requirements.

Despite the benefits of AR, Wu, Lee, Chang & Liang (2012) cites Dunleavy et al.

(2009) and warns designers about how “losing track of the real environment may not

be productive for learning and could result in a threat to students’ physical safety

(Dunleavy et al., 2009)”. We should carefully study AR – research in AR would

influence VE and vice versa.

Conclusion

It is apparent that given the wide selection of VE options, one can get lost

finding a developmentally appropriate design and toolkit. Chabot, experimental space

and multimodal communication are the most common tool learners have when they

are immersed in a virtual world. Although these components require additional

research to confirm its effectiveness, designers still should consider embedding these

tools when conjuring virtual worlds. Digital learning artifacts element in VE is as

important as the pedagogical design. There is a consistent theme of constructivism

that develops. A constructive perspective is the most common pedagogical focus in

VE. Nonetheless it is important to purposeful integration VE into education. This

essay aims to explore elements that contribute to successful learning experience in

VE. However, most data are based on self-reports. The lack of empirical data and
small sample size is concerning. Scholars and educators will need to look forward for

the findings from more lengthy and complex study designs to better inform practice.

This paper is limit by time restraints to fully develop our understanding of current

issues in VE. Also, often VE educational programs are funded by interest groups, this

may interfere with the research perspective and interpretations. Nonetheless, current

research provides a good preview of the potential of successful learning experience

with immersive technology.

References

Blanca Ibáñez, M., García, J. J., Galán, S., Maroto, D., Morillo, D., & Delgado Kloos,
C. (2011). Design and implementation of a 3D multi-user virtual world for
language learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 2-10.

Chee, Y. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2012). Becoming chemists through game-based inquiry
learning: The case of Legends of Alkhimia. Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
10(2), 185–198.

Chow, M. m. (2016). Determinants of presence in 3D virtual worlds: A structural

equation modelling analysis. Australasian Journal Of Educational Technology,
32(1), 1-18.

Heidegger, M. (1953/1977). The question concerning technology. In M. Heidegger,

The question concerning technology and other essays (trans. W. Lovitt) (pp. 3-
35). New York, NY: Harper & Row. http://simondon.ocular-witness.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/05/question_concerning_technology.pdf

Kim, H., & Ke, F. (2016). OpenSim-Supported Virtual Learning Environment:

Transformative Content Representation, Facilitation, and Learning Activities.
Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 54(2), 147-172.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:

A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Rivard, R. (2013, April 25). The world is not flat. Inside Higher Ed,
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/04/25/moocs-may-eye-world-
market-does-world-want-them

Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Felt, J., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Lara-Ruiz, J. M.,
Mendoza & Rokkum, J. (2014). Media and technology use predicts ill-being
among children, preteens and teenagers independent of the negative health
 impacts of exercise and eating habits. Computers in human behavior, 35, 364-
375.

Turkle, S. (2004). Whither psychoanalysis in computer culture. Psychoanalytic

Psychology, 21(1), 16-30.

Turkle, S. (2012, April 21). The flight from conversation. New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-
conversation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

Vasudeva, V. N. (2012). Open source software paradigm and intellectual property

rights. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17(6), 511-520.

Vrellis, I. i., Avouris, N., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2016). Learning outcome, presence
and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal Of
Educational Technology, 32(1), 59-77.

Wang, Y. F., Petrina, S., & Feng, F. (2016). VILLAGE—Virtual Immersive

Language Learning and Gaming Environment: Immersion and presence. British
Journal of Educational Technology. 47(3), 1-20.

Wu, H., Lee, S. W., Chang, H., & Liang, J. (2013). Current Status, Opportunities and
Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education. Computers & Education, 6241-
49.