Immersive Environments,
Augmented Realities, and
Virtual Worlds:
Assessing Future Trends in
Education
Steven D’Agustino
Fordham University, New York
Managing Director:
Editorial Director:
Book Production Manager:
Publishing Systems Analyst:
Development Editor:
Assistant Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Joel Gamon
Jennifer Yoder
Adrienne Freeland
Myla Merkel
Kayla Wolfe
Erin O’Dea
Jason Mull
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2013 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Immersive environments, augmented realities, and virtual worlds: assessing future trends in education / Steven D’Agustino,
editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book presents current research and performance of trends in education, examining cyber behavior and the
use of virtual worlds, immersive technologies and augmented realities to improve teaching and enhancing learning”--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-2670-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-2701-7 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-2732-1 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Virtual reality in education. 2. Educational technology. I. D’Agustino, Steven, 1965LB1044.87.I33 2013
371.33--dc23
2012031913
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Immersive Environments,
Augmented Realities, and
Virtual Worlds:
Assessing Future Trends in
Education
Steven D’Agustino
Fordham University, New York
Managing Director:
Editorial Director:
Book Production Manager:
Publishing Systems Analyst:
Development Editor:
Assistant Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Lindsay Johnston
Joel Gamon
Jennifer Yoder
Adrienne Freeland
Myla Merkel
Kayla Wolfe
Erin O’Dea
Jason Mull
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2013 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Immersive environments, augmented realities, and virtual worlds: assessing future trends in education / Steven D’Agustino,
editor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book presents current research and performance of trends in education, examining cyber behavior and the
use of virtual worlds, immersive technologies and augmented realities to improve teaching and enhancing learning”--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-2670-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-2701-7 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-2732-1 (print & perpetual
access) 1. Virtual reality in education. 2. Educational technology. I. D’Agustino, Steven, 1965LB1044.87.I33 2013
371.33--dc23
2012031913
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
78
Chapter 5
Learn in Your Avatar:
A Teacher’s Story on Integrating Virtual
Worlds in Teaching and Learning
Mimma Sayuti Mat Khalid
University of Malaya, Malaysia
Raja Maznah Raja Hussain
University of Malaya, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
A Malaysian Smart School document has vividly described components that will make up future classrooms in 2020. Nonetheless, such components can currently be implemented using Virtual Worlds (VW),
specifically Multi-User Virtual Environment (MUVE). Integrating virtual worlds effectively in teaching
and learning can be very daunting, especially when the tool requires a steep learning curve on the part
of the teacher. This chapter aims to describe a teacher’s journey of integrating Virtual Worlds or MUVEs
in her teaching and learning, both for adult learners and Malaysian secondary school. The technology
integration is based on continuous self-reflection of TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge) framework. The description will include the strategies used in learning to learn; learning
to teach in virtual worlds; and also lessons learned during the learning process of using the technology.
THE IDEAL VISION: MALAYSIAN
FUTURE CLASSROOM
By 2020, teaching and learning scenarios could
be very much different from the one we have today… Students would learn in a community-led
process (involving parents, teachers, university
lecturers, professionals, industry members who
actually make up the community) and would have
access to the best teachers and the best educational material anywhere in the country…The
learning environments would be formed through
a programme of interconnected networks that increases communication, connectivity, shared, and
experiential learning…Virtual reality teaching
and learning experiences would become common
through tele-immersion. Using tele-immersion,
three-dimensional virtual images of the teacher
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-2670-6.ch005
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Learn in Your Avatar
could be projected to a student’s home. The teacher
and student could meet and interact online in real
time (Smart School Roadmap, 2005, pp. 52-56).
The concept of future classroom described in the
Fourth Wave of Malaysian Smart School implementation can currently be enacted through the
use of existing Virtual Worlds (VWs) in teaching
and learning. The following illustration in Figure
1 shows how a teaching and learning session takes
place in a virtual world.
As illustrated in Figure 1, teaching and learning activities can be carried out in the VW as
virtual learning spaces where 3D avatars can be
present in 3D replicas of real places (e.g. Activeworld, Second Life, OpenSimulator/OpenSim),
or 3D fictional places built by other avatars. In
virtual worlds, avatars can walk, run, fly or teleport to different replicas of countries or places in
the virtual worlds. Avatars can virtually be present together to complete tasks or outcomes. In
this scenario, a session of building virtual objects
in the virtual world was taking place among a few
avatars—two learners, the teacher, and an invited
technology expert.
DEFINING VIRTUAL WORLDS (VW)
Virtual Worlds (VW) refer to “A synchronous,
persistent network of people, represented as avatars, facilitated by networked computers” (Bell,
2008). These 3D worlds are continuously gaining
popularity as entertainment tools. By September
2010, virtual world users around the world has
reached to one billion, with the majority of users
comprises of kids and tweens age 10-15 years old
(Kzero Report, 2010). Many educational institutions and Special Interest Groups (SIG) choose to
use VW, specifically MUVE (Multi User Virtual
Environment), or also termed as ‘open virtual
world’ as supplements to existing face-to-face
classrooms. In MUVEs like Second Life and
OpenSim, individuals enter a virtual space/context
in their avatars; interact with digital objects, communicate with other avatars or intelligent agents;
and take part in scenarios that are similar to real
world (Dietrtle, 2009). Aldrich (2009) differentiates VW from gaming and simulation 3D virtual
environment; thus, social VW depends on the user
to create content for its environment.
Virtual worlds, as variants of virtual reality,
are claimed to offer many educational affordances.
O’Driscoll (2007) listed seven learning possibilities of using VW in teaching and learning: a)The
Sense of Self; b) The Death of Distance; c) The
Power of Presence; d) The Sense of Space; e)The
Capability to Co-Create; f) The Pervasiveness of
Practice; and g) The Enrichment of Experience.
These possibilities make VW as a powerful tool
for teaching and learning as in the specific virtual space regardless of different geographical
areas, learners are able to be virtually present,
collaborate, and engaged to rich learning content.
Educational institutions are also increasingly using
virtual worlds for professional developments for
teachers and as supplement to classroom practices.
Similarly, in the field of distance education, there
is an increasing trend of using VW and MUVEs,
for both formal and informal learning (Smith &
Zane, 2009).
TPACK (TECHNOLOGICAL,
PEDAGOGICAL, AND CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE) OF TEACHERS
To start using virtual world in my teaching and
learning, as a teacher, I need to evaluate my existing knowledge on technology, pedagogy, and content. TPCK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content
Knowledge) is a theory of teachers’ knowledge
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and consists of domains
that need to be considered by teachers to effectively
integrate technology in classrooms. TPACK can
impact the teaching and learning strategies and the
approaches in which teachers choose to facilitate
learning. A teacher should aim to achieve the triad,
79
Learn in Your Avatar
Figure 1. Malaysian future classroom can be enacted using virtual worlds
Figure 2. Self-reflection of TPACK strategies applied in integrating virtual worlds into teaching and
learning
80
Learn in Your Avatar
or what Thomson and Mishra (2007-2008) later
called as “Total PACKage.” It is insufficient for
teachers to understand the individual domains on
its own. The challenge is to balance the domains as
to promote effective learning using technologies.
Reflecting upon my TPACK (refer to Figure
2), in the process of adopting virtual worlds in
my teaching and learning, I found that a lot of
time is spent on exploring and mastering VW as a
learner. The level of learning to use VW depends
on the latter’s complexity. The technology can be
based on text or rich multimedia ranging from
2D multimedia (e.g. Whyville) to 3D multimedia (e.g. World of Kaneva). There are VW that
can be embedded in a website (e.g. Smallworlds
and the defunct Metaplace), and there are VWs
that provide options for high and low broadband
capabilities (e.g. Club Cooee). The most popular
yet challenging VW to use in education is Second
Life (SL). To use SL in teaching and learning,
teachers first need to familiarize themselves with
the virtual world environment, then only will they
be able to maximize the impact of using the tool
in classrooms.
Most Virtual Worlds are not meant for education, as such, to create virtual learning environment
that uses this technology, considerations of relevant pedagogy strategies are vital. The main focus
of a classroom practice is to make learning happen
effectively and not simply using VW for the sake
of using the tool. In addition to TPACK, it is also
important to consider the essential conditions
when integrating technology effectively in teaching and learning (Roblyer & Doering, 2010).
For the past two years, I have been testing
several VWs, both free and paid, to be used with
two types of learners: a group of pre-service teachers of Teaching English as a Second Language
(TESL); and a group of 13 years old learners for
Information and Communication Technology
Literacy (ICTL) programme. Selection of VWs to
be used in both groups are based on the age limit,
safety considerations, content area to be learned
and most importantly, the facilities available in the
institutions the participants are studying.
The result is that different VWs (Figure 3)
are used to help the learners in using the tools
for their learning. As a teacher and learner, I frequent Second Life since the VW provides spaces
for educational organizations to hold workshops,
conferences, and meetings. In ReactionGrid, I
have been personally coached by the ReactionGrid Team to learn and develop the tool for my
classroom use. Additional VWs were used to train
the pre-service teachers. The reason was that there
were 80 pre-service teachers learning to use VW
but there were only 40 computers available for
them to use Second Life. To familiarize the preservice teachers with VWs, I adopted three other
VWs that could be accessed with low bandwidth
Internet, and low specification of computers. In
this way, the pre-service teachers would be able to
use the tool out of classroom time, simultaneously,
be critical of the VWs pedagogical affordances.
For the young secondary school learners, the
priority was to select VWs that are safe for the
users. Thus, VWs which were educational and
under Parental Guide (PG) categories were used
in my classrooms.
Figure 3. Experiencing with various VWs requires
considerations of context and learners’ needs
81
Learn in Your Avatar
There have been many times when I have to
re-consider the matching of my other two knowledge domains to technology knowledge domain.
The main reason is because most of these virtual
worlds developed are not meant for education
purposes. Even though there are more educational virtual worlds created for teaching and
learning, I still need to consider the pedagogical
and content knowledge domain that can be relevant
to the Malaysian context.
LESSONS LEARNED
In the process of establishing the triad of TPACK,
there are a few lessons learned. Firstly, utilizing
peer-learning in Community of Practice (CoP) in
VWs help me to prepare my TPACK; secondly,
making changes in adopting VWs in teaching
and learning based on technology availability;
and finally, exploring different approaches in
integrating VW that focus on pedagogy.
Utilizing Peer-Learning in
Community of Practice
(CoP) of Virtual Worlds
To facilitate learning to use virtual worlds, I participated in several Communities of Practice (CoP)
or Special Interest Groups (SIG) since November
2008. There was a lack of local support for me to
learn how to use VWs in my teaching and learning, so my first experience was to participate in
a six-week online course of Teaching Language
in a Virtual World 2009 (TLVW09). The aim of
the course was to give exposure and help teachers
around the world to use virtual worlds in second
language teaching. My first class was an Introduction to Spanish Language, which was carried
out in a virtual space created in SL to mirror a
real Spanish Village. The avatar instructors use
team-teaching approach in training the group of
82
language teachers to communicate in basic Spanish language.
Every week, there would be a virtual class taking place in real time to learn different languages,
and there were classes on how to use the SL tools
(audio and chat tools) for teaching and learning.
In 2010, I participated again in the same online
course, together with 30 students who I was teaching. These TESL pre-service teachers became my
virtual and face-to-face CoP. Being adventurous,
my students experienced more learning than I
did, and in return, I learned from them on how to
use VW in teaching and learning by reading the
reflections in their weekly blogs.
Belonging to a CoP helps me not only to
explore the affordances of VW but also allows
me to build my own 3D objects in-world. I did
not want to pay for private virtual space in SL as
the virtual island can be expensive. So, I used to
frequent International Society for Technology
in Education (ISTE) island to learn more virtual
world living skills and was able to ‘rez’ (create or
build) objects temporarily in SL. ISTE has its own
private island that is managed by its CoP. Being
in the island gave me opportunities to participate
in various virtual events there, both formal and
informal. There are docents on the island who are
on duty round the clock. The docents, comprise of
teachers around the world in Real Life (RL), are
virtual volunteers to help newcomers to virtual
island. From one of my meetings with the avatar
trainer, I learned about other virtual worlds that
can be used for teenagers. This is due to the reason
that the SL has two types of environment or grids.
The main grid is meant for adult age 18 years
old and above, and the Teen SL is for teenagers.
It was from the monthly discussions that I gain
knowledge about other SL-like VWs such as the
open source platform for operating a virtual world
(OpenSim) namely, ReactionGrid. Aside from the
CoP available for using Reaction Grid VW, the
grid host team provides full support for training
the teachers to learn to use the technology.
Learn in Your Avatar
The Process of Selecting Virtual
World: The Changes Made
After a year and half experiencing and learning
in virtual worlds, I learned that the more flexible
and open a virtual world, the more affordances it
can offer for various type of teaching and learning (like SL). However, such flexibility will also
mean more effort in learning to use the virtual
world. For professional development, there are
many virtual spaces that hold formal and informal meetings for teachers who are interested to
use the Web as teaching and learning tools. For
instance, an island called Edunation in SL is created as meeting space for avatars comprising of
language educators and Webheads (teachers and
educators using Web 2.0 and Computer-Mediated
Communication).
Aside from the age limit problem, SL requires
high technology capabilities of hardware. These
issues have made me decide to resort to other
virtual world. My next selection was to use Metaplace. It was a 2.5D virtual world that can easily
be embedded into any website, which means it can
run in a browser, unlike SL that needs a viewer,
which has to be downloaded onto the desktop. This
feature allows me to create a website and arrange
the content according to learning outcomes. It is
easier to design 2D as compared to 3D virtual
learning environment. Unfortunately, after a year
of paid virtual space, Metaplace ceased operation.
As such, availability and stability of VW are other
reasons to consider when selecting a virtual world
for learning tool.
The final consideration is to think of my
learners. As I want to integrate virtual world
which is similar to SL, I explored open source
virtual world or OpenSim. The current trend of
institutions, schools, and corporate organizations
like Microsoft Inc. are to have virtual presence
in private islands that are cheaper to buy; free to
create content; and form private Communities
of Practice. With new technologies, an avatar of
these private islands can be ‘transported’ from
one island to another island via hyperlinks or
termed as HyperGrid. Being the owner of the
virtual world, I can manage the membership of
the virtual space. This would ensure the security
and safety of my young learners.
The Technology Gain: Different
Approaches in Integrating
Virtual Worlds into 2D Virtual
Learning Environments
To integrate VWs into teaching and learning, I have
to consider how it can meet the curriculum requirements; what kind of learning activities that it can
promote; and most importantly how to measure
learning when using VWs. Since most of VWs are
not meant for education, I integrated these tools
into my 2D virtual classrooms. I have been using
social network application like Ning and Grouply
as the main virtual classroom. The purposes were
mainly to facilitate the process of learning to use
VWs, and to assess learners’ performances. After
exploring various virtual worlds, I found that most
virtual worlds can be integrated to virtual learning
environments through 6 approaches (Figure 4).
These approaches will depend on the instructional
goals and the instructional strategies adopted.
Most of the VWs I used functions as additional
virtual classrooms for my learners.
The first approach is to link a 2D learning
environment to a VW. This can be done by inserting the URL address of the virtual world. Second
Life uses SLurl that provides direct teleport links
to locations in its world (Figure 4). This approach
facilitated my pre-service teachers cum learners
in learning how to create virtual learning environment using VW. Besides, similar to my learning
experiences with VWs, the website was used for
class management purposes, such as making announcements of virtual meetings in SL. Interactions took place in both the website and VW.
Learners were assessed from both virtual spaces
83
Learn in Your Avatar
Figure 4. Linking VW to existing website/learning management system
as they blogged about their experiences in learning in SL. In SL, chat logs were saved as part of
learners’ assessments.
Second, is to link from virtual world to relevant
websites (Figure 5). Most virtual worlds are developed not meant for education purposes like Gaia,
as such, some VW do not have features that can
accommodate classroom activities like reading
and writing, or assessing learners’ performances.
Therefore, a teacher will need to provide the URL
Figure 5. Linking virtual world to website
84
address from the VW to the 2D learning environment or resources. Learners will have to leave the
VW environment to a 2D environment to be able
to read or write. The main reason of making this
VW as the main learning platform for the class
was for motivation purposes. Gaia, like many
other game-like VWs, has its own currency. This
currency can serve as reward system for learners
as they perform required tasks and achieve goals
set for the learning.
Learn in Your Avatar
Figure 6. Embedding website in virtual world
The third approach is to use a virtual world
that enables learners to view 2D learning environments or website within the VW environment
(Figure 6). VW like Second Life and OpenSim
have this capability. Avatar profile can be checked;
or a website can be read without having to leave
the virtual world environment. However, this type
of VW needs higher hardware requirement and
sufficient broadband capabilities. I was unable to
use this approach throughout the learning process
due to these two reasons.
The fourth approach is to embed VW into any
2D learning environment or website (Figure 7).
Within the given virtual space where the VW is
embedded, avatars will be able to move around
the VW, simultaneously, the person can read,
Figure 7. Embedding virtual world in a website
85
Learn in Your Avatar
Figure 8. Enriching a website using virtual world
write, and edit on the 2D learning environment
or website. Interactions can be in real time in the
VW. It will be like reading a textbook while interacting with the content, the teacher, and other
learners. Instances of VW for this approach are
Small Worlds and the defunct Metaplace. However, not many VWs have this capability.
Figure 9. Transforming a website into a virtual world
86
The fifth approach is to use VW as part of a
learning tool for a 2D learning environment (Figure 7). Typical to this is VWs in the form of 3D
webchat like Club Cooee and IMVU. These VWs
do not require high specification of hardware; as
such, they are more accessible. Learners can create content though with limitations. I have been
using this approach if I would like to be co-
Learn in Your Avatar
present and carry out online group activities such
as virtual discussions with my learners. Chat logs
can be saved as part of learners’ assessments (see
Figure 8).
Finally, is the approach of turning any 2D
learning environment or websites to a 3D virtual
learning space (Figure 9). In this approach, an
avatar will be able to walk around and perform
tasks in the transformed 2D website. For now, the
known tool is ExitReality. However, I found that
navigating in a transformed 2D virtual environment is challenging, because the objects in the
3D learning can be messy.
I have used a few of these six approaches in
my classes for the TESL pre-service teachers and
secondary school learners. The knowledge of these
approaches can facilitate integration of VWs into
teaching and learning according to hardware
capabilities; and in making instructional design
decisions when developing virtual learning
spaces. What I learned is that for my adult learners all these approaches can be applicable. However, for my young learners, I used approaches 1
to 3 since I have to be cautious of which VWs to
use. I resorted to using a private VW for the young
learners to ensure safe learning environments.
CONCLUSION: THE
JOURNEY CONTINUES…
Despite having spent more than two years experimenting and experiencing learning events in
virtual worlds, I am still in the process of balancing
the three domains of teacher’s knowledge. A lot
of time is focused on understanding and making
design decisions on how to integrate VW in teaching and learning effectively.
Virtual Worlds can provide many learning affordances for teachers to use in their classrooms.
However, it is important to use VW not for the
sake of using the tool, but to think of how the
tool can facilitate learning. To achieve a balance
of the three knowledge domains is challenging.
However, actively participating in CoPs that discuss best practices of VW integration can help
me to continuously improve my teaching and
learning practices.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, C. (2009). Virtual worlds,simulaltions,
and games for education: A unifying view. Innovate, 5(5). Retrieved January 11, 2011 from
http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue5/
Virtual_Worlds,_Simulations,_and_Games_for_
Education-__A_Unifying_View.pdf
Bell, M. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual
worlds”. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1).
Diertle, E., & Clarke, J. (2008). Multi-user environment for teaching and learning. In Pagani, M.
(Ed.), Encylopedia of Multimedia Technology and
Networking. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kzero Worldwide. (2010). Virtual world registered
accounts Q3 2010. Retrieved from http://www.
kzero.co.uk/blog/?p=4448
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers College
Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.14679620.2006.00684.x
Multimedia Development Corporation. (2005).
Smart school roadmap 2005-2020. New York,
NY: Multimedia Development Corporation.
O’Driscoll, T. (2007). Learning in three dimensions: Experiencing the sensibilities and imagining the possibilities. Retrieved November 13, 2010,
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2jY4U
kPbAc&feature=player_embedded#!
Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educatiion Inc.
87
Learn in Your Avatar
Smith, M., & Berge, Z. (2009). Social learning
theory in second life. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 5(2).
88
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2). Retrieved October 29, 2010 at http://punya.educ.
msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/jcteeditorial-24-2-038.pdf