An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 1

Running head: AN EXAMINATION OF ONLINE LEARNING IN MUVES

Literature Review:

An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE)

Dallas McPheeters

NAU Graduate School of Education

2009
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 2

Abstract

This paper reviews 21st century research literature about the use of three dimensional (3D)

multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) technology to engage young minds to learn. The many

benefits of MUVE technologies are reviewed herein as supported by an emerging body of

research. However, the literature exposes three major challenges concerning the increased use of

new technologies in education: access to updated hardware, equal student access outside the

classroom, and teacher proficiency. The most popular MUVE – Second Life – is rich with

professional development opportunities, demonstrating how 3D platforms eliminate the

challenges noted above, by providing an immersive environment where teachers learn

technology integration strategies hands-on with peers. This paper outlines reasons schools should

integrate MUVE technologies in their curriculum.

 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
3
Literature Review:

An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE)

The use of technology in education is not a new subject as indicated by the myriads of

studies conducted during the past 40 years. However, research relevant to the use of 3D virtual

technology in education is a new subject. This paper reviews recent literature about the use of 3D

virtual technology to engage young minds to learn. The literature was chosen from varying

sources in order to present a panorama of where the research has brought us. Since virtual

technology is quite new, this review of the literature will demonstrate what is lacking in the

research and where future research should therefore be aimed. The literature review will cover

three major arenas of contention: access to updated hardware, equal student access outside the

learning environment (especially among under-served populations), and teacher skill and

proficiency (professional development).

Updated Hardware

The first major area of contention found in the technology-in-education debate concerns

limited access to updated hardware which a majority of public schools face today. New ideas

about the use of technology to educate are constantly bombarding educators because shifts in

learning styles prompt shifts in knowledge construction (Dede, 2005). According to Dede’s

Educause Quarterly submission about how to plan for neomillennial learning styles, technology

has advanced and this advance changes learning styles. MUVEs (multi user virtual

environments) and ARs (augmented realities) are offering completely new settings in which to

conduct classroom lectures. “This induces learning based on seeking, sieving and synthesizing

rather than on assimilating a single validated source of knowledge as from books, TV, or a

professor’s lectures” (Dede, 2005, p. 7). The virtual classroom goes a step further than Web 2.0
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 4

technology by allowing a greater degree of interaction. “[The] world-to-the-desktop interface is

not psychologically immersive, while virtual environments and augmented realities induce a

strong sense of virtual presence” (Dede, 2005, p. 8). Dede’s claim counters the commonly heard

argument that online courses don’t offer the face-to-face interaction that learners need and want.

Dede’s claims are further supported by research concerning computer simulations and

their appeal to students’ love of video games, demonstrating that compelling educational benefits

are available (Blaisdell, 2006). Video games, though often viewed by parents as the enemy, are

valued by young people and fully engage the young mind. In classroom experiments, integrating

such technologies has proven to reduce absenteeism, increase concentration, enhance learning,

and develop skills faster. “Players have only one goal: learning” (Blaisdell, 2006, ¶ 5). The

discovery of this one goal of learning is based on Blaisdell’s testing within a virtual environment

named River City. “After using river city for 20 class periods, students showed a 32-35 percent

improvement in their knowledge of biology” (¶ 11). The research noted a 35% decrease in

absenteeism as another benefit of MUVEs in the classroom.

Many more benefits of using MUVE technologies were noted in Blaisdell’s research.

Virtual environments decentralize the role of teacher by recreating the teacher as a guide who

helps students navigate the new, virtual world. Virtual environments allow students to do as

much as they like on their own timeline, making time a variable rather than a fixed constant as

has been historically the case. However such environments are complex and require

sophisticated hardware in order to render the intense graphics inherent in virtual worlds. The

challenge, therefore, becomes two-fold: gaining access to technology at home is the first

challenge. Faculty development at school is the second challenge. Both challenges center on

gaining access to updated hardware in order to take advantage of MUVE technology with its
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
5
inherent demands for fast processor speed, ample bandwidth requirements, and graphics

rendering capabilities.

However, just because technology such as video games has been shown to engage student

minds more readily, does it actually help learning? Matt Villano’s (2008) study published in

T.H.E. Journal discovered that kids are more comfortable working together within a gaming

environment than outside of it, and that interactive gaming environments impact motivation

leading to increased participation. “Technology is a boundless world of surprise and adventure

about creativity” (Villano, 2008). Getting students out of the classroom and into environments of

teamwork and interdependence induce learning that is otherwise missed in traditional settings.

According to Villano, augmented realities proved a “ubiquity and mystery” (¶ 18) that “heighten

engagements, encourage collaboration, and facilitate learning” (¶ 27). Therefore, the big

challenge that remains is getting devices into the hands of students.

Doug Johnson’s (2007) study, “Get a MUVE On,” further develops this trend by claiming

that 3D worlds may be the next incarnation of our interface with information and others online.

Virtual world classrooms are the “ultimate tinker toy set” (¶ 11). These environments are

resulting in elaborate examples of collaborative and constructivist learning such as that

demonstrated by a student history project which created a virtual Holocaust museum. Art classes

are creating virtual galleries where students may display their creations. Drafting classes can

build both real and imagined projects to scale ranging from a simple cabin in the woods to a

grand city-scape.

The question that remains to be answered is whether increased interest and engagement

genuinely increases learning or simply maintains heightened interest. Specific studies partly

uncover the answer to this question. One recent study focused on whether or not MUVEs can
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 6

improve student writing (Warren, Dondlinger, & Barab, 2008). The Warren, et. al. study sets out

to determine if learning takes place by studying a group of 4th graders. The 4th graders

participated in a 3D MUVE called Quest Atlantis. Researchers wanted to determine if the use of

Quest Atlantis could improve the students’ writing, to meet educational standards. The authors

conclude in the affirmative and confirm the findings of their research predecessors, that virtual

technologies are indeed more engaging. They further acknowledge the need for additional

research to strengthen their findings prior to any generalizable claims being made since their

study was limited to a particularly narrow scope of participants.

One final hurdle to be overcome by MUVEs concerns issues of accessibility to the

physically challenged. “What sorts of accessibility challenges and opportunities does this new

technology pose?” (Bell & Peters, 2007, p. 34). Impairments come generally in one or more of

three categories; visual, hearing, and/or physical. MUVEs offer in-line, synchronous chat for the

hearing impaired. And avatars can walk and even fly which is why MUVEs are perceived among

the mobility impaired as an opportunity rather than a challenge. Therefore the greatest challenge

will be for the visually impaired, and technology has yet to answer this need. However, Bell &

Peters (2007) acknowledge that societal pressures ensure the answers are forthcoming.

Aside from this need for adaptation of technology hardware to meet the needs of those

with physical impairments, is the clear transformative effect of MUVEs on traditional education

as seen in their pivotal ability to switch the roles that time and achievement have long played.

Traditional education with its varied achievement levels, establishes a fixed timeframe of around

180 days per school year (Blaisdell, 2006). Therefore, time is the constant and achievement is the

variable. But as Laura Fording (2004) notes in her Newsweek article about changing educational

styles in the 21st century, MUVEs have the transformative effect of switching these roles. Time
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
7
becomes the variable. This helps explain the increasing popularity of distance education

programs in our time-pressed culture. Coinciding with this switching of roles, achievement

becomes the constant. Certificates and degrees are received once requirements are met,

regardless of the time it takes to complete them. Fording foresees virtual classrooms as a

glimpse into the future of education-at-large, with the added value of one-on-one interaction and

personalized instruction. Fording concludes that the same technological advances that paved the

way for MUVEs are “fundamentally re-engineering education through virtual learning”

(Fording, 2004, ¶ 34). But how?

Fording’s research focused on determining whether distance interaction improved

communication between participants or weakened it. Using an experimental group and a control

group, she discovered that global access and interaction increased student/teacher email

interactions by an average of 15 per day. Student-Teacher interaction occurred three times more

often than in settings where participants sat in traditional, face-to-face classrooms. The

instructors in the experimental group confirmed their surprise that the increased interaction was

positive for learning and more-so than in the traditional setting. “We can use technology to

transform education rather than just automating the old ways of learning” (Fording, 2004, ¶ 36).

The role of education is changing and not just with regard to the mechanics of implementation.

Needless to say, the spreading of this transformative influence is limited by the challenge of

access to technology. This issue of uneven access is a recurrent theme found in the literature and

will be examined next.

Under-served Populations

We now turn to the second of the three major areas of contention; unequal access to

technology among the under-served populations (Blaisdell, 2006; Lim, Norris, & Hedberg, 2006;
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 8

Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007; Villano, 2008). Technological advances represent innovations that

typically cost more money when first introduced. As public acceptance of the new technologies

grows, prices come down. In other words, mass production rises to meet wide-scale acceptance.

For this reason, the poorer inhabitants of any population may not be able to participate in cutting-

edge inventions until the new inventions become more widely distributed and thereby more

affordable.

Education’s role is to prepare the next generation to take the lead by teaching them the

concepts and skills required by society for its perpetuation. However, unlike the business

community, education neither infuses nor generates direct capital into the economy. Rather,

education is a public expense budgeted for the public good. The product produced by schools is a

generation of knowledgeable and skilled workers who can contribute to society by replacing the

worn [retired] parts and innovate for the future needs of society. Businesses can easily justify the

increased expense of upgrading computer hardware simply by promising increased profitability.

But education’s role in society is long-term and less easily quantified. This monetarily centered

discrepancy between the business and education sectors of society is evident when businesses

customarily upgrade their computer hardware every two or three years while schools make do

with outdated equipment, unable to take advantage of the newest operating systems, software,

and web-based innovations. To make matters worse, poorer school districts fall even further

behind, being last to receive community support in the form of resources allocated for needed

hardware upgrades (Villano, 2008). The result is that poorer populations remain under-served.

Skewed as well is the technology upgrade supply chain that favors higher education over

elementary, middle, and high schools. The youngest among a population are understandably the

most native to technological innovation yet enjoy the least access to it. The higher the grade
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
9
level, the better the technology tools provided. This reversal of priorities creates severe

consequences as society gradually dumbs down its young population while allowing the

burgeoning aged population to access and participate during their shorter remaining life-span.

Real-world inquiry should be offered first to those with the least experience which comprise the

elementary age students. The big challenge before educators is getting devices into the hands of

students (Fording, 2004; Villano, 2008).

Further developing this matter of unequal access, Nelson and Ketelhut (2007) conducted

a study to ask whether MUVE based curricula supports real-world inquiry. If their study could

determine that MUVEs support real-world inquiry, then lack of access to hardware and

bandwidth required by MUVE technologies would be significantly detrimental to the health of

the whole society. Their study also examined whether virtual environments were compelling for

both sexes and whether increased engagement necessarily equated to increased learning. Again,

if the results prove there is a difference between gender engagement and learning, the matter of

unequal access would need to be addressed since cultural expectations of one sex over the other

may be skewed. Some countries like Malaysia have been successful in developing their female

population to become the top computer scientists while others like the United States have shown

a significant decline in interest among female students (Barrett, 2008). Such inequities must be

address if society is to remain healthy, viable and competitive. Equal access across age and

gender is summarily required.

Additionally, Nelson and Ketelhut (2007) queried whether or not the informal settings of

MUVEs did not, in fact, produce informal participation on the part of students. Their research

uncovered that “Girls prefer games that closely simulate real life and ... allow for role play,”

whereas “low performing students and non-asian minorities have little access to scientific
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
10
inquiry” (Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007, p. 279). There are many under-served demographic groups.

As an example, the largest proportion of non-asian minorities in the U.S. has recently become the

Hispanic, which on a per capita basis, is noticeably deficient in the use of the newest computer

hardware as well as access to the high-speed internet needed for participation in MUVE

technologies. How can any low performance among Hispanics be corrected without

accommodating this lack of access to technology?

Nelson and Ketelhut’s (2007) study acknowledges their research was limited by several

factors. The most disturbing factor of limitation they reported was the reality that K-12 schools

often lack the equipment and resources to offer virtual experiences. Census information (Belsie,

2001), shows the most common jobs among immigrant populations to be in the service and

construction sectors at nearly double the rate of non-immigrants. If children of immigrants are

not given access to updated equipment, how can they be expected to improve their quality of

life? Nelson and Ketelhut conclude with an urgent call for further research of under-served

populations to determine how best to eliminate the unequal access and thereby propel them onto

the global playing field.

Professional Development

In spite of these two commonly found setbacks regarding upgraded hardware and unequal

access noted in the literature thus far reviewed, an interesting phenomenon has emerged

surrounding the use of MUVEs for professional development, the third major area of contention.

Professional development continues to be a weak link in the education and technology equation

which makes the increased use of MUVEs for professional development even more significant

(Blaisdell, 2006; Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1998; Lim, Norris, & Hedberg,

2006). John Waters (2009) reported in T.H.E. Journal, his research of the MUVE, Second Life
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
11
(SL). Second Life was developed in 2004 by Linden Labs in San Francisco as a 3D, virtual

reality environment where participants are unrestricted when it comes to content creation. The

entire grid is the product of its residents. Today, SL boasts millions of users, millions of dollars

transacted daily in world, (terminology used by residents of SL) and over 100 regions dedicated

to education. Inside SL, users navigate with Avatars (customizable graphical representations of

persons) and can encounter hundreds of resident-created replicas of historical and educational

venues including the Alamo, the Sistine Chapel, and the Holocaust museum. Such replicas were

developed as educational tools, however, the biggest use of SL for education has been by

teachers for their own enrichment. Prior to SL, the internet was already loaded with websites

designed by and for teachers in order to network and collaborate for ideas, lesson plans,

activities, and more. However, SL offers a surprisingly unprecedented magnitude of educational

offerings within a fully interactive and voice synchronous environment, making it the “strongest

and most compelling network” of online educators, according to Waters (2009, ¶ 22). Everyday,

teachers gather at various in-world locations to try-out new lesson plans aimed at improving

student performance through collaborative learning. SL offers real-time interaction which

simulates the classroom’s face-to-face experience, yet with the added draw of participants being

able to build, create, fly and alter one’s appearance and thus identity. All of these benefits add up

to increased student interest and engagement, according to current research findings (Warren,

Doddlinger, & Barab, 2008).

Professional development in the use of cutting-edge technologies represented by MUVEs

such as SL, is necessary for several reasons. First, MUVEs have been typically associated with

gaming and not educational environments. And to parents, games are the enemy that distract

from learning rather than teach (Blaisdell, 2006). Children value the engaging interaction offered
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
12
by MUVEs but for schools and parents to buy-in (Lim, Norris, & Hedberg, 2006), professional

development within the virtual environment needs to be further developed (Waters, 2009).

Secondly, professional development is needed because MUVEs require some practice in order to

manipulate and maneuver within the virtual environment (Blaisdell, 2006). Becoming

comfortable within a virtual environment requires time and practice to learn how to move, create,

build, and navigate within a space populated by others. Finally, MUVEs will provide the

platform for the classroom of the future (Johnson, 2007) and are thereby transforming the

education process and experience (Fording, 2004) from mere task orientation to providing an

out-of-the-classroom experience (Villano, 2008) similar to field trips. Teachers must become

skilled at working within this new environment in order to lead the next generation. But where

teachers lead, will students follow?

The current economic crisis makes virtual learning environments even more attractive to

budget-conscious administrators because teachers can attend workshops remotely from home

rather than having to travel great distances that require time and money already in short supply.

Waters noticed that in SL, “educators exhibit a fundamental predisposition to collaborate” (¶ 9),

and today’s constructivist learning-led curriculum demands collaboration. MUVEs such as SL

provide the ideal platform because, as Waters discovered, “accidental interactions” (¶ 28) can

occur in virtual worlds. Accidental interactions are common in the traditional, real-world, real-

time, education experience but not widely experienced online apart from MUVEs. Thus, MUVEs

can save valuable resource in time and money on the part of educators, while providing a more

life-like platform for learning.

Avatar-based learning offers some additional nuances to teachers who are interested to

know how identity issues affect student learning and engagement (Waters, 2009). Poor self-
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
13
image often leads to student isolation and detachment, further complicating the teacher’s role in

the classroom. With this detachment, student engagement is compromised and learning

frustrated. Teacher participation in MUVEs such as SL provides the professional development –

in the way of experiential knowledge – needed to better understand the identity crises and

disconnects facing the next generation of technology natives. Previous generations of immigrants

to technology have not experienced this crisis to such a degree and professional development

must address it.

What are the components of learning engagement with 3D MUVEs? “Learner

engagement is paramount to learning success” (Lim, Nonis, & Nedberg, 2006, p. 213).

According to the authors of the Lim et. al. study reported in the British Journal of Education

Technology, engagement equals mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, cognitive effort, and attention.

The authors (Lim et. al., 2006) found that 3D virtual environments are filled with tasks just like

their counterparts. However the 3D “space” detracts from the drudgery of task oriented learning

and turns participant attention to experience-oriented learning (Lim, Norris, & Nedberg, 2006).

The biggest challenge, is the “buy-in by the school and parents” (p. 227). The buy-in referred to,

means that both parents and schools need to be convinced that the time and expense involved in

bringing new technologies to the education experience, will actually produce increased learning

and achievement.

However, many of the decision makers find MUVEs to be sensory overload and therefore

too distracting to enable students to concentrate and thereby learn subject matter. To counter this

tendency, educators are being encouraged to meet and collaborate in virtual environments so as

to learn firsthand what is involved. Teachers are discovering how engaging virtual worlds can be

and what the ramifications for their students may be. The role of education is being expanded
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
14
even beyond mere distance to the virtual platform where multiple player [student] presence can

be experienced in a way that simulates the synchronicity of the live classroom (Fording, 2004)

while adding the focused engagement factor of the 3D virtual platform.

Teachers are using MUVEs such as SL to ascertain firsthand, these many accusations that

abound with regard to 1) engaging without learning, 2) distraction rather than concentration, and

3) cognitive overload. Cognitive overload is the subject of recent research (Nelson & Erlandson,

2008) focusing on MUVE interface design. Whereas the principles for quality design of static

two dimensional webpages is well established, the design principles for MUVEs must take into

account cognitive load due to their 3D nature including movement, sound, voice chat interaction,

and the whole gamut of possibilities with regard to creating content both individually and

collectively (Bell & Peters, 2004).

According to cognitive theory, people possess two primary channels for receiving input;

visual and verbal. People are limited by the capacity of each channel. A firm and broadly

accepted principle of multimedia design is that people learn better from words and pictures than

from words alone. Yet 3D MUVEs add sounds and animations as well, and therefore cognitive

overload is possible. “Cognitive overload occurs when one or both of the processing channels are

overloaded by information that is either essential or extraneous to the learning process” (Nelson

& Erlandson, 2008, p. 624). Good design principles, when applied to MUVEs, ensure learners

can manage the cognitive load. The move from 2D to 3D web platforms produces tension and the

3D is prone to splitting attention. Therefore, where rich media are concerned, spatial

reorganization is called for. This is another reason more than 100 sites within SL alone are owned

and managed by Universities. These Universities are using 3D virtual platforms for the purpose

of testing pedagogical practices and learning styles. If learning styles are indeed shifting in terms
 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
15
of how knowledge is constructed (Dede, 2005), then teachers must be professionally trained to

recognize and understand this shift while engaging students within the new framework.

Conclusion

The primary interface of education is changing from the traditional classroom to online

virtual communities (Johnson, 2007). This transition requires up-to-date hardware and

infrastructure retrofitting, which come at a high price. Schools must overcome the barriers to

access by finding ways to get devices into the hands of students. And teachers must be trained to

work effectively within the new virtual platform. In light of these 3D virtual technology trends,

Chris Dede predicts that the “mission and structure of ... education might change” (Dede, 2005,

p. 11). The biggest challenge for educators involves unlearning, according to Dede, and herein

lies the crux of the problem concerning technology in education. Until educators unlearn what

they think they know, the disconnect between students and teachers will remain, with students

continuing to deem as irrelevant, the perceived direction educators are attempting to lead them.

Without unlearning, educators will strive to improve an antiquated design that was created for a

centuries-old style of pedagogy that may be on the verge of extinction. The shift in learning

styles requires a shift in pedagogy and nothing less will reach the emerging culture of uncertainty

facing the unknown future.

For these reasons, continued research is encouraged herein that could confirm the

benefits of time and money being spent on 3D virtual technologies in education. And based on

the literature, the simplest place to begin is with professional development. Carefully designed

courses within a MUVE such as Second Life can provide the feedback from educators to answer

many remaining questions such as: “Is primary and/or secondary school too early to benefit from

MUVE technologies?” and, “Can 3D virtual environments convey standards-based curriculum

An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
16
better than the traditional setting?” Using the 3D MUVE platform as a venue for professional

development of experienced K-20 teachers will help answer these questions while confirming the

present body of research reviewed in this paper.

 An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
17

References

Barrett, C. (2008). Technology the human impact. Interview presented at TedTalk.com. Retrieved

November 10, 2008 from

http://fora.tv/2008/06/30/Craig_Barrett_Technology_the_Human_Impact_2_of_2#chapte

r_01

Bell, L., & Peters, T. (2007). MUVEing toward accessibility. Computers in Libraries, 27(4), 34-

36.

Belsie, L. (2001). Ethnic diversity grows, but not integration. Christian Science Monitor, March

14, 2001. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0314/p1s2.html

Blaisdell, M. (2006). All the right MUVEs. T.H.E. Journal, 33(14), 28-30, 32, 37-8. Retrieved

February 19, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/19173

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 1, 7-12.

Fording, L. (2004). Education, 21st century-style [Electronic version]. Newsweek, March 30,

2004, Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/148212

Johnson, D. (2007). Head for the edge get a MUVE on. Library Media Connection, 26(2), 98-98.

Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1998). Plugging in: Choosing and

using educational technology. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational

Laboratory. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from

http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/kris/techplanweb/Plugging%20In.pdf

Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment:

Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2),

211-231.
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments
18
Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual

environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 265-283.

Nelson, B., & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual

environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research &

Development, 56(5), 619-641.

Villano, M. (2008). When worlds collide: An augmented reality check. T.H.E.Journal, 35(2), 32-

38.

Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects

of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113-140.

Waters, J. K. (2009). A 'second life' for educators. T H E Journal, 36(1), 29-34.