Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 2235–2279 | Cite as

Exploring the educational potential of three-dimensional multi-user virtual worlds for STEM education: A mixed-method systematic literature review

  • Nikolaos PellasEmail author
  • Ioannis Kazanidis
  • Nikolaos Konstantinou
  • Georgia Georgiou
Article

Abstract

The present literature review builds on the results of 50 research articles published from 2000 until 2016. All these studies have successfully accomplished various learning tasks in the domain of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education using three-dimensional (3-D) multi-user virtual worlds for Primary, Secondary and Higher education, in order to: (a) present an overview about the potential contribution of this technology in practice-based perspectives on knowledge and learning; (b) identify the theoretical underpinnings based on contemporary learning theories and pedagogical approaches that leverage content design characteristics, with the respect to the constructs of their instructional design methods; (c) suggest a synthesis of the relevant literature about how the utilization of 3-D multi-user virtual worlds have affected positively learning outcomes based on students’ achievements; (d) concretize the educational potential and instructional affordances covering the pedagogical (socio-) cognitive, technological-operational and financial perspectives; and lastly (e) propose an instructional design workflow to contextualize pedagogical content design principles for the implementation of different learning scenarios in STEM courses. The overviewed articles ascertained that 3-D multi-user virtual worlds have many instructional and technological affordances as candidate learning platforms for different educational levels, influencing to a large extent students’ attendance, knowledge transfer, skill acquisition, hands-on digital experience and positive attitudes in laboratory experimental exercises. This technology gives to users the opportunity to manage learning materials more effectively and efficiently during the teaching process. The vast majority of educational benefits and potential enhanced the degree of their engagement and participation, contributing positively to their achievements.

Keywords

3-D multi-user virtual worlds Instructional design Learning outcomes Learning theories STEM education 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was not funded by anyone.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. August, S. E., Hammers, M. L., Murphy, D. B., Neyer, A., Gueye, P., & Thames, R. (2016). Virtual engineering sciences learning lab: giving STEM education a second life. IEEE Transactions on. Learning Technology, 9(1), 18–30.Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S., Michael, T., Tyler, D., Robert, C., & Hakan, T. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S., Pettyjohn, P., Gresalfi, M., Volk, C., & Solomou, M. (2012). Game-based curriculum and transformational play: Designing to meaningfully positioning person, content, and context. Computers & Education, 58(1), 518–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1).Google Scholar
  5. Beltrán Sierra, L. M., Gutiérrez, R. S., & Garzón-Castro, C. L. (2012). Second Life as a support element for learning electronic related subjects: A real case. Computers & Education, 58(2), 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouta, H., Retalis, S., & Paraskeva, F. (2012). Utilizing a collaborative macro-script to enhance student engagement: A mixed method study in a 3-D virtual environment. Computers & Education, 58(1), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronack, S., Riedl, R., & Tashner, J. (2006). Learning in the Zone: A social constructivist framework for distance education in a 3-dimensional virtual world. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess, M., Slate, J., Rojas-LeBouef, A., & LaPrairie, K. (2010). Teaching and learning in Second Life: Using the community of inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students in instructional technology. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(2), 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capraro, R. & Slough, S. (2013). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why Now? An Introduction to STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Approach. In R., Capraro, M. Capraro & Morgan, J. STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–5). USA: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, X. & Thomas, W. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in post-secondary education. NCES 2009–161. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, B., & Baek, Y. (2011). Exploring factors of media characteristic influencing flow in learning through virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2382–2394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coban, M., Karakus, T., Karaman, A., Gunay, F., & Goktas, Y. (2015). Technical Problems Experienced in the Transformation of Virtual Worlds into an Education Environment and Coping Strategies. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
  13. Corbit, M. (2002). Building virtual worlds for informal science learning (SciCentr and SciFair) in the active worlds educational universe (AWEDU). Teleoperators and Virtual. Environments, 11(1), 55–67.Google Scholar
  14. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dass, S., Dabbagh, N., & Clark, K. (2011). Using virtual worlds: What the research says. The Quarterly review of Distance Education, 12(2), 95–111.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, T. (2012). Affordances of virtual worlds to support STEM project-based learning. In R., Capraro, M. Capraro & Morgan, J. STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 77–84). USA: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  17. de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Poulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluating immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a virtual campus on Second Life: The case of second DMI. Computers & Education, 52(1), 220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Noyelles, A., & Seo, K. (2012). Inspiring equal contribution and opportunity in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment: Bringing together men gamers and women non-gamers in Second Life. Computers & Education, 58(1), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickey, M. (2003). Teaching in 3-D: pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3-D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dickey, M. (2005). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: two case studies of active worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duncan, I., Miller, A., & Jiang, S. (2012). A taxonomy of virtual world’s usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 949–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Erlandson, B., Nelson, B., & Savenye, W. (2010). Collaboration modality, cognitive load, and science inquiry learning in virtual inquiry environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 693–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2011). Improving teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of the Second Life virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 624–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiedler, M., & Haruvy, E. (2009). The lab versus the virtual lab and virtual field—An experimental investigation of trust games with communication. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72(2), 716–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Girvan, C., &, Savage, T. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for virtual worlds: A Communal Constructivism case study, Computers & Education, 55(1), 342–349Google Scholar
  27. Girvan, C., Tangney, B. &, Savage, T. (2013). SLurtles: Supporting constructionist learning in Second Life. Computers & Education, 61(1), 115–132.Google Scholar
  28. Glancy, A. W. & Moore, T. J., (2013). Theoretical Foundations for Effective STEM Learning Environments. Engineering Education. Working Papers. Paper 1Google Scholar
  29. Gregory, S., Scutter, S., Jacka, L., McDonald, M., Farley, H., & Newman, C. (2015). Barriers and Enablers to the Use of Virtual Worlds in Higher Education: An Exploration of Educator Perceptions, Attitudes and Experiences. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  30. Griol, D., Molina, J., de Miguel, A. S., & Callejas, Z. (2012). A proposal to create learning environments in virtual worlds integrating advanced educative resources. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(18), 2516–2541.Google Scholar
  31. Han, S. Y., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi: 10.1007/s10763–014–9526-0. Google Scholar
  32. Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., et al. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: a review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hickey, D. T., Ingram-Goble, A. A., & Jameson, E. M. (2009). Designing assessments and assessing designs in virtual educational environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ibáñez, M., Rueda, J., Morillo, D., & Kloos, C. (2012). Creating test questions for 3-D collaborative virtual worlds: The World of Questions authoring environment. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(18), 2556–2575.Google Scholar
  37. Inman, C., Wright, V., & Hartman, J. (2010). Use of Second Life in K-12 and higher education: A review of research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 44–63.Google Scholar
  38. Jamaludin, A., Chee, Y. S., & Ho, C. M. L. (2009). Fostering argumentative knowledge construction through enactive role play in second life. Computers & Education, 53(2), 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., Mayrath, M., & Trivedi, A. (2009). Virtual world teaching, experiential learning, and assessment: An interdisciplinary communication course in Second Life. Computers & Education, 53(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keskitalo, T., Pyykkö, E., & Ruokamo, H. (2011). Exploring the meaningful learning of students in Second Life. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 16–26.Google Scholar
  41. Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: an exploratory investigation in river city, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Khalil, M., & Ebner, M. (2015). A STEM MOOC for School Children – What Does Learning Analytics tell us? Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL). IEEE: Florence, Italy Retrieved from http://www.weef2015.eu/Proceedings_WEEF2015/proceedings/papers/Contribution1431.pdf.Google Scholar
  43. Kim, H., & Ke, F. (2016). Effects of game-based learning in an OpenSim-supported virtual environment on mathematical performance. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2016.1167744.Google Scholar
  44. Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, T., Terzidou, T., & Pomportsis, A. (2009). Collaborative virtual learning environments: design and evaluation. Multimedia Tools & Applications, 44(2), 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, T., Terzidou, T., & Pomportsis, A. (2010). Fostering collaborative learning in Second Life: Metaphors and affordances. Computers & Education, 55(3), 603–615.Google Scholar
  46. Koutsabasis, P., & Vosinakis, S. (2012). Rethinking HCI education for design: problem-based learning and virtual worlds at an HCI design studio. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 28(8), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koutsabasis, P., Vosinakis, S., Malisova, K., & Paparounas, N. (2012). On the value of virtual worlds for collaborative design. Design Studies, 33(4), 357–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laboy-Rush, D. (2012). Integrated STEM Education through Project-Based Learning. USA.Google Scholar
  49. Lee, M. (2009). How can 3-D virtual worlds be used to support collaborative learning? An analysis of cases from the literature. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge society, 5(1), 149–158.Google Scholar
  50. Lim, C., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment: engaging students in Science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Livingstone, D., Kemp, J., & Edgar, E. (2008). From multi-user virtual environment to 3-D virtual learning environment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 16(3), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lorenzo, C. M., Sicilia, M. A., & Sánchez, S. (2012). Studying the effectiveness of multi-user immersive environments for collaborative evaluation tasks. Computers & Education, 59(2), 1361–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Cifuentes, L., Kwok, O., & Davis, T. J. (2013). Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meyrick, M. K. (2011). How STEM education impress student learning. Meridian K-12 School Computer Technologies. Journal, 14(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  55. Mikropoulos, A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(2), 769–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mueller, D., & Strohmeier, S. (2011). Design characteristics of virtual learning environments: state of research. Computers & Education, 57(2), 2505–2516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). (2010). The STEM cohesion programme: final report. Retrieved from 12 October 2014 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182142/DFE-RR147.pdf
  58. National Research Council (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research (Committee on Integrated STEM education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  59. Navruz, B., Erdogan, N., Bicer, A., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2014). Would a STEM school ‘by any other name smell as sweet’? International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 1(2), 67–75.Google Scholar
  60. Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Okutsu, M., DeLaurentis, D., Brophy, S., & Lambert, J. (2013). Teaching an aerospace engineering design course via virtual worlds: A comparative assessment of learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 60(2), 288–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Omale, N., Hung, W.-C., Luetkehans, L., & Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2009). Learning in 3-D multi-user environments: Exploring the use of unique 3-D attributes for online problem-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 480–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pearson, A., White, H., Bath-Hextall, F., Apostolo, J., Salmond, S., & Kirkpatrick, P. (2014). Methodology for JBI mixed methods systematic reviews. Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute.Google Scholar
  64. Pellas, N. (2014). Bolstering the quality and integrity of online collaborative courses at university-level with the conjunction of Sloodle and open simulator. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1007–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pellas, N. (2016). An exploration of interrelationships among presence indicators of a community of inquiry in a 3D game-like environment for high school programming courses. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1127819.Google Scholar
  66. Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2014). The impact of computer self-efficacy, situational interest and academic self-concept in virtual communities of inquiry during the distance learning procedures through Second Life. World Wide Web Journal, 17(4), 695–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual Laboratories for Education in Science, Technology, and Engineering: A Review. Computers & Education. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002.Google Scholar
  68. Prendinger, H., Brandherm, B., & Ullrich, S. (2012). A simulation framework for sensor-based systems in Second Life. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 18(6), 468–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCST) (2012) Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/micro sites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_2-13-12.pdf
  70. Rico, M., Martνnez-Muρ oz, G., Alaman, X., Camacho, D., & Pulido, E. (2011). Improving the programming experience of high school students by means of virtual worlds. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
  71. Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 6, 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ryoo, J., Techatassanasoontorn, A., Lee, D., & Lothian, J. (2011). Game-based Infosec education using Open Sim. In Proceedings of the 15th Colloquium for Information systems security Education. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Ohio.Google Scholar
  73. Sahin, A., Top, A. & Vanegas, S. (2014). Harmony STEM S.O.S.TM Model Increases Students’ College Readiness and Develops twenty-first Century Skills. Research & Policy, 1(1)Google Scholar
  74. Sancho, P., Torrente, J., & Fernández-Manjón, M. (2012). MareMonstrum: a contribution to empirical research about how the use of MUVEs may improve students’ motivation. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(18), 2576–2598.Google Scholar
  75. Sancho-Thomas, P., Fuentes-Fernández, R., & Fernández-Manjón, B. (2009). Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education, 53(3), 517–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.Google Scholar
  77. Slough, S. & Milam, J. (2013). Theoretical framework for the design of STEM project-based learning. In R., Capraro, M. Capraro & Morgan, J. STEM Project-Based Learning: An Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 15–27). USA: Sense publishers.Google Scholar
  78. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2000). Instructional design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
  79. Smith, A., Douglas, C., & Cox, F. (2009). Supportive teaching and learning strategies in STEM education. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 1(17), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Subbian, V. (2013). Role of MOOCs in integrated STEM education: A learning perspective.” In Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 1–4) IEEE: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  81. Tüzün, H. (2007). Blending video games with learning: issues and challenges with classroom implementations in the Turkish context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Twining (2009). Exploring the educational potential of virtual worlds-Some reflections from the. SPP British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 496–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Uttal D. H. & Cohen C. A. (2012). Spatial Thinking and STEM Education: When, Why, and How? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vahey, P., Brecht, J., Patton, C., Rafanan, K., & Cheng, B. H. (2011). Investigating collaborative innovation in a virtual world task. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(12), 1638–1658.Google Scholar
  85. Vosinakis, S., & Koutsabasis, P. (2012). Problem-based learning for design & engineering activities in virtual worlds. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(3), 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vrellis, I., Avouris, N., & Mikropoulos, A. (2016). Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wang, X. (2013). Why students choose STEM majors motivation, high school learning, and post-secondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1081–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wang, F., & Burton, J. (2013). Second Life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilkerson, S. B., & Haden, C. M. (2014). Effective practices for evaluating STEM out-of-school time programs. Afterschool Matters, 19(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
  90. Xu, Y., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 181–191.Google Scholar
  91. Yong, T., & Ping, L. (2008). Engaging academically at risk primary school students in an ICT mediated after school program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 521–539.Google Scholar
  92. Young, W., Franklin, T., Cooper, T., Carroll, S., & Liu, C. (2012). Game-based learning aids in Second Life. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(1), 57–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaos Pellas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ioannis Kazanidis
    • 2
  • Nikolaos Konstantinou
    • 3
  • Georgia Georgiou
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Product and Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of the AegeanCycladesGreece
  2. 2.Advanced Educational Technologies & Mobile Applications LabEastern Macedonia and Thrace Institute of TechnologyKavalaGreece
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyPanteion UniversityAthensGreece
  4. 4.Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs, Regional Directorate of Primary Education of ThesprotiaAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations