Skip to main content

Uncovering educational outcomes deriving from students’ acceptance and involvement with 3D virtual worlds

Abstract

Three-Dimensional Virtual World (3DVW) is one of the promising innovations in the field of information and communication technologies. 3DVWs include user-created content, and they allow for user-defined purpose and a sense of presence. Users are able to navigate in and manipulate objects within the virtual environment through their avatar. This research examined the educational outcomes of using 3DVW by higher education students. As a result of this qualitative study, 18 factors were identified as the consequences of students’ acceptance of 3D Virtual World. These 18 factors were further categorised into eight categories, namely, positive learning outcome, satisfaction, engagement, learning style, environment impact, retention, skill development, and connectedness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Adler, C. L., & Zarchin, Y. R. (2002). The “virtual focus group”: Using the internet to reach pregnant women on home bed rest. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 31(4), 418–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Hatem, A. I., Masood, M., & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Fostering student nurses’ self-regulated learning with the second life environment: An empirical study. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D., & Viñes, J. M. (2008). Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(4), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alruwaih, M. E. (2015). Effect of blended learning on student's satisfaction for students of the public authority for applied education and training in Kuwait. Science, Movement and Health, 15(2), 442–448.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Astin, A, W. 1993. What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited, Jossey-Bass San Francisco.

  6. Ata, R. (2014). An exploration of higher education teaching in a virtual world in the context of blended learning. University of Sheffield.

  7. Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. science, 317, 472–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauer, H. H., Heinrich, D., & Schäfer, D. B. (2013). The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: More hype than substance? Journal of Business Research, 66, 1035–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berge, Z, L. & Huang, Y, P. 2004. 13: 5 a model for sustainable student retention: A holistic perspective on the student dropout problem with special attention to e-learning.

  10. Boulos, M. N. K., Hetherington, L., & Wheeler, S. (2007). Second life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24, 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bulankulama, S., Khatibi, A. & Herath, H. 2014. Utilization of social media in an organization and competitive advantages: development of a conceptual framework.

  13. Chapman, A. (1993). Language and learning in school mathematics: A social semiotic perspective. Issues in educational research, 3, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Childs, M. 2010. Learners’ experience of presence in virtual worlds. Institute of Education.

  15. Cleary, J. & Skaines, I. 2005. Student engagement as a quality indicator at the University of Newcastle. 2005 Australian Universities Quality Forum, 50.

  16. Cooper, K. E. (2009). Go with the flow: Examining the effects of engagement using flow theory and it ‘S relationship to achievement and performance in the 3-dimensional virtual learning environment of second life. Florida: University of Central Florida Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Creswell, J. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Newjersey: Pearson Ed. Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  18. Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 160–172.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Devilbiss, S, E. 2014. The transition experience: Understanding the transition from high school to college for conditionally-admitted students using the lens of Schlossberg’s transition theory.

  20. Gallego, M. D., Bueno, S., & Noyes, J. (2016). Second life adoption in education: A motivational model based on uses and gratifications theory. Computers & Education, 100, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gazave, C. M., & Hatcher, A. R. (2017). Evaluating the use of second life™ for virtual team-based learning in an online undergraduate anatomy course. Medical Science Educator, 27(2), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hersen, M. & Bellack, A, S. 1977. Assessment of social skills. Handbook of behavioral assessment, 509–554.

  23. Ijsselsteijn, W., Van Baren, J., & Van Lanen, F. (2003). Staying in touch: Social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media. Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice (Part II), 2, e928.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Irwin, P., Coutts, R., & Graham, I. (2019). Looking good sister! The use of a virtual world to develop nursing skills. In Australasian Simulation Congress (pp. 33–45). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jdaitawi, M. (2015). Social connectedness, academic, non-academic behaviors related to self-regulation among university students in Saudi Arabia. International Education Studies, 8, 84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2009). The fairyland of second life: Virtual social worlds and how to use them. Business Horizons, 52, 563–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kawulich, B. B., & D’alba, A. (2019). Teaching qualitative research methods with second life, a 3-dimensional online virtual environment. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 375–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kluge, S. & Riley, L., (2008). Teaching in Virtual Worlds: Opportunities and Challenges. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 5, 127–135.

  29. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87, 818–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lam, C. 2012. The efficacy of text messaging to improve social connectedness and team attitude in student technical communication projects: An experimental study. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, https://doi.org/10.5065/1912468888.

  31. Lemke, J, L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values, ERIC.

  32. Linganisa, A., Ako-Nai, A., & Ajayi, N. (2018). The potential of second life as a platform for learning: Student’s perspective. In 2018 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications (ICONIC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

  33. Masters, Y. & Gregory, S. 2010. Second life: harnessing virtual world technology to enhance student engagement and learning. rethinking learning in your discipline. proceedings of the university learning and teaching futures colloquium

  34. Mauldin Pereira, M., Artemiou, E., McGonigle, D., Conan, A., Sithole, F., & Yvorchuk-St. Jean, K. (2018). Using the virtual world of second life in veterinary medicine: Student and faculty perceptions. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 45(2), 148–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Melsness, C. (2014). Social collaboration technologies in organisations: A qualitative approach. Auckland University of Technology.

  36. Mwamwenda, T. S., & Mwamwenda, B. B. (1987). Self-concept and academic achievement in Botswana primary school-leaving examinations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O'halloran, K. 2008. Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images, A&C Black.

  38. Rahim, E. E. A., & Zulkanain, N. A. (2016). Pedagogical framework of students-instructors interactions in virtual world. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC), 8(6), 153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roy, R., Potter, S., & Yarrow, K. (2008). Designing low carbon higher education systems: Environmental impacts of campus and distance learning systems. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9, 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sajjanhar, A., & Faulkner, J. (2019). Second life as a learning environment for computer programming. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2403–2428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schroeder, R. (2008). Defining virtual worlds and virtual environments. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 1.

  42. Sharma, A., & Nazir, S. (2018). Application of second life in promoting collaborative learning. International Association for Development of the Information Society.

  43. Smith, R, M. 1998. Mastering mathematics: How to be a great math student, Brooks Cole.

  44. Sun, J. C.-Y., Martinez, B., & Seli, H. (2014). Just-in-time or plenty-of-time teaching? Different electronic feedback devices and their effect on student engagement. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 234–244.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turney, L., & Pocknee, C. (2005). Virtual focus groups: New frontiers in research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4, 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Warburton, S. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 414–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Winkelmann, K., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Fowler, D., Lazo Macik, M., Perez Guarda, P., & Ahlborn, C. J. (2019). Learning gains and attitudes of students performing chemistry experiments in an immersive virtual world. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.

  48. Wyse, S, E. 2011. What is the difference between qualitative research and quantitative research. Snap surveys.

  49. Yalcinalp, S., Sen, N., Kocer, G., & Koroglu, F. (2012). Higher education Student's behaviors as avatars in a web based course in second life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4534–4538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Young, M. R., Klemz, B. R., & Murphy, J. W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 130–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhang, C. & Zigurs, I. 2009. An exploratory study of the impact of a virtual world learning environment on student interaction and learning satisfaction. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 424.

Download references

Availability of data and material

Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.

Code availability

Not Applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Ghanbarzadeh.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee with the reference number ICT/06/14/HREC.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghanbarzadeh, R., Ghapanchi, A.H. Uncovering educational outcomes deriving from students’ acceptance and involvement with 3D virtual worlds. Educ Inf Technol 26, 311–337 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10272-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Three-dimensional virtual world
  • Higher education
  • Immersive learning
  • Distance learning
  • Learning outcome
  • Qualitative survey