Situated Learning in Virtual Worlds and Immersive Simulations

Chapter

Abstract

Virtual worlds and immersive simulations are designed to create a compelling, ­collaborative, and participatory experience for the user, and often contain a variety of features not possible in the real world to enhance users’ engagement and learning. Over the past several years, an increasing number of immersive virtual environment experiences have become available for both educational and entertainment purposes. Participants in entertainment experiences now number hundreds of millions, yet adoption in educational settings has been limited thus far. In this chapter, we review examples of virtual worlds and immersive simulations that are designed, or adapted, to support situated learning experiences, analyze their use for a variety of educational purposes, explore theoretical foundations, identify learning affordances and limitations, and examine instructional design considerations.

Keywords

Virtual worlds Simulations Situated learning Immersive technologies 

References

  1. Akilli, G. K. (2008). Games and simulations: A new approach in education. In V. Sugumaran (Ed.), Intelligent information technologies: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1398–1415). doi: 10.4018/978-1-59904-941-0.ch078
  2. Aldrich, C. (2005). Learning by doing: A comprehensive guide to simulations, computer games, and pedagogy in e-learning and other educational experiences. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A., Dodge, T., Thomas, M., Jackson, C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 263–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., Dodge, T., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Narratizing disciplines and disciplinizing narratives: Games as 21st century curriculum. International Journal of Gaming and Computer: Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M. S., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: Using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. *Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782Google Scholar
  7. Bartle, R. (2003). Designing virtual worlds. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, M. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds”. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  9. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castronova, E. (2006). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 42(3), 309–328.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). The flow experience and human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience (pp. 15–35). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dawley, L. (2009). Social network knowledge construction: Emerging virtual world pedagogy. On The Horizon, 17(2), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dede, C. (2005). Why design-based research is both important and difficult. Educational Technology, 45(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  16. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69. doi: 10.1126/science.1167311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *Dede, C. (2012). Customization in immersive learning environments: Implications for digital teaching platforms. In C. Dede & J. Richards, (Eds.), Digital teaching platforms. New York: Teacher’s College PressGoogle Scholar
  18. *deFreitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Majoulas, 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. doi:  10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01024.x Google Scholar
  19. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dickey, M. (2011). The pragmatics of virtual worlds for K-12 educators: Investigating the affordances and constraints of ActiveWorlds and SecondLife with K-12 in-service teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9163-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dweck, C. S. (2002). Messages that motivate: How praise molds students’ beliefs, motivation, and performance (in surprising ways). In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement (pp. 37–60). San Diego: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *Feldon, D. F., & Kafai, Y.B. (2008). Mixed methods for mixed reality: Understanding users’ avatar activities in virtual worlds. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5–6), 575–593Google Scholar
  24. Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., & Schatz, S. (2011). Applying the modality principle of real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi:  10.1007/s11423-011-9218-1
  25. Gibson, D. (2010). Living virtually: Researching new worlds. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 59–61. doi: 10.4018/jgcms.2010010106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gibson, D., Aldrich, M., & Presnsky, M. (2007). Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *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(1), 33–55. doi:  10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, L. F., Levine, A., & Smith, R. S. (2007). The 2007 Horizon report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  30. Kafai, Y. B. (2010). World of Whyville: An introduction to tween virtual life. Games and Culture, 5(1), 3–22. doi: 10.1177/15554120009351264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahn, S. (2007). The case in case-based design of education software: A methodological interrogation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 423–447. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9028-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J. E., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. KZero Inc. (2011). Virtual worlds 2011+. Available at http://www.kzero.co.uk
  34. Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  35. Lepper, M. R., & Henderlong, J. (2000). Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”: 25 years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 257–307). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loh, S. (2007). Designing online games assessment as “information trails.” In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks. IGI Global. doi:  10.4018/978-1-59904-304-3.ch016
  37. Messinger, P., Stroulia, E., & Lyons, K. (2008). A typology of virtual worlds: Historical overview and future directions. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  38. Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (2011). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson, B. C., & Erlandson, B. E. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(5–6), 619–641. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9082-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richter, J., & Dawley, L. (2010). Creating context for educational research in virtual worlds: An invitation to dialogue. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), i–xi.Google Scholar
  45. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schuh, K. L., & Barab, S. A. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. V. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 67–82). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  48. Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behavior in immersive virtual environments. Philosophic Transactions of the Royal Society, 364, 3549–3557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smart, E. J., Cascio, J., & Paffendorf, J. (2007). Metaverse roadmap overview. Retrieved from www.metaverseroadmap.org/MetaverseRoadmapOverview.pdf
  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. *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(3), 414–426Google Scholar
  52. Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 1, 87–114.Google Scholar
  53. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. The Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GoGo LabsBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Harvard Graduate School of EducationCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations