DESIGNING 3D COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

TO UTILIZE THE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS OF CSCL

Th. Tsiatsos and A. Konstantinidis

Department of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Multimedia Lab

P.O. BOX. 114, GR-54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

Keywords: Collaborative learning, virtual environments, virtual reality, pedagogy, design challenges.

Abstract: In this paper, we aim to aid designers of 3D collaborative virtual environments in their work by presenting

the pedagogical benefits of computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and discussing how these can

be utilized in the definition of certain design guidelines for CVEs. We also present the challenges faced by

CVE designers due to both the inherent characteristics of CVEs and the purpose these applications are

designed to fulfil. Finally, based on bibliographical studies we suggest how these challenges can be

overcome through thoughtful consideration of certain design principles.

1 INTRODUCTION

Collaborative or group learning refers to

instructional methods whereby students are

encouraged or required to work together on learning

tasks with or without the help of educators. In this

paper we will focus on Computer Supported

Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and specifically on

the use of 3D Collaborative Virtual Environments

(CVEs). Generally, a CVE can be defined as a

computer-based, distributed, virtual space or set of

places. In such places, people can meet and interact

with others, with agents, or with virtual objects

(Churchill et al., 2001). CVEs might vary in their

representational richness from 3D graphical spaces,

2.5D and 2D environments, to text-based

environments. Access to CVEs is by no means

limited to desktop devices, but might well include

mobile or wearable devices, public kiosks, etc.

The effectiveness of collaborative learning

compared to other educational practices (e.g.

competitive or personalized learning) has been

proven by researchers (e.g. Bruckman, et. al 2002;

Ballesteros, 2006) and can be easily deduced

through the study of relevant bibliography.

In contrast though, it should be noted that a small

percentage of researchers did not encounter this

positive pedagogical influence in their research. This

contradiction is probably due to the

multidimensional nature of the design challenges

faced by CVE designers. Challenges concerning the

users themselves and the system that supports the

CVE or issues regarding interaction, communication

and application all have to be addressed. The way to

face these challenging issues is the main topic of this

paper and will be analyzed in the sections that

follow.

In the next section the pedagogical benefits of

CVEs will be discussed, as understood through the

study of relevant research. Following that, the main

challenges facing CVE designers are categorized

and presented. Next, these challenges are addressed

through the discussion of proposed CVE design

guidelines. Finally, the paper conclusions are

presented.

2 PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS OF

CVES

Although the reason for the effectiveness of

collaborative learning is not perfectly clear we can

hypothesize based on the evaluation of the method

from multiple distinct scientific approaches.

From a motivationalist perspective, collaborative

incentive structures create a situation in which the

only way group members can attain their own

personal goals is if all the members of the group are

successful (Slavin, 1997). In contrast the social

cohesion perspective emphasises teambuilding

408

Tsiatsos T. and Konstantinidis A. (2008).

DESIGNING 3D COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO UTILIZE THE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS OF CSCL.

In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies, pages 408-413

DOI: 10.5220/0001528204080413

 SciTePress

activities and group self-evaluation, instead of

external incentives and individual accountability.

Research has led to several educational theories,

such as those of constructivism and social learning.

Introduced by Vygotsky, the idea of the zone of

proximal development has been useful for

understanding mechanisms in collaborative learning.

This refers to the fact that, more advanced peers are

likely to be operating within one another's proximal

zones of development, modelling in the

collaborative group, behaviours more advanced than

those they could perform as individuals (Vygotsky,

1978). It should be noted though, that research has

also shown that low achievers progressively become

passive when collaborating with high achievers

(Dillenbourg et al., 1996) and yet groups, which

consist of members with different but partially

overlapping expertise, were more effective and

innovative than groups with homogeneous expertise

(Lehtinen and Hakkarainen, 2001).

This constitutes a challenge for the CVE

designer since a method must be devised to achieve

homogenous and yet functioning student work

groups. Design challenges will be discussed in more

detail in the following sections.

The pedagogical benefits of collaborative

learning are multiple and varied. Through this

technique students can be stimulated to negotiate

information such as abstract, ill-defined and not

easily accessible knowledge and open-ended

problems. Also, collaboration enables the discussion

of complex problems from different perspectives

and supports learners in the elaboration, explanation

and evaluation of information in order to re- and co-

construct new knowledge or to solve problems

(Veerman and Diermanse, 2001).

Probably, the major advantage of collaborative

learning compared to other educational practices

(e.g. personalized learning) is the interaction with

others. This collaboration with other students

provokes activity, makes learning more realistic and

stimulates motivation. Students can ask questions to

each other and discuss problems from different

perspectives. They can propose various answers and

solutions and evaluate them on different criteria

(Petraglia, 1997). From this brief presentation of the

pedagogical benefits of CVEs we can surmise that

the most important factor in designing a CVE is the

catering for communication and interaction between

the participating students and educators. According

to (Bruckman and Hudson, 2001), through CSCL,

teacher-student interactions are more balanced and

evidence suggests a reduction in gender differences.

In addition, learning becomes more student-oriented;

with students exhibiting higher levels of attention

and motivation, lower inhibitions and more honest

and candid attitudes.

This student-centric approach increases the

likelihood that students will absorb and remember

what they learn while making personal connections

with powerful ideas from which classroom

discussions can emerge.

3 DESIGN CHALLENGES

The challenges concerning the design of CVEs can

be categorized into user, communication,

interaction, application and system issues. User

issues concern the influence CVEs excerpt on the

psychology and sociology of collaboration groups

and distinct users. Communication issues relate to

the most effective way of supporting communication

between the CVE participants. As mentioned in the

previous sections catering for communication and

interaction is the most important factor in CVE

design. Furthermore, interaction issues in CVEs are

about enhancing the sense of presence inside the

virtual environment, as well as creating effective and

intuitive 3D interfaces where these are deemed

necessary. Application issues involve the

affordances and representations of objects and user

capabilities within the environment. Finally, system

issues refer to the underlying framework of the

environment (e.g. architectures, specifications and

technical requirements).

These categories will be analyzed in more detail

in the sections that follow.

3.1 User Issues

According to Grudin (1991), groupware (a general

group of collaboration software that accentuates

multiple user environments, coordinating and

orchestrating things so that users can “see” each

other and yet not conflict with each other) is plagued

by innate characteristics which produce negative

effects to collaboration. Effects such as the fact that

these types of applications never provide precisely

the same benefit to every group member and that the

use of groupware is only fruitful if a high percentage

of users participate. Also, that the use of groupware

might be resisted if it interferes with the subtle and

complex social dynamics that are common to

groups. Finally, the design of a CVE should be

adaptable in order to accommodate for the fact that

many organizations are structured in such a way so

as to divide responsibilities and minimize overall

DESIGNING 3D COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO UTILIZE THE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS

OF CSCL

409

communication requirements and social

interdependencies.

The more designers know about the kind of users

that the CVE will be used by the better they can

account for this in their design. Therefore the target

demographics are important. Designers should be

interested in why users are participating. User’s

expectations and desires are more important to

designers than their age, incomes and geographic

locations (Bartle, 2004); For example, as mentioned

by Bruckman et al. (2002), the failure of the CVE

they created was due to the inability to meet user

expectations because of lack of manpower and time.

They argue that to create the popular massively

multiplayer online role-playing game Asheron’s

Call, Turbine Entertainment had a staff of over 30

people working for 4 years. A research prototype

made by a few graduate and undergraduate students

and one faculty member clearly could not compete.

Finally, research is needed in order to assess the

social discomfort levels generated in a CVE, caused

by participants working concurrently with real

people and their avatars. In addition, empirical

testing confirms that virtual reality systems induce

physical symptoms and effects in CVEs. These are

both issues which must be studied in the future.

3.2 Communication Issues

In most virtual learning environments there are

sophisticated surveillance tools available for

tracking and for keeping records of student activity.

It thereby becomes possible to collect detailed

patterns of information and to obtain an insight into

the individual student’s habits (Land and Bayne,

2005). This might gradually push the role of

teaching towards one of learning management

instead of one of facilitating communication.

Although this may be the case, methods still

need to be found in order to improve interpersonal

(visual/body language) communications for

collaboration groups working in a CVE. Some

researchers (Costigan, 1997) assert that the richest

communication occurs when people are physically

face-to-face, which the most sophisticated

technology for connecting people with audio and

video cannot surpass. Therefore the CVE should

have the ability to adapt to system and network

capabilities and still be capable of providing a higher

sense of telepresence.

3.3 Interaction Issues

The main issue concerning interaction in CVEs is

that some tasks are less “shareable” than others. For

instance, solving anagrams can hardly be done

collaboratively because it involves perceptual

processes which are not easy to verbalise (Durfee et

al. 1989). It is the designer’s job to find a way of

incorporating these less collaborative tasks into the

CVE effectively.

Another important issue is the levels of

allowable change (who creates content) and

persistence (what survives a reboot) employed in the

CVE. Generally, an increased number of content

creators imply an increased persistence (Bartle,

2004). In proprietary socially-oriented virtual worlds

building is considered entertainment. The original

designers only create the core of the world and the

means by which it can be extended. Thereafter they

hand it to the users to do with as they wish.

The use of 3D environments compared to 2D or

2.5D perspectives also introduces unnecessary

confusion and complexity to the content material

covered. For example many users have trouble

controlling their avatar’s movement in a 3D setting

(Bruckman et al., 2002). This is probably due to the

lack of experience from the users in navigating 3D

virtual environments. In contrast though, as

mentioned in Monahan et al. (2007), continuous

enhancements in computer technology and the

developing widespread computer literacy among the

public will result in a new generation of users that

expect increasingly more from their e-learning

experiences.

Success is often due to design features that make

the interface even better than reality. In other words,

not implementing ill-considered 3D features for

situations in which simple 2D representations would

do a better job.

The overall metaphor generally used in CVEs is

of realistic environments reminiscent of places that

one might actually visit to perform real-world tasks.

However this is confounded by certain functionality

being presented with metaphors that although

consistent within themselves, are not consistent with

the overall world metaphor (Steed and Tromp,

1998). Understanding the differences in human

interactions is necessary to ensure the appropriate

technologies are employed to design and develop

groupware systems that could support e-

collaboration effectively. According to Bouras et al.

(2007), there are three primary ways in which

humans interact: conversational interaction,

transactional interaction, and collaborative

interaction. Conversational interaction is an

exchange of information between one or many

participants where the primary purpose of the

interaction is discovery or relationship building.

Transactional interaction involves the exchange of

WEBIST 2008 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

410

transaction entities where a major function of the

transaction entity is to alter the relationship between

participants. In collaborative interactions, the main

function of the participants’ relationship is to alter a

collaboration entity. Examples include the

development of an idea, the creation of a design, and

the achievement of a shared goal. Finally, among the

challenging problems today is the achievement of a

sense of presence in the virtual environment which

might duplicate, replace, or improve the human

sense of “being there”.

3.4 Application Issues

The application issues are generally concerned with

the affordances of objects and the lack of help with

the CVE itself. They are broad in nature, from

problems with objects whose operation is not

obvious, to wider topics such as how best to

represent group services to group members (Steed

and Tromp, 1998). Generally, some of the major

challenges are: the distribution of objects and

information as well as the delegation of rights and

the representation of group structures.

Although the commercial success of CVE’s has

proven their effectiveness in entertainment, for real

world organisational users there is the matter of

fitness for purpose and consequently confidence in

such novel technology. The CVE must show that it

can deliver safety-critical training in simulated real

life working environments to senior professionals

and lead to its validation by a recognised training

and standards body as being of a suitable standard.

Finally, the CVE must be accepted by the trainers,

trainees and employers who will use it in the end

(Turner and Turner, 2002).

3.5 System Issues

System issues include lack of functionality,

performance and display quality. A typical issue is

that of the CVE slowing or stopping when new

scene components are loaded when the user moves

around. Given the user’s expectation of free

movement at all times, this suggests to him/her that

an error has occurred, or that the operation has

failed. This is also potentially serious for immersed

users since the visual and proprioceptive cues will

conflict. According to Goebbels et al. (2003), high

system responsiveness is perceived as having very

positive impact on collaboration. Even downsizing

the application in order to decrease the CPU load is

recommendable. Findings indicate that good system

responsiveness is guaranteed if all inputs and outputs

are processed and rendered within less than 50ms.

The architectures that support these types of

systems usually fall into one of the following cases

(Bouras et al., 2007): (a) client-server architectures,

where the clients communicate their changes to one

or more servers and these servers, in turn, are

responsible for the redistribution of the received

information to all connected clients and (b) peer-to-

peer architectures, where the clients communicate

directly their modifications and updates of the world

to all connected clients. The challenge here is that

while the client-server model is the most simple it

cannot support high scalability and the server

presents a possible point of failure. On the other

hand, the peer-to-peer model’s scalability is

restricted by the network. A better design would

probably utilise a hybrid architecture which

incorporates the best characteristics of both models.

Design guidelines such as this will be discussed in

the next section.

4 DESIGN GUIDELINES

CSCL is one of the most promising innovations to

improve teaching and learning with the help of

modern information and communication technology.

Eighteen studies presented by Lehtinen and

Hakkarainen, (2001) support the theoretically

derived hypotheses that collaboration facilitated with

information and communication technology would

improve student learning. A technologically

sophisticated three dimensional CVE, designed

around the pedagogical benefits of collaborative

learning can augment their effects and provide

advanced support for a distributed process of

inquiry; facilitate advancement of a learning

community’s knowledge as well as transformation

of the participants’ epistemic states through a

socially distributed process of inquiry.

The pedagogical benefits and challenging issues

mentioned in the previous sections can be translated

into CVE features such as desktop conferencing,

videoconferencing, co-authoring features and

applications, electronic mail and forums, meeting

support systems, voice applications, workflow

systems, and group calendars (Grudin, 1991). These

features and tools can exploit the benefits of

communication and collaborating in groups as

mention in section 2.

More features based on the communication

principles of collaborative learning include flexible

methods available for the students, to help them

externalise their preliminary ideas and make their

thinking processes transparent to other people and

interfaces which by inducing a specific distribution

DESIGNING 3D COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO UTILIZE THE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS

OF CSCL

411

of roles between learning partners help to foster

social interaction.

Finally, due to the importance of communication

in collaborative learning multiple communication

channels should be available. Channels such as

asynchronous text-based communication should be

utilized to provide time for reflection on messages

and allow students lacking in confidence to learn

nevertheless by “eavesdropping” on conversations.

On the other hand, features such as immediate

feedback should be used cautiously (Dillenbourg et

al., 1996) because they may prevent fruitful

exchanges between human co-learners; relying on

the system to test their hypotheses instead of

developing arguments to convince one another.

Concerning interaction, the designers should

model how the different user types interact, and

design their virtual world such that these interactions

are both stable and intrinsically interesting for

participants and observers (Bartle, 2004).

Several design guidelines discussed in Veerman

and Veldhuis (2001), include tasks that should be

open-ended so students can share and learn from

each other’s differences in perspective, prior

knowledge, experiences, beliefs and values.

Although open-ended, tasks should still be

structured and by this way regulate organisational

and planning issues.

Regarding communication, Veerman and

Veldhuis (2001) suggest the utilization of a

transparent and user-friendly system, with clear and

distinct discussion threads and with a preference to

asynchronous communication when large groups are

involved.

Concerning the interaction issues mention in

section 3 and specifically effective 3D interfaces,

designers should use occlusion, shadows,

perspective, and other 3D techniques carefully

thereby avoiding unnecessary visual clutter,

distractions, contrast-shifts, reflections and keeping

text readable. User and object movement should be

simple and realistic with the required navigation

steps for the completion of a task minimized. To

avoid tedious and sluggish movement a teleportation

or flying mechanism should also be employed. Other

desirable features include: x-ray vision, zooming,

global map, history keeping through text and video

recordings, rich user to user and user to object

interactions, explanatory text such as speech

bubbles, tips and labels; marking, measuring and

searching tools, overviews through different camera

perspectives and increased depth of field. Slater, et

al (2000) in studying participants working in virtual

and real-world environments, discovered a positive

relationship between presence (being in a place), and

copresence (the sense of being with other people). In

addition, accord in the group increased with: (a)

presence, (b) the performance of the group, and (c)

the presence of women in the group. In other words,

apart from communication, most central to

collaboration is the support for: mutual awareness;

awareness of the presence of other participants, but

also recognition of the identity, role and current

activity of the other participants (Steed and Tromp,

1998).

Usability findings indicated that users prefer to

get a quick overview of the situation before handling

a task; therefore work tools and mechanisms should

be designed in order to disburden the users’ senses

(Goebbels et al., 2003). High cognitive load,

uncomfortable, non-intuitive usability and user

fatigue also have negative impact on the perception

of co-presence and co-knowledge and thus

collaboration.

(Bruckman et al. 2002), summarise two general

design principles: personal and epistemological

connections. Personal connections refer to

construction kits and activities that connect to users'

interests, passions, and experiences, while

epistemological connections are about construction

kits and activities that connect to important domains

of knowledge and also encourage new ways of

thinking.

Finally, several human-computer interaction

rules for display design are mentioned by Salaheddin

and Omar (2007), such as consistency of data

display (labelling and graphic conventions) for

efficient information assimilation by the user and

minimization of memory load, compatibility of data

display with data entry, flexibility for user control of

data display, presentation of information graphically

where appropriate, standardized abbreviations, and

presentation of digital values only where knowledge

of numerical value is necessary and useful.

5 CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to establish new conceptual

approaches to the design of virtual environments in

order to enhance the richness and complexity of our

experience in emerging virtual worlds. By delivering

“quality of experience”, supporting effectively the

presence of other users, enhancing communication

and designing simple but intuitive interactions

developers can hope to attract the positive reception

of their target group of users and minimize

drawbacks and inadequacies.

WEBIST 2008 - International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

412

In this paper, we aimed at aiding designers of

3D collaborative virtual environments in their work

by presenting the pedagogical benefits of computer

supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and

discussing how these can be utilized in the definition

of certain design guidelines for CVEs. We also

presented the challenges faced by CVE designers

and suggested how these can be overcome through

certain design principles.

REFERENCES

Ballesteros, I. L., 2006. Future and Emerging

Technologies and Paradigms for Collaborative

Working Environments, Information Society,

European Commission, http://tinyurl.com/3y6aj7

Bartle, A.R., 2004. Designing virtual worlds, New Riders

Publishing, USA

Bouras C., Giannaka E., Tsiatsos T., 2007. E-

Collaboration Concepts, Systems and Applications,

Encyclopedia of Internet Technologies and

Applications, Information Science Reference,

Hershey, New York, USA.

Bruckman, A., Elliott, J. and Adams, L., 2002. No Magic

Bullet: 3D Video Games in Education, Proceedings of

ICLS 2002, International Conference of the Learning

Sciences, Seattle, WA, October 23-26

Bruckman, A., Hudson, J.M., 2001. Disinhibition in a

CSCL Environment, Proceedings of Computer

Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL),

Maastricht, Netherlands, 22-24 March, 629-630.

Boulder, CO [Short Talk].

Churchill, E., Snowdon, D. and Munro, A., 2001.

Collaborative Virtual Environments: Digital Places

and Spaces for Interaction, Springer-Verlag, London

Limited, Great Britain

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. and O'Malley, C.,

1996. The evolution of research on collaborative

learning, in E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds) Learning in

Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary

learning science, 189-211, Oxford: Elsevier.

Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.R. & Corkill, D.D., 1989.

Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving. In A. Barr,

P.R. Cohen & E.A. Feigenbaum (Eds) The Handbook

of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. IV, pp. 83-127).

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Goebbels G., Lalioti V. and Göbel M., 2003. Design and

Evaluation of Team Work in Distributed Collaborative

Virtual Environments, Virtual Reality Software and

Technology Proceedings of the ACM symposium on

virtual reality software and technology, Osaka, Japan,

p. 231-238, ACM Press, New York, USA.

Grudin, J. 1991. Obstacles to user involvement in software

product development, with implications for CSCW,

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 3,

435-452.

Land, R. and Bayne, S.,2005. Screen or monitor? Issues of

surveillance and disciplinary power in online learning

environments. In: R. Land & S. Bayne (eds.)

Education in Cyberspace. RoutledgeFalmer. New

York, 165-179.

Lehtinen, E. and Hakkarainen K., 2001. Computer

Supported Collaborative Learning: A Review,

http://tinyurl.com/226965

Monahan, T., McArdle, G., Bertolotto, M., 2007. CLEV-

R: Design and Evaluation of an Interactive and

Collaborative M-Learning Application, International

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(2),

Kassel Univ. OJS Press.

Petraglia, J., 1997. The rhetoric and technology of

authenticity in education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Salaheddin Odeh and Omar Qaraeen 2007. Evaluation

Methods and Techniques for ELearning Software for

School Students in Primary Stages, International

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. Vol 2,

No 3, ISSN: 1863-0383

Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M. and Schroeder, R., 2000.

Small-Group Behavior

, Presence, February, vol. 9, no.

1, pp. 37-51

Slavin, R. E., 1997. Research on cooperative learning and

achievement: A quarter century of research, Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of Pedagogical

Psychology, Frankfurt, September.

Steed, A., and Tromp, J. G. 1998. Experiences with the

evaluation of CVE applications. Proceedings of

Collaborative Virtual Environments, 2nd CVE98

Conference, 123-127.

Turner P. and Turner S., 2002. An affordance-based

framework for CVE evaluation. To appear in People

and Computers XVI, Proceedings of HCI’02.

Veerman, A., and Veldhuis-Diermanse, E., 2001.

Collaborative learning through computer-mediated

communication in academic education. In P.

Dillenbourg, A. Eurelings, & K. Hakkarainen (Eds.),

European perspectives on computer-supported

collaborative learning: proceedings of the 1st

European conference on computer-supported

collaborative learning, 625-632, Maastricht:

Maastricht University.

Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development

of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

DESIGNING 3D COLLABORATIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO UTILIZE THE PEDAGOGICAL BENEFITS

OF CSCL

413