How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds?
The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
Athanasios Christopoulos, Marc Conrad and Mitul Shukla
Department of Computer Science & Technology, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton, U.K.
Keywords: Virtual World, Virtual Learning, Interactions, OpenSimulator, Orientation, Induction, Engagement.
Abstract: Our ongoing research focuses on the ways that interactions affect learner engagement with a virtual world
and, consequently, the educational activities that take place within it when a hybrid learning approach is
used. It aims to form a complete taxonomy of the types of interactions that can lead to the development of
engaging and interactive learning experiences. In this paper, we examine the impact that the orientation
(induction) process has on learner engagement by observing a cohort of postgraduate students while using
an OpenSim-based institutionally hosted virtual world. The results of our study highlight that educators and
instructors need to plan their in-world learning activities very carefully and with a focus on interactions if
engaging activities are what they want to offer their students. Additionally, it seems that student interactions
with the content of the virtual world and the in-class student-to-student interactions have stronger impact on
student engagement when hybrid methods are used. We confirm and further enhance our hypothesis
investigating student feelings and thoughts about the interaction taking place within a virtual world when
that is used in higher education.
1 INTRODUCTION
Computer supported education can be classified in
four different ways (see Table 1). Virtual reality and
virtual worlds, which were first introduced to the
public in the 1980s and have continued to develop
ever since, are cornerstones of “learning in
technology” (Herbet et al., 2012; Schrader, 2008).
Table 1: The framework of Schrader (2008).
Relations of Technology with Education
Learning about technology
Learning with
technology
Technology as a topic Technology as a tool
Learning from Technology Learning in technology
Technology as a delivery
mechanism
Technology as the
context
In the literature (Frutos-Perez, 2010; Herbet et
al., 2012), virtual worlds are defined as 2D or 3D
computer generated environments that either depict
parts of the physical world or imaginary sceneries.
In these worlds, users are able to perform a wide
range of interactions with the content of the world
and other users (Dickey, 2005) such as: object
creation (Allison et al., 2012; Dalgarno and Lee,
2010), object manipulation (Bredl et al., 2012;
Dalgarno and Lee, 2010), terrain editing (Allison et
al., 2012), navigation around the world (Allison et
al., 2012; Dalgarno and Lee, 2010; Herbet et al.,
2012; Hockey et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2009),
communication synchronously or asynchronously,
either orally or via chat, and. finally, using avatar
gestures and other forms of in-world visual
interactions (Bredl et al., 2012; Carter, 2012;
Dalgarno and Lee, 2010; Herbet et al., 2012; Hockey
et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2009).
These kinds of interactions are performed
through the use of avatars (Allison et al., 2012;
Bredl et al., 2012; Herbet et al., 2012; Johnson,
Vorderstrasse and Shaw, 2009), that is, users’
artificial figures (Conrad, 2010; Dickey, 2005). The
fact that virtual worlds provide the necessary context
for all those interactions mentioned, not to mention
that they are increasingly providing more complex
interactions, has led educators to use them
extensively, taking into account all their educational
potentials (Schrader, 2008). Content creation
activities, exploratory, problem-based, collaborative,
blended, and synchronous or asynchronous distance
learning are only some of the few in world
educational paradigms that have been extensively
Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M. and Shukla, M.
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions.
In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 1, pages 43-54
ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3
Copyright
c
2016 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
43
used and studied from many different perspectives
(Carter, 2012; Dickey, 2005; Hockey et al., 2010;
Vosinakis, Koutsabasis and Anastassakis, 2014).
Despite some differentiations on recent researchers’
foci (Dede, 1995; Minocha and Tingle, 2008;
Veletsianos, 2009; Padrós, Romero and Usart,
2012), all of them have acknowledged Vygotsky’s
Social Constructivist Learning Theory (Vygotsky,
1978) to have great practical application on learning
within virtual worlds. According to Social
Constructivist Learning Theory (Vygotsky, 1978),
students construct their cognitive structures through
interactions, and engagement in any kind of activity
that motivates them to learn. Thus, interacting within
virtual worlds can be very beneficial for learners
(Dalgarno and Lee, 2010). The author in (Jones,
2013) underlines that it is the learners’ ability to
affect, alter, and enhance, according to their needs,
the content of the virtual world they learn in that
enables them to construct their cognitive schemes
and engage with the phenomena they study.
Consequently, learning becomes more self-directed
and student-centred (Anasol et al., 2012), whilst the
educators get the role of designer, instructor, and
supporter of activities that aim to engage students in
learning (Anasol et al., 2012; Schrader, 2008).
The historic context of these studies derives from
the plethora of research activities into Second Life
since 2003 (including research at the University of
Bedfordshire such as Shukla and Conrad (2011) or
Christopoulos and Conrad (2012) ) and subsequent
research on OpenSim in view of the similarities and
differences identified (Christopoulos and Conrad,
2013). We freely acknowledge that other interfaces
such as textual virtual environments exist; however
they are not in the focus of this study.
Several frameworks have been developed to aid
educators define and conceptualise their new role
and the potential utilisation of virtual worlds in
educational contexts (Elliot et al., 2012).
Most of them focus on the interactivity of the
worlds or the interactions that can be developed in
order to cover students’ learning needs. Camilleri et
al. (2013) studied in-world interactions in detail
aiming to explain how students learn in-world but
disregarded the perspective of learning in the
physical classroom, focusing on the viewpoint of
distance-learning. Likewise, de Freitas et al. (2009),
investigating the use of virtual worlds for distance
learning, suggested a four dimensional framework
for the evaluation of student learning experiences.
Those dimensions (see Table 2) are learners
dimension, pedagogic dimension, representational
dimension, and contextual dimension. Even though
in-world interactions were part of their study, the
focus was not exclusively on that aspect, since they
aimed to give a more holistic view of the
affordances of distance education in virtual worlds.
Table 2: The framework of de Freitas et al. (2009).
Four Dimensional Framework
Learner Specifics Pedagogy
Profile
Role
Competencies
Associative
Cognitive
Social / Situative
Representation Context
Fidelity
Interactivity
Immersion
Environment
Access to learning
Supporting resources
At this point a question, regarding the way in-
world interactions are being developed in cases
where learners are simultaneously co-present in the
physical classroom and in the virtual world, arose.
Another interesting point of de Freita’s et al.
framework (de Freitas et al., 2009) is that it takes
into consideration a “learner’s dimension”. Thus, the
answer that will be provided through our study will
supplement the aforementioned framework and
analyse how engagement occurs as a synergy or
component between the learner’s personal choices
and preconceptions, on the one hand, and the
instructional designer’s plans, on the other.
Childs (2010) who investigated the skills
students acquire when they start using virtual
worlds, formed a taxonomy of interactions related to
the use of virtual words (see Table 3). He divided
interactions into four categories: interacting with the
world, interacting with others, interacting with the
avatar, and finally finding and searching.
Table 3: Child’s (2010) taxonomy of interactions.
Interacting with the world Interacting with others
Motion
Manoeuvring
Way-finding
Changing camera positions
Mouselook (first-person)
Using local (public) chat
Using private chat
Using the minimap to find
people and move to them
Interacting with the avatar Finding & searching
Changing avatar appearance
Creating folders to save
appearances
Animating the avatar
Creating a landmark
Finding a landmark in the
inventory
Teleporting to a new location
and back again
However, this taxonomy did not include the
interactions between students and the content of the
virtual world, nor the building and scripting skills
students usually need to acquire, since this subject
was out of the scope of his study. This issue is
intended to be covered in this study.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
44
Chafer and Childs (2008) identified the elements
that affect a world’s interactivity, that is,
manipulability, reciprocation, and responsiveness.
Addressing the same topic from a different angle,
Steuer (1992) noted three alternative factors when
examining interactivity: speed, range, and mapping
of interactions. These two different frameworks can
be helpful tools for educators who need to measure
how interactive their existing virtual environments
are. One of the few researchers looking at the
educational use of virtual worlds both from the
inside and from the outside, both in-world and in-
class, is that of Levesque and Lelievre (2011).
Specifically, they presented the outcome of their
experiment on applying a hybrid approach, where
students were simultaneously present in-class and
in-world. They pointed out that students’ virtual and
physical co-location led to the development of a
complex network of interactions both in-world and
in-class, both among students and between students
and the virtual environment. Although Levesque and
Lelievre (2011) studied interactions quite
extensively, they did not identify how interactions
are linked to engagement. This is another issue that
this study aims to investigate.
De Freitas et al., (2010) underline the need for
further investigation of the potential and the
affordances of hybrid spaces with simultaneous
student physical and virtual presence. In addition,
Elliott et al., (2012) point out a lack of a detailed
taxonomy of all the interactions related to the use of
virtual worlds in an educational context.
To sum up, this study aims to fill the gaps
highlighted in the literature and provide educators’
who aim to include the use of virtual worlds in their
educational agenda with instructions on how to
design and develop engaging and interactive
learning activities. Even though learners’ choices
and preconceptions regarding the use of virtual
worlds have been investigated extensively in the
literature, the impact of the synergy between the
learners’ personal choices and the instructional
designers’ plans is blurred. Furthermore, the existing
literature is mostly focusing on the in-world
interactions aiming to create effective e-learning
models, but it lacks detailed frameworks exploring
the relationship between the interactions in hybrid-
learning models and learner engagement with the
learning material and the educational activities.
2 MATERIALS & METHODS
Primarily two research methods were used,
observations and surveys. This was thought to be the
most appropriate way to examine the subject under
investigation since it would give a more thorough
view of the phenomena, aid validity and diversity,
and allow for the triangulation of the primary data.
In other words, observations would allow us to
record student actions and behaviour both in the
physical classroom and in the virtual world, whilst
surveys provide the opportunity to record student
preferences.
In this paper we will examine the findings
derived from the observatory study.
2.1 Observation
Research through observation may have several
strengths (Cohen et al., 2011). However, there were
three main aspects that indicated observation as the
most suitable method for this study. Firstly, what is
considered to be the most essential advantage of
observation is the principles of “immediate
awareness” and “direct cognition” — i.e. the
opportunity given to a researcher to have a “direct
look” at the actions that take place without having to
rely on second-hand accounts — as described in
(Cohen et al., 2011) that lead to the emergence of
unique primary data. Secondly, it is a very flexible
form of data collection that allows researchers to
alter their focus, depending on the observed actions
and behaviours. Finally, the method of observation
allows the researcher to gather any necessary data,
whilst the participants unimpeded follow their own
agenda and priorities.
2.2 Experiment Structure & Sample
This research was conducted in a university based
environment with a cohort of postgraduate students
who volunteered to be part of this study during their
weekly practical session. A university hosted virtual
world, based on the OpenSimulator architecture, was
used to allow students to explore and familiarize
themselves with the Linden Scripting Language —
an event driven programming paradigm — and also
3D modelling concepts.
The aforementioned cohort of students utilised
the virtual world as an innovative tool to deal with,
in the context of working and collaborating in
groups with task division, similar to circumstances
taking place in companies. Each group had to choose
an emerging technology subject, research that
subject, create a virtual showcase for its promotion,
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
45
and document all the aspects of their work. During
these practical sessions students were
simultaneously co-present in the physical classroom
and in the virtual world (Table 4 – Table 6). For
more information about the assignment setup the
reader is directed to Christopoulos, Conrad and
Shukla (2014).
Table 4: Observations’ sample.
Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students 17 15 16 11 13 10
Table 5: Sample’s identity.
Observation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Male 10 8 9 5 8 6
Female 7 7 7 6 5 4
Table 6: Students’ prior experience with Virtual worlds
like Second Life/OpenSimulator.
None 7
Up to a week 5
Up to a month 2
More than six months but less than a year 1
More than one year 2
A narrative approach, as described in (Cohen et
al., 2011), was considered to be the most suitable for
the analysis of this data set. Through this approach,
student behaviour, choices, and actions could be
studied in the context in which they took place.
Thus, narratives were in logical structures rather
than in a chronological order.
2.3 Experiment’s Overview & Setup
Many new users are either simply unable to acquire
the navigation and operation mechanisms of virtual
worlds, or refuse to do so because they consider this
practice as a waste of time and effort, with no
practical value (Childs, 2010). When a virtual world
is to be used for educational purposes, time is
essential to be devoted to the students’
familiarisation with the world in order to enable
them to form their avatar, and by extension their
virtual identity, and also learn to interact
fundamentally with the virtual environment, as
reported by Childs (2010) and De Freitas et al.
(2009). Additionally, De Freitas et al. (2009) note
that the realisation of these procedures, which on the
whole they call “orientation”, requires that specific
actions be undertaken under the supervision and
assistance of the educator in charge.
Therefore, in this experiment the focus was on
the impact that the orientation (induction) process
has on learners’ actions, interactions and
engagement with the virtual world and the learning
material.
It is worth mentioning that even though having
different control groups (e.g. a cohort of student who
would go through the orientation process whereas
the second group would not) would be desirable, it
was not feasible to establish this due to the students
perceiving they might be disadvantaged as far as
their learning experience is concerned.
3 RESULTS
A semi-structured observational checklist (Cohen et
al., 2011) was used for the collection of primary
data. This checklist included sixteen (16) focus
points (F1-F16) regarding the interactions taking
place in the physical classroom, when a virtual
world is used, seventeen (17) focus points (F17-F34)
regarding the interactions taking place in-world, not
only among students but between the students and
the virtual world as well, and, finally, six (6) focus
points (F35-F40) regarding students’ willingness to
remain in the virtual world and, by extension, in the
physical classroom. Any remarkable detail of the
observation was noted in the open part of the
checklist. Observations were taking place on a
weekly basis and lasted six (6) weeks. Students were
simultaneously co-present both in the physical
(university) classroom and in the virtual world,
whilst each practical session was lasting for 2 hours
(12 hours in total). In order to observe all the
participants for an equal amount of time, students’
actions were observed in rotation for approximately
30 seconds until the completion of the practical
session.
3.1 Actions & Interactions in the
Physical Classroom
Aiming to group the observed data in a more
efficient and meaningful way, following the
principles of Grounded Theory (Cohen et al., 2011),
the aforementioned focus points for the first
fundamental category are grouped in three sub-
categories (see Sections 3.1.1 – 3.1.3).
3.1.1 Students’ in-Class Talking and
Making Comments about the Virtual
World
Students’ communication in the physical classroom
includes eight (8) focus points and their frequencies
are illustrated in Table 7.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
46
Table 7: Students’ in-class talking and making comments
about the virtual world.
Week F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8
1 154 27 14 15 8 0 14 3
2 103 17 96 0 0 0 31 0
3 87 43 105 7 4 0 4 9
4 91 26 71 26 0 4 0 0
5 78 17 93 11 0 0 0 6
6 41 35 43 27 5 0 3 0
F1. Student talks to classmate about the project or
the virtual world
F2. Student talks to classmate about something
irrelevant to the project or the virtual world
F3. Student talks to tutor/demonstrator about the
project or the virtual world
F4. Student talks to tutor/demonstrator about
something irrelevant to the project or the virtual
world
F5. Student makes a positive comment about the
technology of the virtual world
F6. Student makes a negative comment about the
technology of the virtual world
F7. Student makes a positive comment about the
emotional experience of the virtual world
F8. Student makes a negative comment about the
emotional experience of the virtual world
Even though students were usually discussing
matters related to the virtual world, the focus was
not always necessarily on their task or assignment.
Building and scripting were fairly often the highlight
of students’ conversations although several times
students were observed discussing the use of third
party software to import 3D objects. Indeed, several
times they were also observed discussing matters
outside the scope of their project, though related to
the use of the virtual world, such as its accessibility
using portable devices (tablets) or the inclusion of
this platform in other university classes. However, a
few students were almost always detached from the
classroom and, by extension their project and the
virtual world, discussing completely irrelevant
matters during the practical sessions.
Overall, during the first practical sessions it was
observed that some students’ negative
preconceptions were quite strong, yet this gradually
changed over time. In detail, most of the students
were observed discussing positively the opportunity
given to them to experience a completely different
way to do programming and also get a hint of how
3D development works. On the other hand, some
students were making negative comments about the
technology mainly related to the quality of the
graphics or the functionality of the scripting
language claiming that, due to the lack of prior
experience with such a programming language, they
had to spend a considerable amount of time in order
to familiarise themselves with it. As a result and as
the submission deadline was due, they did not have
enough time to produce something meaningful for
their assignment. There were, however, also a few
students who expressed a completely different
opinion claiming that the use of the virtual world
had nothing to offer, as this specific programming
language is being used exclusively in such virtual
environments.
Finally, while reaching the completion of this
project, students were observed discussing matters
not related to the virtual world focusing mainly on
other aspects of their project. This, then brings into
question the longevity of the intrinsic interest and/or
attractiveness to virtual worlds that these students
had outside of the class requirements.
3.1.2 Student Attitude towards the Use of
the Virtual World
Students’ attitude towards the use of the virtual
world includes four (4) focus points and their
frequencies are illustrated in Table 8.
F9. Student seems focused on his/her project
F10. Student seems to enjoy the project
F11. Student seems ‘absent-minded’
F12. Student seems displeased using the virtual
world
Table 8: Student attitude towards the use of the virtual
world.
Week F9 F10 F11 F12
1 17 29 0 29
2 147 68 0 17
3 113 49 9 3
4 154 57 0 27
5 126 39 0 41
6 136 57 0 19
Students experienced various feelings in a
spectrum ranging from happiness and enjoyment to
confusion, displeasure and disappointment. Each one
of these feelings affected their interactions and
engagement with the virtual world in diverse ways.
More often than not, they were quite focused and
seemed to enjoy their time working within the
virtual world regardless of their decision to work in
groups or alone. However, the difficulty of
manipulating virtual objects or non-functional
scripts led to high levels of disappointment and
affected engagement in two rather opposite ways, as
some students opted to spend more time improving
their work whilst others gave up. Quite rarely
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
47
students were observed being absent-minded but, at
certain points, their conscious decision to not work
on their own task but, instead, help their fellow-
students with other tasks (usually not related to the
virtual world) led most of them to be completely
detached from it. Finally, a small portion of students
were observed constantly performing actions not
relevant to the virtual world or their project. It is
worth mentioning that students who decided to work
alone were slightly less engaged with the virtual
world compared to those who were working in
groups helping and influencing each other.
During the course of these observations it
became apparent that the levels of engagement
students had with the virtual world differed
completely from the levels of engagement they had
with the actual project/task. Specifically, most of
them spent considerably more time finding scripts
on the web and less time developing their own, as
the former was one of the main reasons for using the
virtual world. Nevertheless, what attracted their
attention more and resulted in higher levels of
engagement, primarily with the virtual world and
consequently with their project, was the design and
the development process of 3D objects.
A few students decided to design their 3D
objects using third-party software and consequently
import them in the virtual world. This is, indeed, an
example of almost complete lack of engagement
with the virtual world, while the focus was
exclusively on achieving good results with regard to
their assignment. In any case, higher levels of
engagement, both with the virtual world and with the
project, were observed after the third observation
and that fact is an indication that higher levels of
engagement were achieved as a result of the time
spent in-world and the experience in the use of a
virtual world.
3.1.3 Student Identity and Avatar Identity
The way students referred to their avatars while
being in the physical classroom included four (4)
focus points and their frequencies are illustrated in
Table 9.
F13. Student refers to avatar in the first person /
identifies with avatar (avatar as ‘Ι’)
F14. Student refers to avatar in the second person /
addresses avatar directly (avatar as ‘you’)
F15. Student refers to avatar in the third person
(avatar as ‘him’ or ‘her’)
F16. Student refers to avatar as object (avatar as
‘it’)
Table 9: Student identity and avatar identity.
Week F13 F14 F15 F16
1 9 0 4 0
2 6 3 0 0
3 4 2 2 0
4 2 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0
Figure 1: Snapshot from the avatars’ appearance editing
process in the orientation area.
Most of the students perceived avatars as the
medium to mirror their physical identity including
their gender, body shape and ethnicity or hair style.
These changes ranged from the very basic to the
more extended ones, with only a few students hiding
their real identity by choosing to modify their
avatars using either the opposite gender or a non-
human shape (robots, aliens). Even though avatar
modification was very intense during the first
practical sessions, several students were observed
modifying their avatars’ appearance during the
whole course of observations.
References to avatars were generally very
infrequent and rare even during the first
observations. Students were referring to avatars
mainly in the first person and considerably less in
the third, whilst even more infrequent were the
references made to avatars as objects. Furthermore,
most of the references made to avatars – or to
students – were positive, with the only exception of
a student who maintained an overall disruptive
attitude both through the modification of his avatar
and his behaviour, resulting, thus, in receiving
negative comments from other students.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
48
Figure 2: Overview of the sandbox next to the orientation
building.
3.2 Actions & Interactions in the
Virtual World
The aforementioned focus points for the second
fundamental category concerning students’ actions
and interactions in the virtual world are grouped in
four sub-categories (see Sections 3.2.1-3.2.4).
3.2.1 Students’ in-World Talking and
Making Comments about the Virtual
World
Students’ communication in the virtual world
includes seven (7) focus points and their frequencies
are illustrated in Table 10. The term ‘chat’
mentioned below refers exclusively to typewritten
communication.
F17. Student chats with classmate about the project
or the virtual world
F18. Student chats with student about something
irrelevant to the project or the virtual world
F19. Student uses in chat phrases / words revealing
enjoyment
F20. Student uses in chat words / phrases revealing
exclamation
F21. Student uses in chat words/ phrases often
used is social networks
F22. Student makes a negative comment about the
technology of the virtual world
F23. Student makes a negative comment about the
emotional experience of the virtual world
The use of the chat tool was very limited or almost
non-existent for some students as they were
observed having their chat window closed or
minimised most of the time. Only a few students
opted to use it in order to greet their fellow-students,
mainly during the first observations, or to express
their feelings about the avatars’ appearance. Other
than that, extensive use of the chat tool was
observed only when it was absolutely necessary
(distance communication while being in the virtual
world, scripts testing). In addition, only a few times
were students observed using social media slang.
Their unwillingness to use the chat-tool can be
attributed either to the fact that they were physically
co-located and, therefore, there was no essential
need to communicate with others using the chat tool,
or, as several students mentioned, when they were
not co-located they could use Skype or any other
VoIP tool for their communication needs. In fact, the
lack of a VoIP tool that would be embedded to the
virtual world was pointed out several times by most
of the students.
Table 10: Students’ in-world talking and making
comments about the virtual world.
Week F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22 F23
1 28 14 9 11 7 0 0
2 7 2 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.2.2 Student Identity and Avatar Identity
The way students referred to their avatars while
being in the virtual world included five (5) focus
points. Their frequencies are illustrated in Table 11.
F24. Student modifies avatar appearance
F25. Student refers to avatar in the first person /
identifies with avatar
F26. Student refers to avatar in the second person /
addresses avatar directly
F27. Student refers to avatar in the third person
F28. Student refers to avatar as an object
Table 11: Student identity & avatar identity.
Week F24 F25 F26 F27 F28
1 98 1 1 0 0
2 16 0 0 0 0
3 12 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0
The more engaged students were with the virtual
world, the keener they became to make further, more
complex and detailed modifications to their avatars’
appearance. Indeed, modification of their avatars’
appearance was the first type of interaction that most
of the students had both with the virtual world and
with each other. Interestingly, a considerable
number of students were observed modifying their
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
49
avatars’ appearance while located next to the
corresponding area in the orientation building. As
already mentioned, most of the students opted to
modify their avatar in a way that it resembled their
real appearance. Despite the fact that everyone was
aware of their real identity, their willingness to role-
play increased the levels of enjoyment that students
could get from the ludic side of the virtual world and
positively affected the levels of their engagement. A
very small portion of students were observed not
identifying themselves with their avatars at all as
they treated them merely as a feature of the virtual
world with minor or no importance. Finally, the
references made to avatars using the chat tool were
considerably limited.
3.2.3 In-World Nonverbal Communication
One of the alternative ways of communication that
virtual worlds offer is nonverbal communication
(avatar gestures and emoticons). Therefore, this
category includes two (2) focus points, F29 and F30
and Table 12 presents their frequencies.
F29. Student uses avatar gestures
F30. Student uses emoticons
Figure 3: Information about the in-world nonverbal
communication tools.
Table 12: In-world non-verbal communication.
Week F29 F30
1 34 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
6 0 0
Part of the orientation area had been dedicated to
the creation and use of avatar gestures. Nevertheless,
not all students were observed visiting the
orientation area and that leads to the assumption that
they were probably unaware of this tool. In addition,
the decision of nearly all students to not use the non-
verbal communication channels can also be
attributed by the fact that they were physically co-
located. Thus, very few students opted to use them
and in most cases their animations were random and
undetermined. Likewise, fairly rare was the use of
emoticons, whilst none of the students were
observed wearing animated objects.
3.2.4 Interactions with the World
Even though the main reason for using a virtual
world was for teaching and learning purposes, the
fact that students’ attention can be distracted by
other stimuli could not be disregarded, and,
therefore, this category, consisted of four (4) focus
points, including the various types of interactions
that students had while being in the virtual world;
Table 13 illustrates their frequencies.
F31. Student works on project
F32. Student performs actions irrelevant to the
project
F33. Student explores classmate’s virtual artefacts
F34. Student uses own virtual creations
Table 13: Interactions with the world.
Week F31 F32 F33 F34
1 0 107 21 66
2 35 82 17 57
3 76 46 13 73
4 107 19 8 61
5 126 4 3 86
6 73 0 7 39
Interactions played an important role in student
engagement, even though not all of them were
equally intense. Specifically, very few students
opted to create their own scripts; instead, the vast
majority were observed using or modifying premade
scripts which can be found on the web. Contrary to
that, most of them spent a considerable amount of
time designing their own 3D objects. The
opportunities for exploration, especially during the
first practical sessions, were considerably limited as
the only content available in the virtual world were
the orientation and sandbox areas. Students were
observed visiting other students’ workspaces mainly
to get ideas for their work. At this point it should be
mentioned that some students, in an attempt to
prevent others from copying their ideas, decided to
block the access points of their workspaces. This
reduced the opportunities for interactions with other
students and, therefore, with the content of the
virtual world, despite the fact that the workspaces
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
50
were designed in a way that would enhance in-world
interactions between students.
Almost all students went through the orientation
process and spent a considerable amount of time
using the objects, following the instructions and
interacting with their fellow students and content of
this area, The students who decided to go through
this process adapted more readily to work and
collaborate with others, whilst those who
disregarded it, partially or completely, were
observed struggling. Moreover, they were quite
often addressing questions to the teaching team
which could have been answered after having
properly oriented themselves. Nevertheless, during
the course of the observations, several students were
observed visiting the orientation area after being
advised to do so by their fellow students.
Finally, students would not opt to follow the
rules that had been set ‘unofficially’ to maintain a
stable virtual environment (e.g. building and
scripting on the allocated areas). Thus, it is
questionable whether engagement was affected by
the fact that students truly believed that this tool had
an educational impact or whether the virtual world
was simply a place to have fun and work on the task
assigned to them.
3.3 Students’ Willingness to Remain
in-World
The final sub-category, consisting of five (5) focus
points, concerns students’ willingness to use the
virtual world for additional time while being
physically located in the physical classroom (Table
14 illustrates their frequencies).
F35. Student ‘logs-in’ before the beginning of the
practical session.
F36. Student ‘logs-in’ at the beginning of the
practical session.
F37. Student ‘logs-in’ later than the beginning of
the practical session.
F38. Student ‘logs-out’ before the end of the
practical session.
F39. Student ‘logs-out’ right after the end of the
practical session.
F40. Student stays in-world after the end of the
practical session.
In most cases students would follow the schedule
that had been set for the practical session, entering
and leaving the virtual world just on time. Only a
few students opted to remain online longer or go
online beforehand and that happened just a few
times during the whole course of the observations.
However, it should be noted that their interactions
were not always related to the virtual world or their
task within it.
Table 14: Students’ willingness to remain in-world longer
than the expected.
Week F35 F36 F37 F38 F39 F40
1 1 16 0 0 12 5
2 0 15 0 0 11 4
3 0 9 7 0 16 0
4 0 11 0 0 8 3
5 0 13 0 0 13 0
6 0 10 0 0 6 4
4 DISCUSSION
The impact that the orientation process had on
learner engagement – while using a hybrid virtual
learning approach – was clearly positive as it also
enhanced the opportunities for interaction between
the students and the virtual world. This is evidenced
when considering focus points F9, F11, F24 and
F31. Those who went through the orientation
process were keener on interacting both with their
fellow students and the virtual world, considering
focus points F1, F17, F24 and F33, the same
students used the in-world tools more intensively as
seen in focus points F17-F34. They also found the
whole process more enjoyable, constructive and
rewarding, as observed in focus points F5-F8, F10-
F11, F22-24, and F33-F34. On the other hand, those
students who disregarded partially or even
completely the existence of the orientation area,
were almost constantly struggling to deal with the
virtual world, and, by extension, their assignment as
seen in F3, F6, F8, F23 (even though this can be
attributed to the lack of information regarding the
programming process) and F32. Likewise, students
who followed the instructions regarding the avatar
modification process – though with some exceptions
– were usually having considerably more intense
modifications on their avatars compared to others, as
revealed in the F24 focus point. Nevertheless, the
references made to avatars were overall limited most
likely because of the fact that they did not consider
them as a special feature of the virtual world but
rather as a tool to work on their project. The
opportunity given to students to be co-present both
in the virtual world and in the physical classroom
simultaneously resulted in a limited use of the chat-
tool or any other nonverbal communication method
in the virtual world, since this need was covered
primarily in the physical classroom, as clearly
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
51
observed in F1-F4, F7-F8, F17-23, and F29-F30.
Furthermore, most of the students were working on
their task without being distracted or struggling due
to the fact that they had all the necessary knowledge-
base to deal with the tools of the virtual world and,
by extension, their project as seen in F9, F11-F12
and F31-F34. Finally, students’ willingness to stay
in the virtual world and the physical classroom for
extra time, for the whole course of the practical
session or even longer than expected is also an
important indication that confirms their engagement
with the virtual world and their project as seen in
F35-40.
Summarising the aforementioned focus-points
and considering the stakeholders who have different
interests and responsibilities to the use of virtual
worlds, the following suggestions are given:
Instructional Designers should always ensure that a
proper induction process will be provided to learners
in order to help them understand quickly and deeply
the mechanisms of the virtual world, as this is the
key to increase the chances of having successful
learning activities and the desired outcomes.
Educators should provide enough time to learners
to undertake the orientation process for a proper
induction and familiarisation with the virtual world
and its tools.
Students should be encouraged to use and engage
with this process as this will also help them to
achieve better results – in terms of their assignment
– and also work within the virtual world effortlessly.
Future Researchers, should focus on designing
different setups of induction processes that will fit
the personalities of different learners (in terms of
their learning style) and their perspectives as well as
the levels of education considering that this
experiment conducted in university level students.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The orientation process contributed positively to
students’ smooth induction and that resulted in
having meaningful and engaging interactions.
Furthermore, students’ simultaneous co-existence in
both environments eliminated the drawbacks of each
educational approach and broadened the network of
interactions. It is, however, of vital importance that
educators provide students with clear instructions
and information about the existence and purpose of
the in-world educational content and encourage their
learners to use it.
As already discussed in the literature, many
studies focus exclusively on interactions that take
place within the virtual world where the
environment provides the primary medium for
communication and interaction (Childs, 2010; de
Freitas et al., 2010; Herbet et al., 2012; Hockey et
al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2009). Others have set the
focus on the impact that avatars have on the in-world
interactions (Allison et al., 2012; Bredl et al., 2012;
Herbet et al., 2012; Johnson, Vorderstrasse and
Shaw, 2009). Many frameworks have also been
developed to classify the different ways of teaching
and learning in virtual worlds (de Freitas et al.,
2009; Schrader, 2008). Nevertheless, the main
contribution of our study is that it examines
interactions in conjunction with their impact to
learners’ engagement, in the context of using an
orientation process to enhance learners’ familiarity
with the virtual world and boost the opportunities for
more intense interactions and therefore, higher levels
of engagement. Future work arising from this study
might include:
Development of virtual educational games to
observe students’ interactions mainly with other
students in the context of a student competition.
Development of artificial intelligent agents
(Non-Person Characters) to observe students’
interactions mainly with the content of the virtual
world.
Further identification of factors that make an
orientation area successful.
REFERENCES
Allison, C., Campbell, A., Davies, C. J., et al. (2012)
“Growing the use of Virtual Worlds in education: an
OpenSim perspective”. In Gardner, M., Garnier, F.,
and Kloos, C. D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd
European Immersive Education Summit (EiED ’12),
pp. 1–13, Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática,
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Paris, France.
Anasol, P. R., Callaghan, V., Gardner, M., and Alhaddad,
M. J. (2012) “End-user programming and
deconstrutionalism for co-creative laboratory activities
in a collaborative mixed-reality environment”. In
Gardner, M., Garnier, F., and Kloos, C. D. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 2nd European Immersive
Education Summit (EiED ’12), pp. 171–182,
Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática, Universidad
Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Bredl, K., Groß, A., Hünniger, J., and Fleischer, J. (2012)
“The avatar as a knowledge worker? How immersive
3D virtual environments may foster knowledge
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
52
acquisition”. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 15–25.
Camilleri, V., de Freitas, S., Montebello, M., and
McDonagh-Smith, P. (2013) “A case study inside
virtual worlds: use of analytics for immersive spaces”.
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK ‘13), pp.
230–234, Leuven, Belgium.
Carter, B. (2012) “Virtual harlem: an innovative past, an
evolving present and an exciting future”. In Gardner,
M., Garnier, F., and Kloos, C. D. (Eds.) Proceedings
of the 2nd European Immersive Education Summit
(EiED ‘12), pp. 1–13, Universidad Carlos III de
Madrid, Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática, Paris,
France.
Chafer, J. and Childs, M. (2008) “The impact of the
characteristics of a virtual environment on
performance: concepts, constraints and
complications”. In Proceedings of the Researching
Learning in Virtual Environments (ReLIVE ’08), pp.
94–105, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Childs, M. (2010). Learners’ experience of presence in
virtual worlds. Ph.D thesis. University of Warwick.
Childs, M., and Peachey, A. (Eds). “Understanding
Learning in Virtual Worlds”. Human–Computer
Interaction Series, pp. 1–20, Springer, London: UK.
Christopulos, A., Conrad, M. (2012) “Views of Educators
on Immersion in Virtual Worlds from Second Life to
OpenSim”. In Gardner, M., Garnier, F., and Kloos, C.
D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2
nd
European Immersive
Education Summit (EiED ‘12), pp. 48-59, Universidad
Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Ingeniería
Telemática, Paris, France.
Christopoulos, A., & Conrad, M. (2013) “Maintaining
context in a Changing (Virtual) World: Educators’
Perspectives for OpenSim and Second Life”.
Proceedings of 5
th
International Conference on
Computer Supported Education (CSEDU’13). Aachen,
Germany.
Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M., and Shukla, M. (2014)
“Objects, Worlds, and Students: Virtual Interaction in
Education”. Education Research International, vol.
2014, 20 pages, doi:10.1155/2014/318317.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. (2011) Research
Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor & Francis,
7
th
edition, London: UK.
Conrad, M., Neale, J., and Charles, A. (2010) “Of mice or
men? The avatar in the virtualscape”. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information
Society (i-society ’10), pp. 242-247, London, UK.
Dalgarno, B., and Lee, M. J.W. (2010) “What are the
learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?”.
The British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.
41, no. 1, pp. 10–32.
de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F.,
Magoulas, G., and Poulovassilis, A. (2009)
“Developing an evaluation methodology for
immersive learning experiences in a virtual world”. In
Proceedings of the Conference in Games and Virtual
Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-GAMES ’09),
pp.43–50, Coventry, UK.
de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F.,
Magoulas, G., and Poulovassilis, A. (2010) “Learning
as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional
framework for designing and evaluating immersive
learning experiences in a virtual world”. The British
Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 41, no. 1, pp.
69–85.
Dede, C. (1995) “The evolution of constructivist learning
environments: immersion in distributed virtual
worlds”. Educational Technology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp.
46–52.
Dickey, M. D. (2005) “Brave new (interactive) worlds: a
review of the design affordances and constraints of
two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning
environments”. Interactive Learning Environments,
vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 121–137.
Elliott, J. B., Gardner, M., and Alrashidi, M. (2012)
“Towards a framework for the design of mixed reality
immersive education spaces”. In Gardner, M., Garnier,
F., and Kloos, C. D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2
nd
European Immersive Education Summit (EiED ’12),
pp. 63–76, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid,
Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática, Paris, France.
Frutos-Perez, M. (2011) “Practice, context, dialogue:
using automated conversational agents to extend the
reach and depth of learning activities in immersive
worlds”. In Proceedings of the World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications, pp. 70–77, Open University
Press, Milton Keynes, UK.
Herbet, A., Thompson, F., and Garnier, F. (2012)
“Immaterial art stock: preserve, document and
disseminate the pioneering works of art created inside
online immersive platforms”. In Gardner, M., Garnier,
F., and Kloos, C. D. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2
nd
European Immersive Education Summit (EiED ’12),
pp. 101–113, Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática,
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Paris, France.
Hockey, A., Esmail, F., Jimenez-Bescos, C., and Freer, P.
(2010) “Built environment education in the era of
virtual learning”. In Proceedings of the W089 Special
Track — 18th CIB World Building Congress, pp. 200–
217, Salford, UK.
Johnson, C. M., Vorderstrasse, A. A., and Shaw, R. (2009)
“Virtual worlds in health care higher education”.
Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.
3-12.
Jones, D. (2013) “An alternative (to) reality”. In
Proceedings of the Researching Learning in Virtual
Environments (ReLIVE ’08), pp. 113–121, Open
University, Milton Keynes, UK.
Levesque, J., and Lelievre, E. (2011) “Creation and
communication in virtual worlds: experimentations
with OpenSim. In Richir, S. and Shirai, A. (Eds.)
Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International
Conference (VRIC ’11), pp. 22–24, Laval, France.
Minocha S., and Tingle, R. (2008) “Socialisation and
collaborative learning of distance learners in 3D
How Do Students ‘Really’ Interact with Virtual Worlds? - The Influence of Proper Induction for Virtual Interactions
53
virtual worlds”. In Proceedings of the Researching
Learning in Virtual Environments International
Conference (RELIVE ’08), pp. 216-227, Milton
Keynes, UK.
Padrós, A., Romero, M., and Usart, M. (2012) “Measuring
the knowledge convergence process in the
collaborative game metavals”. Procedia Computer
Science, vol. 15, pp. 193–202.
Schrader, P. G. (2008) “Learning in technology:
reconceptualizing immersive environments”.
Association for the Advancement of Computing In
Education Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 457–475.
Shukla, M., Conrad, M. (2011) “Second Life is not an
Island”. Proceedings of the IADIS International
Conference on e-Society, Avila, Spain.
Steuer, J. (1992) “Defining virtual reality: dimensions
determining telepresence”. Journal of Communication,
vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 73–93.
Veletsianos, G. (2009) “The impact and implications of
virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent-
learner interactions”. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 345–357.
Vosinakis, S., Anastassakis G., and Koutsabasis, P. (2014)
“A Platform for Teaching Logic Programming using
Virtual Worlds”, IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT'14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind Society: The Development
of Higher Mental Processes, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Zhao, H., Sun, B., Wu, H., and Hu, X. (2010) “Study on
building a 3D interactive virtual learning environment
based on OpenSim platform”. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Audio, Language and
Image Processing (ICALIP ’10), pp. 1407–1411,
Shanghai: China.
CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
54