Maintaining Context in a Changing (Virtual) World

Educators’ Perspectives for Opensim and Second Life

Athanasios Christopoulos and Marc Conrad

Department of Computer Science & Technology, University of Bedfordshire, Park Square, Luton, U.K.

Keywords: Virtual World, Second Life, Opensim, Context, Virtual Learning, Blended Learning.

Abstract: Educational activities previously performed in Second Life are now more and more move moving to other

alternatives. This study concentrates on the features of Second Life and its open-source alternative,

OpenSim that affect the results of the in-world educational activities. The need for educators to take these

features into account is another focus of this study which also aims to highlight the similarities and

differences between the contexts of Second Life and OpenSim worlds, whether internally or externally

hosted, as well as their potentials and weaknesses. The findings suggest that each one of these alternatives

gathers different positive and negative features and their suitability greatly depends on the academics’

educational needs.

1 INTRODUCTION

Due to the availability of the OpenSim (OS)

architecture it is nowadays comparatively easy to

install and run a Virtual World (VW) that in

appearance very much resembles a ‘Second Life’

(SL) environment. Such worlds can belong either to

individuals or companies, organisations and

institutions. They can be self-maintained or rented

from a dedicated provider. However, the educational

activities in OS and SL operate in a very different

context implicating upon the immersive experience.

It has been indicated that immersion is an

essential factor for achieving satisfactory learning

results within the context of a VW (Bredl et al.,

2012); (Childs, 2010). The networks of various

interactions that occur within the VWs are noted as

the most important among the various factors that

lead to immersion (Kanamgotov et al., 2012);

(Christopoulos and Conrad, 2012).

At this point, some important questions arise

when a VW is to be used for educational purposes:

what is the role of its context to the students’ way

towards immersion? How can its context contribute

to the implementation of successful educational

projects? And finally, when an educator has to

choose among SL, an OS world hosted by a

dedicated provider (OSDP) and an institutionally

hosted OS world (OSIH), which one is the best

option as far as their contexts are concerned?

This paper is focused on answering these

questions and providing clear guidance to educators

who are faced with the decision to use SL or OS

worlds –hosted either institutionally or externally–

for the realization of successful educational projects.

The student perspective concerning VWs has

been widely investigated, (for example Vrellis et al.,

2010; Kostarikas et al., 2011; Levesque and

Lelievre, 2011); we focus here on the educator’s

point of view.

2 RELATED WORK

In this paper, the term “context of a VW” refers to

everything that exists or takes place within the VW,

including the virtual land, the avatars, the users’

artefacts, and the interactions between them.

SL and OS have many similarities concerning

their basic characteristics (Cram et al., 2010), on the

one hand, but they have many differences, on the

other, which should be carefully taken into account

when these VWs are to be used for educational

purposes (Conrad, 2011); (Conrad, 2013).

2.1 Avatars

Avatars are the users’ virtual selves or, rather, the

users’ 3D self-representations in a VW through

which they are able to be in it, and interact with it

423

Christopoulos A. and Conrad M..

Maintaining Context in a Changing (Virtual) World - Educators’ Perspectives for Opensim and Second Life.

DOI: 10.5220/0004385504230428

In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2013), pages 423-428

ISBN: 978-989-8565-53-2

 2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

and with each other (Savin-Baden, 2010).

A common view of several scholars (Kostarikas

et al., 2011); (Bredl et al., 2012); (de Freitas et al.,

2012) is that avatars are a feature of VWs which

enhances the effectiveness of the educational

activities. On top of that, Bredl et al. (2012), de

Freitas et al. (2009), Levesque & Lelievre (2011),

and Kay Michel et al. (2011) underline that the use

of avatars contributes to the development of the

users’ immersion, which, in turn, leads to better

outcomes from the educational activities.

2.2 The Worlds’ Content

There seems to be agreement in literature to consider

the content of both SL and OS equally useful and

appropriate for educational purposes. More

precisely, Miller et al. (2010) emphasize the

importance of students’ easy access to learning

materials and the potentials for experiencing

interactive educational activities offered equally in

both worlds. Similarly, Aydogan et al. (2010)

indicate the significance of the 3D visualizations of

the educational material created within virtual

classrooms, which may contribute to a better

understanding of the lesson by the students.

Callaghan et al. (2009) also agree with the

statements above and add that the environments of

both VWs and the tools provided for creation

enhance the students’ collaborative abilities, who

work together aiming to create the world’s context

and carry out their projects. Konstantinidis et al.

(2010) partially agree with Callaghan et al. (2009).

They suggest that the 3D representations that may be

created in OS have a positive effect on the

collaboration among students, creating a sense of

belonging in the VW and thus promoting immersion

into the developed world. In other words, it is their

common claim that collaboration among students is

enhanced within the context of VWs, but each of

them presents a different aspect as the reason of that

enhancement.

2.3 Interactions

Even though SL and OS offer great opportunities for

interactions among their users and between the users

and the worlds’ content (Levesque and Lelievre,

2011); (Zhao et al., 2010), very few studies have

been carried out in relation to the interactions

between the users and the context of the VWs.

However, both the interactions among the users of

VWs and the interactions between the users and the

context of the worlds significantly affect the

educational processes performed in them (Vrellis et

al., 2010).

The given opportunities for manipulating virtual

objects and interacting with the virtual environment

and other users make the educational projects that

take place in-world pleasant (Perera et al., 2010a);

(Vrellis et al., 2010), interesting (Perera et al.,

2010a); (Kostarikas et al., 2011); (Vrellis et al.,

2010) and effective (Vrellis et al., 2010). According

to Miller et al. (2010) these specific characteristics

contribute to the strengthening of the collaborative

and exploratory learning activities and ensure

student participation in them. Moreover, the

manipulation of virtual objects in the context of a

VW is less disruptive and more preferred by

students than the use of other e-learning tools, whilst

the environment enhances the interactions among

the members of a student group, thereby enabling

the effective implementation of collaborative

learning activities (Vrellis et al., 2010).

The only drawback in using these VWs for

educational purposes concerns the inability of using

the non-verbal communication channels (Childs,

2010); (Vrellis et al., 2010). On top of that, the use

of text chat may be very time consuming, disruptive,

and inefficient, a fact that complicates the in-world

educational activities and, combined with the

absence of non-verbal communication, further

complicates communication within the students’

group (Child, 2010). Hence, Vrellis et al. (2010) do

not fail to express their conviction that the

educational processes within VWs will never be able

to replace the traditional teaching methods but will

always serve as a complement and as a useful tool in

providing additional educational opportunities.

2.4 Security & Privacy Issues

An important factor in ensuring universities’ safe

operation within the VWs concerns the protection of

their virtual land against intruders. Savin-Baden

(2010) states that the best way for universities to

deal with this issue in SL is to buy isolated islands.

Perera et al. (2010b) insist that both in SL and in OS,

the academic institutions are able to allow entry to

avatars which are “marked” as their students, and

prohibit entry to unwelcome users. On the other

hand, Hu (2010) stresses superiority of the OSIH, as

far as their security level is concerned. In these

servers, the institutions can fully control which

avatars may be registered in them. Meanwhile, these

avatars can be transferred to other servers in order to

explore them and come into contact with others

using hypergriding (Korolov, 2010).

CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

424

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Grounded Theory approach, as described by

Strauss & Corbin (1998), was thought to be the most

suitable qualitative analysis approaching method; the

interview questions were formed in accordance with

the indications of Strauss & Corbin (1998), whilst

the findings of the literature review also shaped their

content, in particular we asked:

1. What does a typical session of yours look like in

SL’s/OS’s virtual environment?

2. Why do you use SL/OS in your teaching? In your

opinion what are the advantages of this teaching

method?

3. Respectively, are there any disadvantages?

4. Comparing the university classroom with the

virtual classroom, which one may have better

results?

5. Which one of these two virtual environments do

you consider more appropriate for educational use?

During a four-month period (January to May

2012) a total of 34 academics (20 of them have used

only SL, 2 only OS and 12 both of them) from

various educational fields were interviewed via

Skype, SL, or in person. The educators were asked

to express their opinions regarding the contexts of

SL and OS, their advantages and disadvantages and

also their effects on the educational activities based

on a priori formed questions. Given the content of

the questions, not all of them were addressed to all

participants. Besides, the educators’ empirical

perspectives were what these interviews were

seeking for. Thus, questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 were

addressed to the educators who had used SL and/or

OS (the latter one either internally or externally

hosted). Finally, the participants who had used both

SL and OS were asked to answer the fifth question

and compare these two VWs.

Following the qualitative analysis of the

responses according to Strauss and Corbin’s (1998)

methodology we present our findings in the next

section.

4 FINDINGS

Both the advantages and the disadvantages of the

context of SL and OS were considered important to

be examined. Simultaneously, a summary of the

educational activities that may take place within

these VWs will be presented with the aim of

informing educators and providing guidance on how

to use them.

4.1 Critical Evaluation of the Contexts

The positive elements of the contexts of SL and OS

were emphasised whilst corresponding emphasis

was also placed on their drawbacks seen from an

educational viewpoint. Although certain positive and

negative features are unique to each one of these

contexts, several others are common to both of them.

Besides, the similarity of the OS context to the SL

context, combined with the fact that it is open-source

software, was highlighted as a very fundamental

feature of OS.

Several educators stressed that the use of VWs,

in general, is an innovation in education. As a

consequence, the in-world learning activities attract

students’ interest, engage them in the educational

processes and therefore produce better learning

results (see Christopoulos and Conrad, 2012 for

more details). Furthermore, the contexts of both

VWs were marked as user-friendly, playful,

dynamic, and plausible.

As participants stated, all these SL and OS

features are especially beneficial to the preparation

and successful implementation of various

educational activities that will be both attractive and

effective for most of the students. Students’ freedom

to take advantage of these features, interact with the

context of the worlds, participate actively in the

development of the virtual content with their

creations, and explore others’ creations contributes

towards the same goal. In both cases, the amount of

the experience they receive from their participation

in various activities increases.

The accessibility of SL, which results in the

coexistence of a wide online community which

contributes to the in-world creation of a global

context valuable for numerous educational activities,

was noted as a significant advantage of it. These

features combined with the anonymity that is typical

of SL enhance the immersiveness of this VW, as

indicated by some participants. Educators who use

SL can be benefited from its global context and

reduce the time and effort required for building and

scripting, simply by using the existing in-world

infrastructures or visiting its marketplace.

OS worlds have narrow online communities due

to the fact that they are hosted on many independent

servers. This implies that the content of OS –either

IH or DP– is very limited, compared to that of SL,

sometimes even completely non-existent. Therefore

the educators who use OS reported that the creation

of the necessary content for their educational

activities is a time and effort consuming process and

requires the possession of building and scripting

MaintainingContextinaChanging(Virtual)World-Educators'PerspectivesforOpensimandSecondLife

425

skills as well. Nevertheless, OS users can visit other

OS worlds using the hypergrid architecture in order

to explore other places and communicate with

others.

On top of that, the OSIHs are independent,

closed and protected from intruders, and their access

control lies exclusively in the educators’ hands. In

contrast, universities in SL are confronted with

several security and privacy issues which result from

its accessibility.

It is also worth mentioning that the educators

who use OS emphasised that they have absolute

control of their world and a high degree of

independence, especially in the case of OSIHs. They

attributed these features of OS first to its open-

source nature, which allows them to develop worlds

perfectly suited to their educational needs, second to

the ability it offers them to keep backups of their

world, something which preserves the content of

their worlds invariant and available for reuse, and

finally to the fact that OS worlds have no global

online community. The last feature allows educators

to be fully aware of the users who access their

world, whether this is institutionally hosted, where

the university holds the in-world access rights

management, or externally hosted, where the

university can choose a provider which hosts an

acceptable one to the university community.

On the other hand, educators using SL depend

directly on Linden Lab: they should seek support

from Linden Lab when they encounter issues related

to their region and, on top of that, several educators

underlined the lack of support by Linden Lab in a

rather disapproving tone.

Several educators made particular reference to

the use of the plugin tools which are compatible with

SL. Some of them referred to the collaborative and

the distance learning tools which they use in the

context of SL in order to support and enhance their

educational activities. These tools are fully or

partially compatible with the OS technology as well.

However, this was mentioned by none of the

interviewees using OS.

Not only do these two VWs have many positive

features in common but they also have many

drawbacks. The use of any VW for educational

purposes presupposes that one or more sessions are

devoted to the students’ familiarization with the

context, the tools, and the navigation system of the

VW, a process usually called “orientation”.

Orientation was deemed necessary by the

educators but, at the same time, time-consuming

which is thought to be a significant drawback of any

educational practice. Students’ orientation and the

use of VWs in general, are hindered by the fact that

SL and OS are not intuitive enough to allow new

users to “feel” their contexts. Besides, the internal

communication is sometimes problematic, due to

poor VoIP quality, and face-to-face communication

is not an option.

Additionally, several participants appeared

dissatisfied with the graphical user interface of both

worlds, because it makes them even less intuitive.

Moreover, the incompatibility of MS Office and

Open Office with the SL and OS environment

(documents need to be converted to images) was

mentioned in several interviews as a significant

concern.

Due to the technical issues identified in both

VWs, the quality of the implementation process and

the results of the learning activities are degraded.

The educators raised concerns about the

considerably high technical requirements of both

worlds, since the use of sufficient computer systems

with high minimum standards is demanded for the

proper rendering of the VWs. In cases where these

requirements are not met, users face several

rendering issues, such as latencies, deficient and

problematic display of the in-world content, and the

like.

4.2 The Effects Applying

on the Educational Activities

The interviewees, taking into consideration the

positive and negative features of the context of each

VW, concluded that both of them are worth being

used for educational purposes.

Carrying out learning activities within SL and

OS has multiple positive effects on students’

education. First and foremost, educators are given

the opportunity to pursue the so-called

“edutainment” which fosters higher levels of student

engagement with the educational activities.

Furthermore, the plausibility, the interactivity, and

the dynamic nature of the contexts of these worlds

combined with the high level of freedom provided to

users allow the realization of projects which are too

costly, or too dangerous, or even impossible to be

carried out in the physical world. Besides, the

flexibility of the contexts of SL and OS permits

complete control of the laws of physics. Moreover,

several educators consider the opportunity given to

their students to build and script and then observe

the functionality of their creations as very

constructive. This is a very useful feature of SL and

OS, especially for students involved with

Information Technology, Virtual Reality, 3D

CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

426

Animation, and similar disciplines.

Apart from the highly regarded advantages of the

use of SL and OS in education, the academics did

not disregard the drawbacks that possibly arise from

the use of the two VWs under study. The

participants considered it necessary to remark that

the preparation and implementation of in-world

educational activities is a fairly complicated process,

Additionally, the rich context of VWs, with the

various stimuli, the vividness of the representations,

and its playful nature, often distracts students’

attention during educational sessions, whilst the high

level of the in-world experienced freedom quite

frequently results in discipline problems.

Finally, it was reported that some students

struggle to understand the way their avatars are

navigated and the in-world tools are used, even after

the orientation session, and it is this difficulty that

can also distract them from their activities. These

students consider VWs as non-intuitive spaces, thus

the in-world educational activities in which they

participate do not have the desired results.

4.3 The Educational Activities

The participants claimed that they use VWs in the

framework of the blended learning approach, that

the activities they design and carry out contain the

element of content creation, and that these activities

are very often simulations. Activities associated with

problem-based learning and role-playing are usually

conducted within both worlds. The educators

emphasised that all the activities related to these

modes of learning have much better quality,

structure, and results when carried out in the context

of a VW whether this is SL or OS. Moreover, in

some cases VWs are used to host presentations and

lectures.

A significant differentiation between the two

VWs is that SL is frequently used for the conduct of

exploratory learning activities, such as treasure hunt,

whereas similar activities are not performed equally

often in OS. This can be attributed to the content of

SL which is much wider and richer compared to the

OS worlds. Furthermore, SL is used to cover

distance learning needs more often than OS worlds

which are not as accessible as SL.

Finally, deciding on the physical classroom is

most purposeful in cases where the educational

objectives extend beyond the simple practice of

skills and require students’ higher level thinking.

Also, when the educational project to be carried out

is very brief and fast-paced the use of the physical

classroom is preferable, since the preparation and

implementation of activities within VWs requires

quite a lot of time in order for them to be successful.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The use of VWs, in general, and of SL and OS, in

particular, is considered purposeful only when very

specific educational needs, which cannot be fulfilled

in an equally effective way with other educational

tools, are to be met. Using them without a specific

aim, just because they are considered a

contemporary trend, is not recommended. This view

is fully justified given that both SL and OS present

not solely a very positive and useful for both

educators and students context, but a negative one

too. Therefore, it is advisable that educators use

these worlds only in cases where the maximum

possible exploitation of their positive context with

minimal influence from the negative is likely.

It also seems that the ideal use of VWs can be

pursued through the use of blended learning

approaches, in which students are presented with the

course material both virtually and in the university

classroom. Thus, the educational processes derive

maximum benefits when both the virtual and the

physical classroom are employed. Activities related

to content creation, problem solving, role-playing,

simulations, and collaboration can bring the best

possible results when attempted within the VW. On

the other hand, activities, such as lectures and

presentations, that presuppose face-to-face

communication, which is absent from VWs, usually

have better results when given in the physical world.

Comparing SL to OS, it seems that the former is

more appropriate for the implementation of activities

in which the communication of the students with

non-student users, or remote student-users and the

utilization of the global context of the world are

considered as essential requirements. On the other

hand, OS worlds are believed to be the best choice

for these educators who seek closed, protected, and

flexible workspaces. These features can be found in

the OSIHs. These worlds are completely closed,

protected and the university has full control over

their context and the users who can access them.

This implies that these worlds can accommodate

only the content that the university has approved.

Meanwhile, the institutions are able to adjust the

world, its specifications, and its tools to their

students’ learning needs.

Finally, the option of an OSDP is the middle

ground between the OIHs and SL. Its context is

usually wider than the one of the OSIHs. It hosts a

MaintainingContextinaChanging(Virtual)World-Educators'PerspectivesforOpensimandSecondLife

427

limited online community that is likely, however, to

develop a network of interactions, which is not as

wide as the one of SL but it is wider than the one

developed in the OSIHs. Moreover, since its online

community is limited and the communication with

the provider, most of the times, direct and easy, the

educators are able to be aware of the characteristics

of this community. Anyhow, educators are entitled

to choose the most suitable server for their needs

depending on the community that each world hosts

as well as the appropriateness of the in-world

content.

REFERENCES

Aydogan, H., Aras, F. and Karaka, E., 2010. An

assessment on distance education in a 3D virtual

environment: How to produce electricity in a

hydroelectric power plant. In 2

International

Conference on Education Technology and Computer

(ICETC). Shanghai, China.

Bredl, K., Groß, A., Hünniger, J. and Fleischer, J., 2012.

The Avatar as a Knowledge Worker? How Immersive

3D Virtual Environments may Foster Knowledge

Acquisition. In The Electronic Journal of Knowledge

Management, vol 10 Issue 1.

Callaghan, M. J., McCusker, K., Losada, J. L., Harkin J.

G. and Wilson, S., 2009. Integrating Virtual Worlds &

Virtual Learning. Environments for Online Education.

In International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society’s

Games Innovations Conference 2009 (ICE-GIC 09.

London.

Childs, M., 2010. Learners’ Experience of Presence in

Virtual Worlds. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Warwick.

Coventry, UK.

Christopoulos, A. & Conrad, M., 2012. Views of

Educators on Immersion in Virtual Worlds from

Second Life to OpenSim. In M Gardner, F Garnier &

CD Kloos (Eds), Proceedings of the 2

European

Immersive Education Summit: EiED 2012. E-iED.

Paris, France.

Conrad, M., 2011. Leaving the Lindens: Teaching in

Virtual Worlds of Other Providers. In Proceedings of

Researching Learning in Immersive Virtual

Environments (ReLIVE’11). Milton Keyenes, UK.

Conrad, M., 2013. Teaching Risk with Virtual World. In

International Conference on Computer Supported

Education (CSEDU 2013). Aachen, Germany.

Cram, A., Lumkin, K., & Eade, J., 2010. Using LAMS to

structure and support learning activities in virtual

worlds. In 5

International LAMS Learning Design

Conference. Australia.

Hu, J., 2010. Educators save money switching to

OpenSim. Hypergrid Business, [blog], 3 Apr 2010.

Available at: http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/

2010/04/educators-save-money-switching-to-opensim/

[last accessed date: 25th Aug, 2012).

Kanamgotov, A., Christopoulos, A., Conrad, M.,

Prakoonwit, S., 2012. Immersion in Virtual Worlds -

but not Second Life!. In Cyberworlds 2012

International Conference. Darmstad, Germany.

Kay Michel, M. C., Helmick N. P. and Mayron, L. M.,

2011. Cognitive cyber situational awareness using

virtual worlds. In IEEE International Multi-

Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in

Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA

2011). Miami Beach, FL, USA.

Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos T., Demetriadis S. and

Pomportsis A., 2010. Collaborative Learning in

OpenSim by Utilizing SLoodle. In Sixth Advanced

International Conference on Telecommunications.

Barcelona, Spain.

Korolov, M., 2010. How to hypergrid. Hypergrid

Business, [blog], Thu, Jan 14 2010. Available at:

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2010/01/how-to-

hypergrid/ [last accessed date: 25th Aug, 2012].

Kostarikas, I., Varlamis, I., Giannakoulopoulos. A., 2011.

Blending Distance Learning Platforms and 3D Virtual

Learning Environments. In 6

International

Conference in Open & Distance Learning. Loutraki,

Greece.

Levesque, J., & Lelievre, E., 2011. Creation and

communication in virtual worlds: Experimentations

with OpenSim. In RICHIR Simon & SHIRAI Akihiko

(Eds.), Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC

2011). Laval, France.

Miller, A., Allison, C., McCaffery, J., Sturgeon, T., Nicoll,

J., Getchell, K., Perera, G. I. U. S. and Oliver, I., 2010.

Virtual Worlds for Computer Science Education. In

Annual Conference of the Higher Education

Academy Subject Centre for Information and

Computer Sciences. HEA: ICS, UK.

Perera, I., Allison, C., Ross Nicoll, J., Sturgeon, T. and

Miller, A., 2010a. Managed Learning in 3D Multi

User Virtual Environments. In International Journal

of Digital Society (IJDS), Vol 1, Issue 4.

Perera, I., Allison, C. and Miller, A., 2010b. Secure

Learning in 3 Dimensional Multi User Virtual

Environments – Challenges to Overcome. In 11

Annual Postgraduate Symposium on the Convergence

of Telecommunications Networking and Broadcasting

(PGNet 2010). Liverpool, UK.

Savin-Baden, M., 2010. A Practical Guide to Using

Second Life in Higher Education. Open University

Press, Maidenhead.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative

Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,

edition.

Vrellis, I., Papachristos, N. M., Bellou, J., Avouris, N. and

Mikropoulos, T.A., 2010. Designing a Collaborative

Learning Activity in Second Life An exploratory study

in physics. In 10

IEEE International Conference on

Advanced Learning Technologies. Sousse, Tunisia.

CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

428