Investing in Ephemeral Virtual Worlds

An Educational Perspective

Athanasios Christopoulos and Marc Conrad

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

Keywords: Virtual World, Virtual Reality, Virtual Learning, Second Life, Opensim, Persistence.

Abstract: The increased demand for the use of virtual worlds in higher education has led many educators and

researchers in in-depth analysis and evaluation of a number of different virtual environments, aiming to

highlight their potentials. Until recently, Second Life was one of the most widely used virtual worlds for

educational purposes. However, the decision of Linden Lab to stop offering the educational discount, the

rumours around its future and the emergence of a novel technology called OpenSim challenged institutions’

decisions to keep using Second Life. In a try to identify the way institutions make their decision to use a

virtual world, 34 interviews have been conducted with university educators. The results of this study reveal

that both the cost and the persistence of a virtual world play an important role on this decision. However,

there are still some unique benefits offered by each world affecting to a great extent the educators’ decision.

We conclude the paper by advocating the use of a cross-institutional hypergrid.

1 INTRODUCTION

While much of research on virtual worlds (VWs),

and in particular Second Life (SL) – the possibly

most prominent of these – has been performed about

projects within the VW itself (Bredl et al., 2012;

Childs, 2010; Miller et al., 2010; Vosinakis et al.,

2011) it would be naive to restrict oneself only to the

“inside” of these worlds and ignore the “real world”

environment in which these exist. The relevance of

this aspect has been already highlighted by Shukla

and Conrad (2011) who identify such experience

external to the VW via the notion of “broad

environment” and “direct environment”. Specifically

for the educational use of VWs the concurrent

consideration of both an “intrinsic” and “extrinsic”

view led to the development of an evaluation

framework (Conrad, 2011) that, in further

discriminating into an “individual” and a “world”

aspect identifies the four dimensions: cost,

persistence, context and immersion.

Since the authors have already examined the

“intrinsic” perceptions of the use of VWs in

previous works (Christopoulos and Conrad, 2012;

Christopoulos and Conrad, 2013), this paper aims to

enlighten its extrinsic view of persistence, focusing

on three specific VW paradigms: (i) SL, (ii) non-

isolated VWs based on the OpenSim (OS)

technology and hosted by Dedicated Providers

(OSDP), and (iii) isolated and closed VWs based on

the OS technology and hosted Internally (OSIH). At

this point the fact that OSIH can also be open and

interconnected through hypergriding is essential to

be pointed out. However, this case is not in depth

analysed in the following sections.

In this paper first we provide a short and

summative account of our results concerning

Immersion and Context in so far as they are relevant

for the further discussion on the extrinsic dimension

of Cost. The main sections on Persistence then

contrasts the view found in the literature (Section 3)

with educators’ opinions on these themes derived

from our interviews (Section 4) and analysed via

Grounded Theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The

findings of this paper (Section 5) are based on data

collected and analysed within the wider context of a

Masters by Research thesis of one of the authors

(Christopoulos, 2013). We conclude the paper by

highlighting the authors’ position on how to move

forward.

2 IMMERSION & CONTEXT

Many attempts have been made to evaluate the

context of SL and OS based VW’s (Diener, 2009;

118

Christopoulos A. and Conrad M..

Investing in Ephemeral Virtual Worlds - An Educational Perspective.

DOI: 10.5220/0004957801180123

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 118-123

ISBN: 978-989-758-022-2

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

Miller et al., 2010; Vilela et al., 2010). In one of our

previous works (Christopoulos and Conrad, 2013)

we comparatively examined these and concluded

that both SL and OS have many positive and

negative features in common as far as their contexts

are concerned, but at the same time, one differs from

the other, each having its own separate positive and

negative characteristics. However, the negative

elements of these worlds are not powerful enough to

discourage academics from exploiting them in

education. It became apparent that both SL and OS

can cover various needs that are difficult to be

covered or may not be covered effectively through

the use of the educational tools of the physical

world. As a result, educators consider each one of

them suitable for different types of educational

activities.

In addition to context, several researches have

been pursued to quantify immersion (Bredl et al.,

2012; Childs, 2010; Vosinakis et al., 2011). Indeed,

VWs are not immersive by definition (Christopoulos

and Conrad, 2012). Taking into account the features

of SL, it seems to be coming first in preference,

however slight it may be, over OS. These two VWs

were judged by educators as almost equivalent in

developing a sense of presence to students, but the

broader and richer network of interactions that exist

in SL gave it the lead. Second in line come the

OSDPs, and last of all come the OSIHs.

Unlike context and immersion, very limited

studies have been conducted regarding the cost and

the persistence of such VWs. In the following two

sections we therefore attempt to fill this gap and

establish how educators view these two extrinsic

aspects of virtual worlds. The findings are based on

semi-structured interviews that are contextualized

within the available literature.

3 RELATED WORK

Undoubtedly, the future of a VW and its persistence

over time cannot be predicted with certainty.

Nevertheless, the possibility of a VW stop operating

is certainly not a pleasant prospect, considering the

fact that educators and universities are based on it

for the implementation of successful projects,

investing time, effort and money on it.

Up until December 2010 Linden Lab was

offering a 50% discount to non-profit and

educational institutions for the acquisition and

maintenance of land, a fact that encouraged the

educational community to engage in SL. As from

January 2011 that discount stopped being offered

and that caused great inconvenience to the

universities maintaining their virtual land in SL,

since the cost became unbearable, and great

displeasure to many educators using SL

(Christopoulos, 2013). Even though a new discount

came to replace the previous one, very few

universities were able to be benefited from it

(Harrison, 2010).As a result, some universities

stopped using SL, some moved to other, cheaper

VWs such as OS, while others opted to coexist in a

shared piece of virtual land (Christopoulos 2013).

The universities, however, were not the only

ones that left their spaces in SL. Even the private

estates, the fees of which are the main source of

income from SL for Linden Lab, decreased

considerably during the previous years (Au, 2012).

This obviously implies an income reduction for

Linden Lab, which, according to estimates, will have

to face serious economic problems (Llewelyn, 2012;

Au, 2012), if this issue is not addressed to soon.

The “workspace sharing” practice of many

universities in SL that aim to reduce the cost of

using the world, without, however, losing the

multiple benefits it offers, is not just a practice

which only universities follow. It is a general trend

of many individuals, businesses and educational

institutions to opt to share a common virtual space,

as well as its fees (Llewelyn, 2012).

Thus, the future of SL looks uncertain. Even

more so, given the situation in SL and Linden Lab’s

attitude towards educational institutions, predictions

like this of Rogate (2012) should not be taken

lightly: “SL as a product for educators is actually

dead, unless something dramatically changes with

the strategy of Linden Labs—which always remains

unclear”.

On the other hand, although OS technology had

several glitches and instability issues at its first

steps, it has become considerably stable over time.

The qualitative improvement of OS, in conjunction

with its low economic cost of use makes it attract

new users, whereas SL keeps losing them (Gracious,

2012). Therefore, OS has lately become a very

worthy competitor of SL, since it has evolved into a

VW almost as functional as SL (Reeve, 2012).

Moreover, the features of keeping backups of the

world and hypergriding, i.e. the teleportation from

one grid to another, are exclusive advantages of OS,

which enhance its persistence over time. OS,

essentially, is not a VW, but a technology open to

anyone who wishes to develop a VW. This world

can be backed up along with all its content at any

time and reused whenever necessary, by anyone

holding the backup files (Miller et al., 2010). This

InvestinginEphemeralVirtualWorlds-AnEducationalPerspective

119

means that each VW persists for as long as its

backup files exist and independently of the operation

of the others (Fishwick, 2009).

4 EDUCATORS’ VIEWS

For the needs of this study 34 educators were

interviewed. The interviews took place through

skype or within SL or OS. The questions asked were

the following:

1. If Second Life were to close many

educational institutions would be left

“homeless”.Have you taken this issue into

account?What is your opinion?

2. Are you concerned about Second Life’s

closure? Does this possibility affect your decision to

use Second Life?

3. If eventually Second Life terminates, will you

attempt to replace it with another virtual

environment? Can you, please, name this alternative

solution?

4. OpenSim is a new technology used for the

development of virtual environments. How stable do

you expect this technology to be?

5. A major advantage of OpenSim technology is

the opportunity given to its users to keep backups.

How useful do you consider it?

6. OpenSim grids have the potential of “hyper

gridding” (teleportation of avatars and items from

one grid to another). How useful do you consider

this fact?

7. OpenSim technology faces stiff competition

from other well established virtual worlds such as

Second Life. Thus, do you consider that this

competition will affect negatively its persistence?

4.1 The Future of Education in SL

The spreading rumours about the future of SL and its

potential closure raise interviewees’ concerns about

the future of their projects running in-world. They

state that they worry less about their educational

projects, which anyway may find shelter in other

VWs, but more for research projects on SL which

cannot be carried out into another world. They are

also concerned about the resources spent for the

needs of these projects that will be lost if SL

terminates. Furthermore, the concern that, if SL

terminates, its community and the thematic groups

will be lost, was also expressed. Then, these groups

will no longer be able to organize in-world

professional events, which are considered to be very

useful and constructive for professionals in any

industry operating in SL.

However, some educators indicated that they will

continue using SL for educational purposes. Some of

them stated that their stay in SL will last until the

expiration of their contract with Linden Lab, or until

their projects stop being funded. Others stated that

they are not intending to stop using SL, either

because it is money, time and effort consuming to

create their workspace from scratch within another

VW, or because they have not yet found another

VW as worthy as to replace SL. Contrary to them,

some other educators stated that they are intending

to replace or have already replaced SL with another

VW or technology such as OS, OpenWonderland,

Unity3D, Blue Mars and Active Worlds. Finally, the

view that if Linden Labs keeps following their

strategy of not supporting education, educators will

opt to continue without the use of VWs, was

expressed, as well.

Figure 1: Educators’ views for the potential closure of

Second Life.

Nonetheless, at this point it should be noted that

it is rather the high cost of using SL that affected

educators in making these decisions.

4.2 The Educational Potentials in OS

The participants stressed that the OS technology has

been significantly improved in the recent years. The

competition with other well-established VWs had a

positive effect on improving its stability, its

reliability, and its interoperability. Nevertheless, this

competition has a negative effect on its evolution

too. The OS worlds have online communities

narrower than SL, and given that it is open-source

software, its upgrading may be slow, since it

depends on the involvement of its own community,

rather than a company’s. It was also suggested that

competition has no impact on the evolution of OS,

as it provides services very different from other

worlds.

During the interviews, the importance of backups

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

120

for the persistence of OS worlds was also

highlighted. More precisely, it was stated that it is

very useful for cases where the workspace retrieval

is considered necessary. In these cases, the educator

keeps a backup of the world when it is in a desired

state, introduces students to the world so as to carry

out their activities, and then uses the backup file, in

order to “regularize” the world and bring it back to

its previous state. The same technique can be used in

cases where technical issues that affect the smooth

conduct of activities arise. Other educators reported

that they use the backups in order to transfer to other

servers and share with other educators objects, tools

or even their entire workspace.

Figure 2: Educators' views about the future of OpenSim.

Finally, the interviewees’ view of the

hypergriding potential was very positive, even

though some of them seemed never to have used it.

It is thought that hypergriding contributes to the

overcoming of the isolation that is likely to occur in

OSIHs or in worlds with a very small community.

Consequently, interuniversity communication and

collaboration can be achieved. Students have the

opportunity to see the creations of others, and this

may be an inspiration for them, making that way the

lesson more interesting. Beyond these, it was

reported that migration options are given to

universities, and therefore a training group or the

entire university can carry out their activities in

another OS world, any time and for any reason.

4.3 Discussion

It seems, overall, that whether and for how long SL

will persist depends purely on Linden Lab.

Therefore, educators have to accept the decisions of

the enterprise and then decide about their future

plans. On the contrary, the persistence of the OS

worlds depends on the aims and plans of the

educators.

5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In conclusion, each VW has different advantages in

terms of utility costs, while each can cover different

needs. Specifically, SL is the ideal choice for those

educators seeking a more time and effort effective

option, or for educators who cannot devote much of

their time for the preparation of the educational

activities, or even for those who do not have enough

knowledge on building and scripting to create the

virtual space in accordance with their teaching

needs. This is actually the case because of the

existing wide marketplace in SL where educators

can buy various items ready for use. Furthermore,

there are many builders and scripters working in SL,

able to offer their services to anyone upon payment.

Additionally, educators often resort to the solution

of “workspace sharing” or “items sharing” within

the VWs, and are greatly facilitated by the fact that

SL has a very wide community. Nonetheless,

universities that face a decision to use SL for

educational purposes should be prepared to pay high

enough monthly fees for the rental of the virtual

land, and they should also be aware that additional

charges apply on the uploading of files and the use

of more primitives than those granted along with the

purchase of the land.

Exactly the opposite applies in the case of

OSIHs. This choice is ideal for the universities

which seek the most cost-effective option, but a

basic prerequisite for this is the existence of proper

infrastructure and qualified personnel which is able

to spend time and effort to set up, maintain and

ensure the server’s proper operation, and which is

also able to build and script for the creation of the

needed in-world facilities for the educational

activities. Therefore, even though the economic cost

of this option for the university is minimal, it cannot

be considered as time and effort effective.

Nevertheless, the required effort by the university

staff can be significantly reduced, if these actions are

assigned to students as part of their internship. It is

also worth mentioning that the OSIHs are an ideal

choice in cases where the main purpose of the in-

world sessions is to allow students to build and

script. In these cases, on one hand both the effort

and time which has to be devoted by the university

staff for the preparation of the in-world spaces is

reduced, while on the other hand students can freely

“play around” with the space, since there are no

restrictions similar to those that occur in SL

InvestinginEphemeralVirtualWorlds-AnEducationalPerspective

121

regarding the amount of objects and scripts.

Moreover, the “workspace sharing” and “objects

sharing” mentioned in SL also apply in the OSIHs,

even in a different way than that of SL, since the

backup files which are parts of the OS technology

can be run in any OS server. Thus, the workspace

created by a university can be copied and given for

use to another university. Obviously, this is a highly

money, time and effort effective practice.

Finally, choosing an OSDP is the “middle

ground” between SL and OSIHs. Even though the

university has to pay monthly fees for the provider’s

services, the land fees of dedicated providers are

considerably lower compared to the fees charged by

Linden Lab for SL. Furthermore, unlike Linden Lab,

the providers offer, from the beginning, the

maximum number of primitives which can be used

in each piece of land, while their cost is included in

the monthly land fees. Therefore, similarly to the

OSIHs, this option is also very suitable for building

and scripting activities.

An apparent disadvantage of OSDPs, compared

to SL, is the lack of a marketplace which helps

educators to save effort and time. However, the

“workspace and objects sharing” practice applies in

OSDPs as well, as described both in the case of SL,

i.e. the temporary use of the in-world facilities from

other universities, and in the case of OSIHs, i.e. the

backup files exchanging. Besides, there are no

additional charges for files uploading.

Therefore, it seems that the case of OSDPs

gathers many of the advantages –in terms of cost–

that the other two solutions have, but it also shares

few of their disadvantages, as well. It seems to have

the lowest cost in terms of money, time and effort, if

seen in total, but which one is the most “cost-

effective” choice clearly depends on the needs and

capabilities of each university.

Regarding persistence, the educational

community appears to be very disappointed with the

overall current situation in SL and some educators

have already dropped out of it, choosing to use other

VWs, even though it keeps operating. Therefore, the

question is “for how long the educational

community will be present within SL?”, or, in other

words, “for how long will SL worth being used as an

educational tool?”, rather than “for how long will SL

persist?”. Regarding these questions, the views of

the educational community members vary. A part of

them still sees SL as a very convenient educational

tool. Some consider it appropriate under certain

circumstances, while others believe that education in

SL has no future.

The advantage of OS regarding its persistence is

that it is a technology for the creation of VWs,

which is not supported by an enterprise, but by the

open source community. Therefore, the persistence

of OS depends on the choices of individual

educators or universities. However, even if an

educator opts to use the services of an OS provider,

there is always the potential of transferring the

activities to the server of another provider, or a

private server, if it is deemed necessary, using

backups and the hypergrid architecture.

This leads to the conclusion that educators who

wish to obtain the widest possible control of the

persistence of their world should opt to use either an

OSIH or an OSDP. In cases where the long-term

persistence of the world is not a major concern for

educators, they may use SL, if they think that its

benefits are essential for their projects.

In summary it can be seen that the extrinsic view

is a matter of concern of educators using SL and OS.

Given the SL issues concerning a possible closure

(persistence) or increased costs a move towards OS

based solutions is tempting and in many cases

indeed has happened. Our findings seem to suggest

that – unless Linden Lab positions itself clearly

concerning their long-term SL strategy, in particular

towards educators – this shift towards OS will

continue as educators are more and more willing to

accept a loss of the intrinsic dimensions of context

and (possibly) immersion in order to get reassurance

and a perspective concerning the extrinsic

dimensions cost and persistence.

6 POSITION & PERSPECTIVE

Following from the above the University of

Bedfordshire is hosting their activities now on their

own OSIH (after extensive experience with SL and

OSDPs in previous years). The virtual world is used

to teach LSL as an event driven programming

language and to foster activities of students learning

Project Management.

The control provided within an OSIH is an

advantage not only in providing an environment for

students but also to analyse their activities as part of

ongoing research.

Nevertheless to create the ‘look and feel’ of a

true virtual ‘world’ we are now actively seeking

collaboration to join educational virtual worlds as

part of a hypergrid. The technology is readily

available and it is our belief that seamless utilisation

of virtual worlds across educational institutions will

create a persistent and cost efficient virtual

environment in which educational activities can be

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

122

made available.

REFERENCES

Au, W. J. (2012). “SL Forecast to Lose 10% of World’s

Private Sims This Year”. New World Notes [blog],

June 6, 2012, Available at: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn

/2012/06/second-life-losing-10-private-land.html [last

accessed: August 26, 2012].

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, Volume 10 Issue 1 (pp.

15-25).

Childs, M. (2010).“Learners’ Experience of Presence in

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

Coventry, UK.

Christopoulos, A. (2013). “Higher Education in Virtual

Worlds: The Use of Second Life and OpenSim for

Educational Practices”. M.Sc. Thesis, University of

Bedfordshire, Luton, UK. Available from:

http://achristopoulos.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/chr

istopoulos_mres_thesis.pdf.

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 2nd European

Immersive Education Summit: EiED 2012. E-iED,

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de

IngenierÃaTelemÃitica, Madrid, Spain, pp. 48-59, 2nd

European Immersive Education Summit, Paris,

France, 26-27 November, 2012.

Christopoulos, A. & Conrad, M. (2013).“Maintaining

Context in a Changing (Virtual) World – Educators’

Perspectives for OpenSim and Second Life”.In: 5

International Conference on Computer Supported

Education (CSEDU 2013). 6-8 May, 2013, Aachen,

Germany.

Conrad, M. (2011). “Leaving the Lindens: Teaching in

Virtual Worlds of Other Providers”. Proceedings of

the Researching Learning in Immersive Virtual

Environments Conference (ReLIVE11), (pp. 28–36).

21-22 September, 2011, Milton Keynes, UK.

Diener, S. (2009). “This Will Change Everything. Virtual

Worlds in Education”. In: Same places, different

spaces Proceedings of ascilite Auckland 2009 - 26th

Annual ascilite International Conference, (pp. 1-14).

6-9 December 2009, Auckland, New Zealand:

Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian

Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary

Education (ascilite).

Fishwick, P. A. (2009), “An Introduction to

OpenSimulator and Virtual Environment agent-based

M&S Applications”. In: Dunkin, Ann, Ingalls, Ricki

G., Yücesan, Enver, Rossetti, Manuel D., Hill, Ray

and Johansson, Björn (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2009

Winter Simulation Conference - WSC 2009, (pp. 177-

183). 13-16 December, 2009, Austin, TX, USA.

Harrison, D. (2010). “Linden Lab To End Second Life

Educational Discounts”. THE Journal. 1105 Media.,

Wed November 3rd, 2010. Available at:

http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/11/03/linden-lab-

to-end-second-life-educational-discounts.aspx [last

accessed: 26th Aug 2012].

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”.Proceedings of the 11

Annual Conference

of the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for

Information and Computer Sciences, (pp. 239–244).

24-26 August, 2010, Durham, UK. HEA ICS.

Reeve, J. (2012).“Making OpenSim safe for students”.

Hypergrid Business, [blog], March 20, 2012.

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

2012/03/making-opensim-safe-for-students/ [last

accessed: August 26, 2012].

Rogate, J. (2012). “Prof: Schools moving to OpenSim

should pay for hosting”. Hypergrid Business, [blog],

January 2, 2012. Available at: http://

www.hypergridbusiness.com/2012/01/prof-schools-

moving-to-opensim-should-pay-for-hosting/ [last

accessed: August 26, 2012].

Shukla, M., Conrad, M. (2011). “Second Life is not an

Island”. Proceedings of the IADIS International

Conference on e-Society.10-13 March 2011, Avila,

Spain.

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

Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory. Second Edition, Sage Publications,

Thousand Oaks, California, USA. ISBN: 0-8039-

5940-0.

Llewelyn, G. (2012). “Second Life: Towards

Consolidation and Cloud Computing”.

gwynethllewelyn.net, [blog], July 12, 2012, Available

at: http://gwynethllewelyn.net/2012/07/12/second-life-

towards-consolidation-and-cloud-computing/ [last

accessed: August 26, 2012].

Gracious, G. (2012). “Linden Labs At War With

Opensim”.Metaverse Traveller, [blog], August 7,

2012. Available at: http://metaverse-

traveller.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/linden-labs-at-war-

with-opensim.html [last accessed: August 26, 2012].

Vosinakis, S., Koutsabasis, P. and Zaharias, P. (2011).

“An Exploratory Study of Problem-Based Learning in

Virtual Worlds”.Proceedings of the 3rd International

Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious

Applications (VS-Games 2011), (pp. 112 – 119). 4-6

May, 2011, Technical University of Athens (NTUA),

Athens, Greece.

Vilela, A., Cardoso, M., Martins, D., Santos, A., Moreira,

L., Paredes, H., Martins, P., Morgado, L.

(2010).“Privacy challenges and methods for virtual

classrooms in Second Life grid and opensimulator”.

In: IEEE Proceedings of the Second International

Conference in Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious

Applications (VS-Games), (pp. 167 – 174). 25-26

March, 2010.

InvestinginEphemeralVirtualWorlds-AnEducationalPerspective

123