Running Head: IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

The Impact of Virtual Learning Environments on Todays Educational Environment Tammy M. Stratton Georgia Southern University

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS The Impact of Virtual Learning Environments on Todays Educational Environment

The demand for online learning opportunities continues to expand exponentially with technological advancements; the digital culture surrounding todays learners affords learning opportunities unimagined in past decades. No longer bound by traditional brick and mortar institutions, the avenues for knowledge and communication include Web 2.0, social media, and increasingly, virtual learning environments (VLEs). With the relative newness of online learning and, specifically, virtual learning environments, the scope of research, though limited, unearths certain frameworks, attitudes and conditions pertinent to a learners and educators success or failure within a VLE. Through a review of studies focused on the VLEs characteristics, learning affordances, school presence in P-12 and Higher Ed, pedagogical approaches, and both the positive and negative aspects, this literature review, then, focuses on the impact virtual learning environments (VLEs) may have on traditional classrooms and teaching and learning practices, both in K-12 and higher education. Attributes of the Virtual Learning Environment Traditional teaching environments generally include physical classrooms, textbooks, and lecture-style face-to-face communication. In todays educational environment, computers may facilitate instruction according to the teachers planning and teaching and, though computers supported distance learning beginning in the 1970s, with the World Wide Webs rapid growth in the 1990s the computer became a conduit for new educational opportunities, including the emergence and rapid growth of Virtual Learning Environments (Brown, 2010). The term Virtual Learning Environment spans a broad range of terms and uses, such as Multi-User Virtual Learning Environment (MUVLE), 3-Dimensional Virtual Learning

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Environment (3D VLE), and 3-Dimensional Multi-User Virtual Learning Environment (3-D

MUVLE). The virtual component typically refers to an online, internet or web-based component allowing access from remote locations (Barkand & Kush, 2009). Barkand and Kush (2009) found the environment component refers to the location users gather for social interactions, with the learning component differentiating an educational environment from various types of other environments utilized for different purposes. Brown (2010) concluded that VLEs depart from typical software applications through the use of interactive, multisensory, three dimensional environments synthesized through the computer. In the de Freitas (as cited in Dass, Dabbagh, & Clark, 2011) study, Serious Virtual Worlds: A Scoping Study, she identified five categories of VLEs: 1) Role-playing worlds used primarily for recreation (e.g., World of Warcraft); 2) Social worlds for social networking interactions (e.g., Second Life); 3) Working worlds that support business processes and interactions (e.g., Project Wonderland); 4) Training worlds to simulate training for military, medical and other professions (e.g., OLIVE); and 5) Mirror worlds that utilize mapping technologies (e.g., Google Earth) (Dass, Dabbagh, & Clark, 2011). While de Freitas, Rebolledo-Mendez, Liarokapis, Magoulas, and Poulovassilis (2010) differentiate the VLEs broad span of purposes and users, for this paper, it is important to gain insight into the impact that virtual learning environments pose to todays educational environment, particularly the teachers and learners. User Attributes To understand the impact of VLEs in education, it is vital, first, to gain background knowledge of the users and how their cultural and social environment may affect the virtual learning experience. To gain insight into the generation most impacted by virtual learning environments, Limniou and Smith (2010) addressed the fundamental differences in how students

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS born after 1980 process information. The net generation (born after 1980) is task-oriented, experiential, and comfortable with technology; they prefer to receive information quickly, and utilize multiple modes for communicating. Further, Shen and Eder (as cited in Limniou & Smith, 2010) utilized the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that presumes two beliefs Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) determines ones Behavioral

Intention (BI) to use a technology (p. 104). The findings supported that students PEOU did not directly influence their BI towards VLEs or negatively affect anxiety levels though students questioned the collaborative abilities; thus, concluding that VLEs, specifically the Second Life world, are valid learning environments, yet teachers must consider collaborative activities to increase social interaction (Dass et al., 2011). The studies point us to the plausibility of VLEs as legitimate avenues for todays learner and future generational learners, but, as this paper will address, VLEs also present significant challenges to both teacher and learner. Potential Learning Affordances of Virtual Learning Environments Falloon (2010) discussed the power that VLEs embody as learning instruments. He stated that VLEs offer opportunities for learners that in real-life, whether due to time constraints, finance, or location, the learners could not otherwise take advantage. Further, the constant environment of the VLE promotes increasing social interaction that, in turn, builds a foundation for collaborative education or virtual collaborative learning as Lukman and Krajnc (2012) referred to in their study exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual environments. Specifically, the 3-D Virtual Learning Environment (3-D VLE) affords learners the potential to explore, construct and manipulate objects while creating an environment illustrative of their ideas and thoughts (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010). The learners 3-D immersive experience allows for simulations of real-world scenarios such as performing science experiments, designing and

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS operating simulated equipment, and experiencing processes or procedures specific to a certain field like medicine or the military (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010). Additionally, avatars (online representations of self in the virtual environment) present an important element in the social interactions and entertainment aspects of the 3-D virtual environment; the educational learning advantages avatars present, thus far, remain an area with scant research due to the relative newness of the technology. Falloon (2010) focused on the use of avatars in education and

posited that for learners uncomfortable with face-to-face communication and social interactions, avatars offered an avenue for self-expression and connectedness that they would otherwise not engage. Moreover, Falloons (2010) interpretive research with two urban intermediate schools in New Zealand identified the high motivational factor and sense of ownership learners experienced through the use of personalized avatars. The selected research studies revealed the potential positive learning affordances of a VLE, including the self-empowering use of avatars in the 3-D VLE. Yet, as selected research studies revealed the potentially positive learning affordances of a VLE, the research has simultaneously posed questions of challenges and obstacles inherent in the learning, design and interaction in a virtual world, particularly for the teachers and learners. Potential Learning Obstacles with Virtual Learning Environments Though operating in a virtual environment, teachers must address the real-world issues of technology operation, appropriate instructional interactions, and viable course work, activities and assessments relative to the nature of a virtual environment while satisfying program and state objectives and standards. The first inherent obstacle includes the knowledge and confidence required of learners to commence learning and interaction within a virtual environment. Students must initiate the sign up required to access the VLE, which poses logistical, time-consumption issues for teachers (Pfeil, Siang Ang, & Zaphiris, 2009). Mindful of the potential negative effects

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS on students initial interactions with the virtual environment, Pfeil et al. (2009) emphasized the importance of supplying a knowledgeable, dependable support team and tutors to assist with issues so as not to affect vital teaching and learning resources. Tutors are an invaluable asset to assist with the initial disorientation and navigational difficulties inherent with new learners, particularly for those unfamiliar with online gaming. Though many of todays learners are proficient in the Multi-user Virtual Environment (MUVE) of online games such as World of Warcraft, with approximately 300 million registered users spending time within commercial social and virtual gaming worlds, Warburton (2009) concluded that assistance with the initial disorientation and navigational issues for students unfamiliar with online gaming proved

invaluable. Pfeil et al. (2009) further discussed the potential hazards with employing avatars, as, though certain studies support the motivational and empowering aspects of avatars, the researchers were concerned with the tutors or teachers correctly identifying and tracking the learners progress and assessing learning performance. The study highlighted additional challenges, such as selecting appropriate communication channels and copyright issues with student-created objects. The communication hurdle dealt with the vast differences in virtual world communications versus modes of offline communications, which the research suggested may add to the cognitive load and requires learners and teachers to continually re-adjust (Pfeil et al., 2009). Equally important was the concern with copyright issues, as, particularly in todays technology-based, Web 2.0 environment, student-created objects may persist past the allotted course time (Pfeil et al., 2009). Parallel to the obstacles learners face in a VLE, teachers contend with the mirror issues of sufficient knowledge and navigational skills to commence their teaching while modeling appropriate virtual world etiquette and confidence. The transition from traditional teaching to

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS the environment of virtual worlds reveals the reluctance or hesitancy of teachers unfamiliar with

the technology. Limnou and Smith (2010) studied teacher reactions after participating in training aimed at designing and managing online courses, utilizing collaboration tools, and online assessments. The teachers completed a general multiple answer questionnaire regarding their perceptions of teaching in the VLE. The study reported that approximately 58% of teachers found the limited lecture time as an obstacle to teaching, with 30% reporting lack of students background knowledge posed difficulties. Moreover, Heaton-Shrestha (as cited in Limniou & Smith, 2010) discussed staff workloads, familiarity with technology, the dearth of high quality material, and lack of training as potential barriers for effective teaching in VLEs. Moreover, teachers must operate in an environment that lacks clear guidelines and sufficient research to support the educational virtues of the VLEs (Warburton, 2010). Though studies exist revealing the positive learning aspects of VLEs such as collaboration, immersion and motivation, the everchanging landscape and technology pose particular challenges to teachers and learners. Pedagogical Approaches Assuming the positive research findings continue to support the educational development and active engagement in VLEs, the research then evolves from inquiring if the VLEs offer sound pedagogical approaches to studies finding that certain pedagogical approaches integrate positively with the virtual environment. If the VLEs exhibit certain defining features from a pedagogical point of view, then the studies segue into how and what pedagogical approaches work. Dass et al. (2011) conducted a literature review focused on various aspects of virtual worlds. The review uncovered several pedagogical approaches relevant to VLEs, with analysis revealing that constructivism formed the foundation for the VLEs (2011). Constructivism, according to Das et al., (2010) is based on the general view that learning is an active process of

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS constructing rather than acquiring knowledge (p.171); thus, the experiences, activities and social interactions within the VLE must motivate and challenge learners to construct their own understandings and knowledge. Further, the literature review analysis revealed numerous

pedagogical approaches within the VLEs based on constructivism. First, problem-based learning was evidenced in one case where unstructured real-world problems were presented and the VLE proved a successful venue for learners to exercise authentic problem-based action learning while promoting motivation and relevance (2011). Second, Dass et al. (2011) concluded that experiential learning as a pedagogical model in the VLE revealed that learners could test hypotheses with minimal risk and understand the relevance to real-world situations, with the experiential learning cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation enhanced by the learners sense of presence. Third, the collaborative learning approach that emphasizes the joint construction of knowledge, social negotiation, and student reliance on peers and teachers as learning resources (Dass, et al., p. 326) was applied in three studies. In each, the students felt the VLE assisted them in working effectively as a group, with the researchers reporting the use of several different areas dedicated to a common campus area, collaborative area, recreation area, and a lecture area. Moreover, the VLEs supported synchronous communication and social interaction, with students reporting a heightened sense of awareness, presence and communication (Dass, et al., 2011). Situated learning, collaborative learning, and experiential learning were practiced as pedagogical approaches in VLEs (Dass, et al., 2011). From a teachers perspective, the research points to documented pedagogical approaches with the potential to accommodate various learning and teaching styles. With relevant case studies to further bolster the VLE as a viable tool, real-world teachers and learners interacting with real-world situations become the focus.

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS VLE Case Studies

A New Approach Toward Digital Storytelling: An Activity Focused on Writing Self-efficacy in a Virtual Learning Environment Xu, Park, and Baek (2011) focused their research question to finding a meaningful difference in writing self-efficacy and flow with digital storytelling between learners in VLEs and learners who used Windows Movie Maker offline. The population encompassed sixty-four undergraduate students (32 from two classes) in South Korea enrolled in the class Media Production for Teaching and Learning. One class utilized the virtual social world, Second Life, for the digital storytelling activity designed by the authors, while the second class performed digital storytelling offline using the video editing software Windows Movie Maker following the digital storytelling procedures suggested by the University of Houston. The procedures for the Second Life group consisted of 1) Introduction to Second Life 2) Introduction to Digital Storytelling 3) Story topic: travelling through spaces and time 4) Imagination of the story 5) Writing the story 6) Creating the environment of the story in Second Life and 7) Sharing stories. The primary instrument tool was the virtual world, Second Life, with a pre-test and post-test of both the writing self-efficacy and the test of flow state. The research method was quasiexperimental, with writing self-efficacy and flow as the dependent variables. Xu et al. (2011) concluded through their statistical analysis that digital storytelling in Second Life was more effective than digital story-telling offline. The findings point to improved writing self-efficacy through the VLE, Second Life, due to the virtual environments allowances of 1) stimulating imagination, thus more creative writing 2) visualizing, creating and manipulating objects for their story creation, which lends itself to learners realistically enacting their stories and 3) visualization of entire stories that affords learners the chance to evaluate the whole structure and

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS correct mistakes or errors in their story and writing. Xu et al. (2011) presented solid findings that solidify previous studies on the VLEs ability to encourage motivation and imagination, while presenting statistical analysis for the positive attributes of developing writing in a virtual environment. The study lacked the research methods and specific procedures utilized with the

10

offline group leaving one to guess at the actual procedures the University of Houston suggested for digital storytelling. Design and Implementation of a 3-D Multi-User Virtual World for Language Learning Ibez et al. (2011) focused on the 3-D Multi-User Virtual Environment (3-D MUVE) as a means for language learning. With the immersive, motivating aspects of the virtual environment, the authors discussed the potential learning opportunities for language learning. According to Ibez et al. (2011), exposure to real-life situations where learners must communicate in the chosen language offers one of the best ways to learn. Ibez et al. (2011) further concurred that the 3-D MUVE, known for its immersive, realistic aspects offered a medium for the authors to create and study the effects of an immersive, shared and realistic environment where learners may, through their self-created avatars, interact, explore and change their world. Ibez et al. (2011) did not conduct research, but, instead reviewed related work and findings to design a virtual world that imitated Madrid, Spain, affording learners the opportunity to experience auditory and visual immersion. The authors utilized Situated learning, Role-playing, Cooperative Collaborative learning, Problem-based learning, and Creative learning as pedagogical models for environment and activity design, with the activities designed to foster collaboration, stimulate imagination and motivate learners to acquire knowledge about one of Spains important painter, D. Velzquez. The learners were to interact and freely explore the virtual environment locating information to achieve the final goal of gaining access to the Prado

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Museum. Ibez et al. (2011) designed and developed the activities to promote reading,

11

listening, writing, and speaking skills. For example, to address the speaking skills facet, learners were divided into two groups with each group exposed to certain auditory dialogues. In order to pass the collaborative final test learners had to verbally exchange information from their dialogue section. The authors then conducted a preliminary evaluation to determine the MUVE as a motivating, immersive and collaborative medium appropriate for language learning. Ibez et al. (2011) reported encouraging results with the immersion, motivation and participation in collaborative activities within the MUVE, but also stated that there is significant more improvement required to convert the 3-D MUVE into a learning platform. Future challenges include the introduction of assessment procedures into the 3-D MUVE, which the authors are currently researching. Because Ibez et al. (2011) offered discussion on language learning in the 3-D MUVE they had designed and not findings from a research study, one understands the limited scope of the conclusions and questions the potential of language learning rooted in solid research. Future Research Concerns The relative newness of the VLEs equates a lack of significant research studies to either support or negate the potential. Dalgarno and Lee (2010) put forth several examples for future research questions. Under the umbrella of testing basic assumptions and linking characteristics to affordances (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010, p.26) the authors suggested certain questions to guide future research: 1) Will learners trust in their VLE experiences enough to modify existing conceptions? 2) Does the fidelity and sense of presence within a 3-D VLE lead to improved engagement and intrinsic motivation? 3) How important are the various aspects of the VLE in respect to visual realism and sense of presence? Further, the authors suggested additional

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

12

questions addressing the establishment of guidelines and best practice in the VLE: 1) How can learning tasks meant for the VLE be designed to meet specific, desired educational outcomes? 2) What changes are required to accepted design principles, if any, for instruction meant for the VZL? 3) What characteristics of learning tasks in the VLE will translate into higher intrinsic motivation? Warburton (2009) added to future research directions by suggesting researchers focus on: 1) How learners manage their virtual identities. 2) Improvement of digital and cultural literacies. 3) Gain deeper understanding of the correlation between immersion, empathy and learning 4) Develop sufficient design skills to better take advantage of virtual learning spaces. In conclusion, addressing pedagogical approaches, learner characteristics, curriculum design, and the technology itself spans the major gaps in the use of VLEs within the educational field. With time and greater populations in which to conduct research, future studies should focus on the suggested topics from reputable researchers and institutions to further reveal the untapped potential of the VLE. Summary Todays rapid technological advances affords educational institutions once unimagined opportunities to capture, motivate, engage and teach the learners who have matured with technology as an everyday aspect. While brick and mortar educational institutions must compete with other institutions, both local and global, to enroll learners in challenging financial times, VLEs emerge as encouraging counterpoints to budget restraints, low student populations, and time and location constraints. It is now not sufficient to design and offer courses strictly for the traditional classroom setting, as institutions are taking advantage of popular, multi-user online gaming environments to create VLEs utilizing many of the same features and tools. However, Heaton-Shrestha et al (as cited in Limniou & Smith, 2010) researched staff workloads,

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS familiarity with technology, and the design of high quality material and lack of training as potential barriers for effective teaching in VLEs. Teachers must operate in an environment that lacks clear guidelines and sufficient research to support the educational virtues of the VLEs (Warburton, 2010). On the other hand, researchers such as Dass et al., (2011) concentrated on the pedagogical approaches based in constructivism that offer designers and teachers the potential to capitalize on the VLEs attributes of increased learner engagement, motivation and

13

immersion in the learning environment. Do the positive aspects outweigh the potential negative aspects of teaching and learning in the VLE? The scope of research, though limited, questions both alternatives, with research supporting the two contrary stances. Case studies reveal encouraging results in improving writing self-efficacy and language learning, but their encouragement simultaneously unearths the lack of research in the remaining disciplines. To address this and other research gaps, future studies must focus on the design, implementation, and sufficient knowledge of technology for teachers and learners to grasp the vital aspects and move forward in the exponentially growing field of VLEs. Educational institutions must look to the online gaming worlds for starting points and guidelines to launching successful user and learner platforms. Future studies must unearth the potentially positive and negative effects of virtual learning for successful implementation and integration within the educational environment. Technology and demand for online opportunities continues to advance, regardless, so researchers must plan now to study the future.

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS References Barkand, J., & Kush, J. (2009). GEARS: A 3d virtual learning environment and virtual

14

school and educational world used in online secondary schools. Electronic Journal of eLearning, 7(3), 215-224. Brown, S. (2010). From vles to learning webs: The implications of web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 1-10. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-d virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 10-32. Dass, S., Dabbagh, N., & Clark, K. (2011). Using virtual worlds. The Quarterly Review of Distance Learning, 12(2), 95-111. de Freitas, S. (2008). Serious virtual worlds: A scoping study. London, England: Conventry University, Serious Games Institute. de Freitas, S., Rebolledo-Mendez, G., Liarokapis, F., Magoulas, G., & Roulovassilis, A. (2010). Learning as immersive experiences: Using the four-dimensional framework for designing and evaluation immersive learning experiences in a virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 69-85. De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of a

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

15

virtual campus on Second Life: The case of seconddmi. Computers & Education, 52(1), 220-233. Falloon, G. (2010). Using avatars and virtual environments in learning: What do they have to offer? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 108-122. Heaton-Shrestha, C. (2005). Introducing a vle into campus-based undergraduate teaching: Staff perspectives on its impact on teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 370-386. Ibez, M.B., Garcia, J.J., Galn, S., Maroto, D., Morillo, D., & Kloos, C.D. (2011). Design and implementation of a 3D multi-user virtual world for language learning. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 2-10. Limniou, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Teachers and students perspectives on teaching and learning

through virtual learning environments. European Journal of Engineering Education,

35(6), 645-653.

Lukman, R., & Krajnc, M. (2012), Exploring non-traditional learning methods in virtual and real-world environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 237247. Pfeil, U., Ang, C.S., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Issues and challenges of teaching and learning in 3d virtual worlds: Real life case studies. Educational Media International, 46(3), 223-238.

IMPACT OF VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

16

Shen, J., & Eder, L. (2009). Intentions to use virtual worlds for education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 225-233. Warburton, S. (2009). Second life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414-426. Xa, Y., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 181-191.