Unpacking frames of reference to inform the design of virtual world learning in higher education

Abstract

In the changing context of globalised higher education, a series of pedagogical shifts have occurred, and with them, a number of interactive learning approaches have emerged. This article reports on findings taken from a large-scale study that explored the socio-political impact of virtual world learning on higher education in the UK, specifically with regard to Second Life. Three dominant frames of reference emerged following analysis of data gathered from student and staff perspectives of their experience and use of Second Life, namely: (i) games and gaming media; (ii) disciplinary learning; and (iii) institutional space and ownership. Such frames of reference were evident in the practices of those involved in using virtual worlds, but it is suggested here that they have largely been overlooked in the literature in terms of their impact and how they may inform learner understandings. We argue that these frames of reference need to be recognised and located in the design and use of virtual worlds in higher education. Throughout the article we present our findings in relation to perspectives emanating from Europe as well as Australasia and the wider Asia Pacific.

Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education

“…Obvious examples would be shared virtual worlds wherein use is made of seminar spaces, meeting rooms, etc. Seen from either an experiential or a management viewpoint, these have enough in common with physical places and spaces for them to be thought of as virtual places/ spaces (Bertol, 1997;Maher et al, 1999;Goodyear, 1999b;Clark & Maher, 2006;Bayne, 2008;Wahlstedt et al, 2008;Whitworth, 2008;Wimpenny et al, 2012).…”

Computer-Simulated 3D Virtual Environments in Collaborative Learning and Training: Meta-Review, Refinement, and Roadmap

“…The interaction between virtual world and real life was also addressed with challenges in haptics, motion capture, simulation and deconstruction, photorealism, and identity. Nevertheless, socio-political impacts of virtual world learning on higher education were exploited by Wimpenny et al (2012), and three dominant frames of reference have appeared: institutional space and ownership, disciplinary learning, and games and gaming media. Moreover, a scoping guide for serious virtual worlds (De Freitas, 2008) discussed challenges related with the survivability of license-fee based worlds against open source platforms, the co-construction of virtual spaces, activities and content, the support for learners with disabilities or mobility limitations, and the creation of accurate benchmarking metrics for assessment and validation.…”

Online teaching practices : Sociomaterial matters in higher education settings

“…A fourth theme concerns involved actors' perspectives and attitudes towards virtual worlds (Hew & Cheung, 2010;Kim et al, 2012;Wang & Burton, 2013;Wimpenny, Savin-Baden, Mawer, Steils, & Tombs, 2012), with a major focus on student perspectives. Research topics regarding the student perspective have concerned students' attitudes towards and satisfaction with using virtual worlds, students' learning outcomes and student's social interaction with each other (Hew and Cheung, 2010;Kim et al, 2012).…”

“…Research topics regarding the student perspective have concerned students' attitudes towards and satisfaction with using virtual worlds, students' learning outcomes and student's social interaction with each other (Hew and Cheung, 2010;Kim et al, 2012). An example of a study that studied students' and teachers' perspectives on teaching and learning in virtual worlds is Wimpenny et al (2012), where three frames of reference influencing expectations on teaching and learning in the virtual world SL were identified. The first concerned games and gaming media, which concerned that students position a virtual world in different ways (such as a game or a non-game), which affects the teaching and learning situation.…”

“…Very common data collection methods have been questionnaires and surveys (Deutschmann, 2012;Hew & Cheung, 2010;Inman et al, 2010;Minocha & Reeves, 2010;Rapanotti et al, 2012;Wang & Burton, 2013). Other common data collection methods mentioned are interviews (Minocha & Reeves, 2010;Rapanotti et al, 2012;Wimpenny et al, 2012), statistics (Rapanotti et al, 2012) and observations (Wimpenny et al, 2012). Several publications report studies that are often referred to as case studies in which teachers-researchers report on their own projects and courses where experiences, lessons learned and recommendations are part of the text (see e.g.…”