1. The Evaluation of SHU3DED Cyber
Campus A pilot study
Louis Nisiotis, Martin Beer, Elizabeth Uruchurtu
Sheffield Hallam University,
United Kingdom.
09/07/2014
PhD Research

2. Synopsis
 Background and Context
 Theoretical Framework
 The Design of SHU3DED
 Pilot Evaluation
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations and Future Work

3. Background and Context
 Access and Participation Issues
 E-Learning:
 Synchronous/Asynchronous
 Content Accessibility and Knowledge Sharing
 Flexibility in Learning (Lau et al. 2013)
 Traditional Distant Learning Environments:
 “Cold and Impersonal”, “Insufficient for optimal learning”, “Flat,
asynchronous, with limited interaction and dynamism” (Johnson et
al. 2011)
 Lack of Effective Social Interaction (Sanders et al. 2007)

4. Background and Context
 Cyber Campuses
 3D navigational spaces
 Synchronous interaction, communication and collaboration
 Real time interaction between users and objects
 Immersion and co-presence, the use of Avatar
 Interactivity and richer visual experiences
 Enhanced multimedia presentation tools
References: Prasolova et al. 2006, Chau et al. 2013, Cronin et al, 2011, Livingstone et al, 2008

5. Theoretical Framework
RQ: “How can cyber campuses help students participate more effectively in
learning activities?”
 Methodology for the evaluation of the efficacy of a MUVE to support
synchronous learning (De Lucia et al. 2009)
 Empirical work looking at the ability of cyber campuses to support
participation in learning activities.
 In MUVE’s, learning is strongly related to the perceptions of presence,
communication, awareness and the feeling of belonging to a community
(De Lucia et al. 2009).

6. The Design of SHU3DED

7. The Design of SHU3DED(cont.)

8. The Pilot Evaluation
 Purpose:
 Prototype initial evaluation
 Assess and evaluate the experimental procedures and data collection instruments
 Ensure good operation in practical environment, conditions management procedures
simulation.
 Participants
 3 different sessions
 Total participation N=23 (21 Male, 2 Female), age: 19-21
 Procedures
 Virtual Learning Scenario Simulation
 Instruments
 Presence Questionnaire (Witmer & Singer, 1998)
 Sociability Scale (Kreijns et al., 2007)
 Awareness, communication and CVE scale (De Lucia et al., 2009)
 Chat Logging

9. Learning Simulation Scenario

10. Results
 Presence
 High perceptions of presence.
 Good sense of control, high sensory and realism, low distractions.
 Communication
 Perceived easy and efficient to communicate.
 Awareness
 High awareness perceptions of the existence and actions of others.
 Sociability
 Supports socialization, a sound social space, provide the feeling of
belonging to a community.
 Environment Design
 Stimulating, logical, consistent, productive and satisfying.

11. Discussion
 Positive evaluation of the prototype
 High sense of presence, communication, awareness and sociability
 Positive evaluation of the design, productivity and satisfaction
 System was behaving properly
 Experimental procedures are considered appropriate to demonstrate
the learning potentials of the prototype
 Data collection instruments are capable to provide reliable empirical
data.

12. Limitations and FutureWork
 Limitations
 Controlled Environment
 Time limitations
 Sample size and groups
 Learning scenario
 Future Work
 Additional Piloting.
 Main Evaluation Study.
 Qualitative Virtual Focus Group Study.
 Determine the extent to which cyber campuses can help students
participate more effectively in learning activities.
 Devise design considerations and suggestions.

13. ThankYou!
 Contact Details:
 Name: Louis Nisiotis
 Email: louis.nisiotis@student.shu.ac.uk
 Website: www.learninvw.com
 Organization: Sheffield Hallam University
Research Partially Funded by
Leventis Foundation