Lectoraat ICT en Onderwijsinnovatie Hogeschool Windesheim Zwolle - Op 15 maart 2011 hield Wim Trooster op het Velon-congres een presentatie over zijn onderzoek naar de didactische meerwaarde van het gebruik van virtuele werelden in het onderwijs.

1. How to Use
Virtual Worlds
in Education
Presentation at: Velon Congres 2011
Location: NH Leeuwenhorst, Noordwijkerhout
Datum: 15-03-2011
A.P.J.Breedveld Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle
Dr. W.J.Trooster SURF, Utrecht
The Netherlands

2. Program
 Survey
Use of Virtual Worlds (in Education)
 Demonstration
Use of Second Life in Education
 Discussion

3. Definition Virtual World
 (3D) persistent and audiovisual (online)
environment
 Where several users “are” simultaneously
 Using a (3D) representation of a character/
avatar
 Building this environment to some extent
Bartle R. (2003) Designing Virtual Worlds,. Thousand Oaks California,
New Riders Publishing

4. 3 Impressions:
What are Virtual Worlds?
 Virtual Hospital in Future:
“Public Awareness Health Reform”
 Virtual Education Nurses:
“Emergency Room”
 AOC Helicon:
“Horse Care”

5. Context (1)
“Relatedness, Control & Competence”
Essential for learning process
(Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000))
“Relatedness”
Leerprestaties
(tav mensen)
“Control” Intrinsieke Diepgaand
Kenmerken
Features leren
(autonomie) motivatie
“Competence” Welzijn/
(ik kan het) Minder uitval

6. Context (2)
Why are Virtual Worlds relevant for Education?
 Intrinsic motivation is essential f0r learning
 Prerequisite for intrinsic motivation are
Relatedness, Control, Competence
 Relatedness / Presence is problem in present
Electronic Platforms for Collaborative Learning
 Virtual Worlds offer Relatedness, Control,
Competence

7. Context (3)
What is known about Virtual Worlds in Education?
 Survey of various types of virtual worlds & their present use
(Study Jisc, de Freitas (Nov. 2008)
 Which ideas, motives and assumptions play a role before
considering (not) to use Second Life in Education
(Study Kennisnet, van Schie (Nov. 2008))
 Consideration of potential added value of specified learning
activities in SL
(Study Kennisnet/SURFnet, van Dulm (Jan. 2009) )
 Not yet:
“Evidence” for Added Value of SL in Education
(and conditional factors) from Experiences
in Universities & Sec. Vocational Education

8. Study 1
Jisc, Nov’08

9. 5 Types of
Virtual Worlds
 Role Play Worlds
 Social Worlds
 Working Worlds
 Training Worlds
 Mirror Worlds

10. Role Play Worlds
World of Warcraft

11. Social Worlds
Second Life

12. Working Worlds
Project Wonderland

13. Training Worlds
Olive Platform

14. Mirror Worlds
Google Earth

15. Study 2
Kennisnet, Nov. ‘08

16. Subject
Which ideas,motives,presumptions
play a role
when choosing (not) to use
Second Life?

17. Study 3
Kennisnet/SURFnet, Jan ‘09

18. Subject
Where in the curriculum
Teachers (MBO/VO, NL)
Think they can use the potential of SL

20. Review Hew & Cheung (2010)
Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual
worldsin K-12 and higher education settings. A review of the research.British
Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 33–55.
470 papers on the use of Virtual Worlds
 455: opinions, conceptual descriptions, non-
emperical descriptions of program
implementations, reviews, or not related to
Education
 15 on single cases (micro level)

21. Problem
 Missing, at this moment:
A survey of - and insight in
best practices/bad practices
on the use of virtual worlds in Education
 Risk:
Knowledge in this field is reinvented
(over & again)

22. Present Study
Summer 2009

23. Objective of present Study
To create new Knowledge :
 For Teachers and their Managers
 To make Adequate Decisions
 To Use (or not to use) Virtual Worlds for
Educational Purposes

24. Topics under Study
 What is the (didactic) added value of SL
compared to other media?
 Which factors (didactic/organisational)
determine optimal (sustainable) use of SL

25. Methods (1)
Selection of 7 learning activities with
potential added value (on the basis of prior
studies)
Cooperation & Participation: Co-creation = development &
presenting + results
1. Practicing skills (eg in simulations, role play/iexploring identities)
2. Viewing learning content (eg the medium SL, interaction by
avatars, simulations/visualisations)
3. Building activities
4. Organizing Events
5. Organizing/building Exhibitions
*SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail

26. Methods (1)
Selection of 7 learning activities with
potential added value (on the basis of
prior studies)
Social networking & using “learning-communities”
6. Meeting people as a trigger for learning experiences
(eg: learning a foreign language in SL by meeting native speakers)
7. Coaching students (Intervision, Supervision, Coaching the Course of
the Study)
*SL compared with other media like: RL, Blackboard, MSN, e-mail

27. Methods (2)
Selection of 12 Educational Settings
(in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)
University
1. University of Maastricht, NL (Programme for Brand Management)
2. University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, NL (Social professional
Programme for Cultural Community Development)
3. Private Institute (Philosophy Class)
4. Thomas Jefferson University, Philidelphia, USA (Programme for
OccupationalTherapy)
5. Metropolitan University of London, UK (Programme for E-learning
Education)
6. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ((Under)Graduate
Programme for Religion Education)
7. Technical UniversityTwente, Enschede, NL (Programme for
Construction, Engineering & Management)

28. Methods (2)
Selection of 11 Educational Settings
(in most initiatives more than one SL-activity)
Secondary Vocational Education
9. Davinci College, Dordrecht, NL (IT-Academy)
10. Deltion College, Zwolle, NL (Programme for Interactive Media
Design)
11. AOC Helicon, Boxtel, NL (Programme for Equestrian Education)
12. Alfa College, Groningen, NL (Programme for Multimedia Design)

29. Methods (3)
 Questionnaire with items on:
 Added Value
 Didactic factors
 Organisational Factors
 Use of Questionnaire:
 In live interview (6x)
 In Skype interview (2x)
 By e-mail (4x)

30. Conclusions (1)
All SL-activities showed clear added value in (at least) 1 initiative

31. Conclusions (2)
Grounds of added value:
 SL motivates students intrinsically
 SL facilitates social interaction
 Student can direct his/her own learning activities
 (?Competence?)
 Students achieve better learning results:
o more profound learning,
o more transfer to practice,
o more efficiency (less costs),
o more pleasure/well-being students

32. Conclusions (2*)
“Relatedness, Control & Competence”
Essential for learning process
(Self-determination theory Ryan & Deci (2000))
“Relatedness”
Leerprestaties
(tav mensen)
“Control” Intrinsieke Diepgaand
Kenmerken
Features
(autonomie) motivatie leren
“Competence” Welzijn/
(ik kan het) Minder uitval

33. Conclusions (3a)
(Nb: te generaliseren)
Didactische factoren:
 Keuze onderwijsactiviteiten in SL (met duidelijke
meerwaarde voor (sociale interactie in) SL)
 Keuze geschikte doelgroep voor SL
 Investering in adequate didactiek die aansluit bij de
onderwijsdoelen (met goede opdrachten, begeleiding,
toetsing)
 Inrichting SL-omgeving aansluitend bij didactisch ontwerp,
met periodieke kwaliteitszorg
 Hantering gedragsregels.

34. Conclusions (3b)
Organisatorische factoren:
 Aansluiting bij het beleid
 Creatie draagvlak bij management, docenten,en
ICT-ondersteuners
 Beperking van gevreesde risico’s van gebruik van SL
(o.a. tijdsinvestering)
 Investering in deskundigheidsbevordering
 Afspraken over manier van werken bij de SL-
activiteit

35. Conclusions (4)
2 underlying parameters discriminating for success
1. Choose activities where SL really has strong/
undeniable added value compared to other media
(eg the 7 selected activities in this study)
2. Create commitment (for teachers, students and
management (eg PR)
a. Make connection to policies
b. Choose subgroups of students apt to working with SL
c. Minimize risks foreseen with the Use of SL
d. Reduce the fear that working with SL is time-consuming

36. Demo

37. Discussie
 Welke toepassingsmogelijkheden van een virtuele wereld
ziet u in de eigen onderwijspraktijk?
 Is er meerwaarde voor de virtuele wereld daar?
 Zijn deze toepassingen eenvoudig realiseerbaar binnen de
virtuele wereld?
 Hoe moet didactisch en organisatorisch invulling gegeven
worden aan deze toepassingen?