=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Building Knowledge in Virtual Environments – Influence of Interpersonal Relationships: The Outlined Research
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-709/paper08.pdf
|volume=Vol-709
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Loureiro10
}}
==Building Knowledge in Virtual Environments – Influence of Interpersonal Relationships: The Outlined Research==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-709/paper08.pdf
Building Knowledge in Virtual Environments –
Influence of Interpersonal Relationships: the outlined
research
Ana Loureiro
CIDTFF - University of Aveiro / UIPS - ESE - Polytechnics Institute of Santarém,
Portugal, accloureiro@gmail.com
Abstract. This article presents a PhD research project that will determine how
to enhance learning, at the university level, based on implemented experiences
in immersive collaborative virtual environments. Today’s students belong to a
networked and multitasking generation, and today’s teaching strategy does not,
in many situations, embrace their needs and perspectives. They need to gather
competences in order to become motivated, communicative, knowledge
builders. It is our belief that educators can take advantage of virtual
environments to develop those competences and transfer them to real-world
learning contexts.
Keywords: collaborative virtual environments, technology enhanced learning,
Connectivism, knowledge building, interpersonal relationships, Second Life
1 The Outlined Research
We are conducting a research study that is being developed as part of a Doctoral
Program in Multimedia in Education, under the name Knowledge Building in Virtual
Environments – Influence of Interpersonal Relationships. The study is being
conducted online using the virtual platform Second Life (SL).
The research project emerged from the need to “observe some of the variables that
have been already identified by Bettencourt’s study and give it continuity”[1]. These
variables are related with three major areas: the person and their motivations; the
relationships that exist or are established between avatars (SL users) or between
avatars and persons; and finally the social integration in SL (by which we mean sense
of community). The three main areas are interconnected, and can’t be observed
independently since they all influence one another. Our research concerns are more
focused on learning relationships that are established in the real-world then flow
through a Collaborative Virtual Environment (CVE) and back to the real-world again;
we are looking to establish whether this flow is complementary. We will observe in-
world educators and learners in formal and informal (natural) contexts of learning.
Educators and learners – from Portuguese universities and polytechnics – represent
our research sample. This is a no-probabilistic intentional type of sample.
It is qualitative study with an inductive and exploratory character. Qualitative
studies are defined as being “an inductive form of inquiry (…) that explores
43
phenomena in their natural settings and uses multi-methods to interpret, understand
and bring meaning to them”[2]. It is also defined as an exploratory study because the
main data collecting will be achieved through the observation of some identified key
indicators (such as the avatar appearance and how the avatar behaves in a learning
group or community). This will help determine the level of growth, motivation or
socialization of the avatar/person in the CVE. To complement this, surveys (with
closed answers) will be used to inquire about the students experience of entering,
using and interacting in the CVE – gathering information such as time spent in-world,
activities, difficulties, curiosity and level of social integration (e.g. group
membership).
The main goals of this research are: (i) analyze several contexts of educators and
learners and identify the reasons for them to engage and grow in SL, and what they
experience; (ii) understand the way in which interpersonal knowledge in the real
world can combine with the personal development/growth in CVEs; (iii) achieve
insights to a better understanding of the way knowledge is constructed in CVEs and
then transfer it to real-world contexts of learning – with an impact in traditional
teaching strategies. We expect this study to provide some “insights for all educators
and researchers interested in using those environments as a teaching medium in real
life, and propose new approaches to better prepare the university students for the
marketplace that will emerge”[1]. To achieve these goals, the research will question
the following themes: (i) what are the main reasons/motivations for educators and
learners to join SL; (ii) what are the main factors for them to stay and interact in SL;
(iii) what are their personal paths of development/growth in SL; (iv) how does
interpersonal knowledge cycle around between the real-world and CVEs.
2 State of the Art
We are no longer simple information collectors (Web 1.0), now we are active and
reactive users; we develop and share content and information (Web 2.0). Although
some authors believe we are in the Web 3.0 era already, relating to “virtual
environments in which we meet as avatars, interact as 3D moving objects that takes
sharing, co-creation and communication to the next, predictable level”[3]. SL is the
best representation of this idea, its environment is like an “ever growing virtual
playground that is limited only by the creativity of its users”[4] that allow us “to build
3-D objects collaboratively and in real time with others in the same world [with major
applications at] building, design, and art principles”[5]. SL is also a “rough simulation
of the natural world, with meteorological and gravitational systems, the possibilities
of experimenting with natural and physical sciences are endless [and all this] in a safe
and controlled environment”[5]. The educational potential is that, within an
immersive environment, we are walking inside the material, not just viewing it from a
distance.
For instance, there are many examples of ancient buildings and cities (some of
them have already disappeared at real-worl) that can be visited in SL. The Sistine
Chapel has been modelled in great detail so we “can fly up to the top of a wall for a
close inspection, look down at the inlaid floor, or even sit on a window ledge”[6]. As
44
Tailor says the “purpose of this re-creation is to explore the use of virtual reality for
teaching and learning about art and architecture, by experiencing the context, the
scale, and the social aspects of the original”[6]. Another example is the reconstruction
of ancient city of Rome [7] or the city of Lisbon pre-earthquake 1755 [8]. The
potential is not limited to anthropology or humanities. One example from the physical
sciences on molecular motion illustrates how SL can emulate “the way that hot and
cold molecules interact with one another in an environment of uneven heat
distribution”[9]. In the medical field, some experiments for training medical students
are running [10]. SL is also a good environment for language education, which is
justified by the fact that “instructions are context-embedded and therefore the
approach treats the second language learner as if he/she was learning his/her first
language - which incidentally would correspond to the playful type of language
learning present in SL”[11]. Some examples of ongoing research in education can
also be found at the SLED (Second Life Educators) list [13]. We have perceived that
“Education began, slowly, to realize that many of the attributes of great game playing,
from the intellectual challenge to the provision of multiple learning styles, had an
immediate part to play in learning”[14].
The advantages of the social web are becoming clear, students “have a lot of
practice of e-mailing, blogging, googling, chatting, gaming, and so on!”[1]. Students
“entering universities after 2000 (…) were portrayed as needing a more media and IT
driven learning environment”[15]. But what do they get when they arrive at
University today? For the most part it is the same old strategies from the last century;
where students “are asked to sit in rows and listen to lectures, take notes or solve
exercises given by teachers. It’s a teaching strategy that doesn’t prepare students to be
critical citizens and professional workers on their specialty, nor give them the skills
and competences needed to be autonomous and constructors of knowledge”[1]. Our
students now live in a multimodal and interconnected world and for them this “way of
dealing with information is much more intensive than listening to one source of
information at a time”[16].
3 Theoretical Framework
We are conducting the research under the theory of Connectivism; a theory for the
digital age. According to Siemens, the theories most often used to describe the
learning process (Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism) do not consider the
ways that learning is impacted by technology. More often than not, technology “has
reorganized how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn”[17], therefore
learning theories of the digital age should be reflective, and with a glance at social
environments, since learning (especially in its informal and natural form) often is
widely influence by it. Other ways of achieving learning have arisen through social
networks and the types of connections that the Web allows. As Vaill said, referred by
Siemens, “learning must be a way of being – an ongoing set of attitudes and actions
by individuals and groups”[17]. It is important that we perceive learning as a “lifelong
process of transforming information and experience into knowledge, skills, behaviors,
and attitudes"[18]. To learn is to “acquire certain patterns”[19]. It is also the result of
45
the interactions and connections that we establish with fellows of our community,
peers, personal or social networks. In this way “to know something is to be organized
in a certain way, to exhibit patterns of connectivity”[19].
We will be using the Connectivism approach because SL embraces its main
assumptions. SL enables a contact and connection with a diversity of opinions, nodes,
links and specialized information sources. Because it is digital, virtual and immersive
it allows those information links to be more interactive, which enhances the learning
and information sharing. It is an endless network of links allowing contacts to flow in
between virtual platforms (2D, 3D) and real-world. In our opinion, the motivation and
sense of community that are generated among SL users helps to create, develop and
maintain connections; it facilitates a process of continuous, natural and lifelong
learning. The environment has available a huge number of communities and groups
serving a wide range of likes, needs, interests. Inside these groups, or communities,
relationships are established and information flows. Members build and share,
becoming content providers themselves.
Connections are made and the network of relationships grows and gets reinforced
progressively. The bonds that are created between the members quite often jump the
borders of the 3D CVE. They continue outside through a 2D platform, or even at real-
world. Connections are like a snowball effect. The individual network is made of, or
complemented by, friends’ networks. As Stephenson said “I store my knowledge in
my friends”[20]. In this digital age we have a network of connections that is made of
links and nodes with others. It is a “collective knowledge through collecting
people”[20]. Therefore “Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with
know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed)”[17]. The
Internet provides new ways of making those connections and provides an extra
dimension of collaborative sharing. Knowledge is “distributed, because it is spread
across more than one entity. A property of one entity must lead to or become a
property of another entity in order for them to be considered connected; the
knowledge that results from such connections is connective knowledge”[21].
In a CVE there are no physical barriers or borders. Information flows, people build
and share content, relationships are set up, the net of connections extends and
knowledge is built. This acquisition is made in a natural way, by participating in a
community, by sharing, interact and collaborate, discussing and launching ideas,
contents and information, therefore a “learning activity is (...) a conversation
undertaken between the learner and the other members of the community”[19]. It is a
natural process of interaction and reflection with the guidance and correction of
expertise or peers.
4 Preliminary Findings
The research hasn't been fully implemented yet. We are tracing the theoretical
framework, gathering the literature that will underpin the study and preparing the
materials to be used for data collecting. Consequently, we don't have data to analyse
nor discuss at this time. We have some expectations and a priori assumptions that
46
arose from the initial literature review and from a small pilot study that was
developed. We “have used the experience of a pilot to frame questions, collect
background information and adapt a research”[22]. The pilot study was a test to gain
experience of the use of CVEs in learning contexts. We seek to learn (i) how students
engage with web 2.0 tools and CVEs; (ii) whether the tools and the CVEs show
improvement in collaboration; (iii) how well the tools and CVEs promote knowledge
building.
In the context of the broader research goal, the pilot study was structured to
understand how effective a CVE is as a proxy for face-to-face interaction. Some
preliminary findings can be drawn. First we found that the initial set up cost of
starting SL (the CVE used at pilot) was high (in tutorial days). The students had no
prior experience of SL so the first tutorial became a focus for fixing ‘new user’ issues.
The SL environment has a steep learning curve: how to move, how to interact, how to
communicate, how to customize. Predominantly this was navigating the world and
helping with avatar appearance. However we felt that this was time well spent as
rapid integration into the world is an important prerequisite to collaboration. Two in-
world sessions were devoted to students’ acquisition of basic skills (+- 6 hours during
successive weekends). A number of students engaged in-world beyond teaching
hours. In future sessions it was easy to see those who had spent more time learning –
avatar appearance is one indicator. Another conclusion from the pilot is related with
knowledge building which seemed to be a function of maturity, level of independence
as learners and intrinsic motivation. The motivation aspect needs deeper evaluation
(where free will is involved). On our broader research question, we can also say that
the interpersonal relationship that was established between educator and students is an
influential factor on performance. In a mature group, the friendship relationships
established seemed to be deeper and stronger between educator and students.
Second Life, as a natural and informal immersive collaborative virtual
environment, can be used for the set of e-learning 2.0 contexts. Downes defines e-
learning 2.0 as being “an approach to learning that is based on conversation and
interaction, on sharing, creation and participation, on learning not as a separate
activity, but rather, as embedded in meaningful activities such as games or
workflows”[19]. In an immersive environment people can live the experience, live the
learning, and thereby may learn better. For us these are alternative methods of
presenting content, as an attempt to catch and maintain student’s attention and
motivation. In fact immersive environments could have a huge potential for education
because they can facilitate “collaborations, community and experiential learning”[23].
Our idea will allow educators to create a better learning environment by
understanding what makes learning the most successful in a CVE. It seems that
informal learning is the best approach as this is already practiced by our students. We
think that CVE might provide a better online ambiance for informal and natural
learning.
47
References
1. Bettencourt, T.: Teaching & Learning in SL: Figuring Out Some Variables (2009),
http://cleobekkers.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/teaching-learning-in-sl-figuring-out-some-
variables
2. Arsenault, N., Anderson, G.: Qualitative Research. Fundamental of Educational Research,
Falmer Press (1999)
3. Hayes, G.: Virtual Worlds, Web 3.0 and Portable Profiles (2006),
http://www.personalizemedia.com/virtual-worlds-web-30-and-portable-profiles
4. Johnson, N.: The Educational Potential of Second Life (2006),
http://digitalunion.osu.edu/showcase/virtualenvironments
5. Wagner, J.: The School of Second Life: Creating new avenues of pedagogy in a virtual world
(2007), http://www.edutopia.org/school-second-life
6 Taylor, S.: Sistine Chapel in Second Life (2007),
http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/showcase/sistine-chapel-in-second-life
7. http://secondlife.com/destination/roman-forum
8. http://lisbon-pre-1755-earthquake.org
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=592rXlgCnoQ
10. Boulos, M., Hetherington, L., Wheeler, S.: Second Life: an overview of the potential of 3-D
virtual worlds in medical and health education (2008),
http://www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/second-life-in-education-presentation
11. Hundsberger, S.: Foreign language learning in Second Life and the implications for
resource provision in academic libraries (2009),
http://arcadiaproject.lib.cam.ac.uk/docs/second_life.pdf
12. Richter, J., Inman, L., Frisbee, M.: Critical engagement of teachers in Second Life: progress
in the SaLamander Project. (2007), http://www.simteach.com/slccedu07proceedings.pdf
13. https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/educators
14. Freitas, S.: Learning in Immersive Worlds (2006),
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/gamingreport_v3.
pdf
15. Paul, C.: What we do, not just what we are. In: Journal of Virtual Worlds Research.
Retrieved March 20 (2009), http://jvwresearch.org/v1n3.html
16. Veen, W., & Vrakking, B.: Homo Zappiens – Growing up in a digital age. Network
Continuum Education, London (2006)
17. Siemens, G.: Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age (2004),
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
18. Cobb, J.: A Definition of Learning (2009),
http://www.missiontolearn.com/2009/05/definition-of-learning/
19. Downes, S.: Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge (2009),
http://www.downes.ca/post/36031
20. Stephenson, K.: What Knowledge tears apart, networks make whole. International
Communication Focus, 36 (1998), http://www.netform.com/html/icf.pdf
21. Downes, S.: An Introduction to Connective Knowledge (2007),
http://www.downes.ca/files/connective_knowledge.doc
22. Sampson, H.: Navigating the waves: the usefulness of a pilot in qualitative research (2004),
http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/4/3/383
23. Kemp, J., Livingstone, D.: Putting a Second Life® “Metaverse” Skin on Learning
Management Systems (2007), http://www.sloodle.org/whitepaper.pdf
48