CONTACT TEACHING VERSUS 3D COLLABORATIVE ONLINE VIRTUAL LEARNING: AN ENGINEERING STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

CONTACT TEACHING VERSUS 3D COLLABORATIVE ONLINE VIRTUAL LEARNING: AN ENGINEERING STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

W. Ravyse, S. Laato, M. Luimula (2024).  CONTACT TEACHING VERSUS 3D COLLABORATIVE ONLINE VIRTUAL LEARNING: AN ENGINEERING STUDENT PERSPECTIVE.

A collaborative virtual learning environment (CVLE) is generally understood as a digital shared multiuser world where students can join and move freely. Such a system provides an ideal setting for peer-assisted learning, since it mimics key affordances found in a regular classroom setting whilst lacking many of the constraints. While many studies explore the feasibility, non-functional attributes and learning impact of CVLEs, there is little empirical work dedicated to 3D collaborative learning environments. Given the current metaverse hype, tools and online services for CVLE implementation are bound to become more commonplace. Thereby, prompting educators to leverage the advantages of such teaching interfaces. This paper intends to set the tone for CVLE best practices and learning expectations by striking a direct comparison, both quantitatively and qualitatively, between face-to-face lecturing and a 3D CVLE. A group of 52 students attended four Games and Interactive Technologies Engineering lectures on gamification and serious games before spending three weeks with a 3D CVLE that comprises the same learning material. We quantitatively compared the two teaching modalities on: (a) effectiveness by means the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (CAP) perceived learning questionnaire; and (b) student preference through a comparative Likert scale course satisfaction survey. Our quantitative results showed no significant difference in perceived learning between the two modalities and an overall lower satisfaction for the 3D CVLE mode. During the qualitative feedback sessions, we collected the reasons for the lower satisfaction scores and were able to conclude that educators who wish to pursue 3D CVLEs should ensure that: (a) their environment has a high usability rating, with minimal bugs; (b) any tasks they wish to incorporate for learning are interactive and contextual to the learning material; (c) customizable features, especially avatars, are present; and (d) the reward mechanic is not a mere accrual of engagement evidence, but impacts gameplay directly.

Authors (New): 
Werner Ravyse
Samuli Laato
Mika Luimula
Affiliations: 
Futuristic Interactive Technologies, Turku University of Applied Sciences
Gamification Group, Tampere University
Keywords: 
Collaborative virtual learning
3D
Metaverse
Engineering education
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 8
Year: 
2024
Reference: 
Anderson, J., & Barnett, M. (2011). Using video games to support pre-service elementary teachers learning of basic physics principles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 347-362.: 
Aziz, E. S., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2009). Review of the state of the art in virtual learning environments based on multiplayer computer games. In 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 14-1032).: 
Boulton, C. A., Kent, C., & Williams, H. T. (2018). Virtual learning environment engagement and learning outcomes at a ‘bricks-and-mortar’university. Computers & Education, 126, 129-142.: 
Bouras, C., & Tsiatsos, T. (2006). Educational virtual environments: design rationale and architecture. Multimedia tools and applications, 29, 153-173.: 
Chatterjee, R., & Correia, A. P. (2020). Online students’ attitudes toward collaborative learning and sense of community. American Journal of Distance Education, 34(1), 53-68.: 
Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues for e‐learning. Journal of computer assisted learning, 29(1), 85-105.: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. . (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach: Springer Cham.: 
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3‐D virtual environments?. British journal of educational technology, 41(1), 10-32.: 
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. science, 323(5910), 66-69.: 
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration (pp. 3-19). Springer Netherlands.: 
Heaton‐Shrestha, C., May, S., & Burke, L. (2009). Student retention in higher education: what role for virtual learning environments?. Journal of Further and Higher education, 33(1), 83-92.: 
Jauhiainen, J. S. (2021). Entrepreneurship and innovation events during the COVID-19 pandemic: The user preferences of VirBELA virtual 3D platform at the SHIFT event organized in Finland. Sustainability, 13(7), 3802.: 
Jo, H., Song, C., & Miyazaki, Y. (2019). Physiological benefits of viewing nature: A systematic review of indoor experiments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4739.: 
Johnson‐Glenberg, M. C., Bartolomea, H., & Kalina, E. (2021). Platform is not destiny: Embodied learning effects comparing 2D desktop to 3D virtual reality STEM experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1263-1284.: 
Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., & Malmberg, J. (2020). Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 70, 101090.: 
Laato, S., Murtojärvi, M., Airola, A., & Björne, J. (2022). Striving for platform independence in the e-learning landscape: a study on a flexible exercise creation system. In 2022 International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (pp. 46-48). IEEE.: 
Leese, M. (2009). Out of class—out of mind? The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 70-77.: 
Konstantinidis, A., Tsiatsos, T., & Pomportsis, A. (2009). Collaborative virtual learning environments: design and evaluation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 44, 279-304.: 
King, E. M. (2015). Designing after-school learning using the massively multiplayer online role-playing game. Theory Into Practice, 54(2), 128-135.: 
Kontio, E., Ravyse, W., Saarenpää, T., Haavisto, T., Luimula, M., Pizarro-Lucas, E., Dorado-Diaz, I. P., & Sanchez, P. L. (2023). Experiences on the creation of a multi-disciplinarycourse in a metaverse environment. Proceedings of the 19th International CDIO Conference (pp. 239-250). Trondheim, Norway: NTNU.: 
Maloney, D., Freeman, G., & Wohn, D. Y. (2020). " Talking without a Voice" Understanding Non-verbal Communication in Social Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1-25.: 
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & education, 70, 29-40.: 
Murtonen, M., Laato, S., Lipponen, E., Salmento, H., Vilppu, H., Maikkola, M., ... & Skaniakos, T. (2019). Creating a national digital learning environment for enhancing university teachers’ pedagogical expertise: the Case UNIPS. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(13).: 
Politopoulos, A., Mol, A. A., Boom, K. H., & Ariese, C. E. (2019). “History is our playground”: action and authenticity in assassin's creed: Odyssey. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7(3), 317-323.: 
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and higher education, 12(1), 7-13.: 
Ryan, E., & Poole, C. (2019). Impact of virtual learning environment on students’ satisfaction, engagement, recall, and retention. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 50(3), 408-415.: 
Siang Ang, C., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Social learning in MMOG: an activity theoretical perspective. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(2), 84-102.: 
Stöhr, C., Demazière, C., & Adawi, T. (2016). Comparing student activity and performance in the classroom and a virtual learning environment. In European Conference on e-Learning (p. 664). Academic Conferences International Limited.: 
Tenório, M. M., Reinaldo, F. A. F., Góis, L. A., Lopes, R. P., & dos Santos Junior, G. (2018). Elements of gamification in virtual learning environments: A systematic review. In Teaching and Learning in a Digital World: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning–Volume 2 (pp. 86-96). Springer International Publishing.: 
Wang, C., Fang, T., & Gu, Y. (2020). Learning performance and behavioral patterns of online collaborative learning: Impact of cognitive load and affordances of different multimedia. Computers & Education, 143, 103683. : 
Wu, C. H., Huang, Y. M., & Hwang, J. P. (2016). Review of affective computing in education/learning: Trends and challenges. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1304-1323.: 
Xu, W., Zhang, N., & Wang, M. (2023). The impact of interaction on continuous use in online learning platforms: A metaverse perspective. Internet Research.: 
Go to top