A Virtual World for Collaboration: The AETZone

Participation in learning communities, and the construction of knowledge in communities of practice, are important considerations in the use of 3D immersive worlds. This article describes the creation of this type of learning environment in AETZone, an immersive virtual environment in use within graduate programs at Appalachian State University since 2000. Both student and faculty perceptions of elements such as presence, co-presence, and the forging of active community are presented, along with examples of formal and informal activities which serve as the base for teaching and learning in the Zone. Why a virtual world for collaboration? Collaborative learning involves three key elements: learner sharing, learner interdependence, and active involvement of learners in activities (Yang, Wang, Shen, & Hang, 2007). This type of collaboration, in which learners not only work closely with instructors or experts but also with each other, is at the heart of social constructivist philosophy. A primary tenet of the theory of social constructivism is that learning is a social activity and that knowledge is constructed in communities of practice (Vygotsky, 1978). Participating in this level of sharing, interdependence and involvement can be a challenge for students who are separated by distance. Web pages, chat and other tools can help, but a virtual world affords students and faculty the opportunity to see each other (as avatars), participate in serendipitous interactions, observe or infer activity, and to share in a sense of presence that goes well beyond a simple name on a screen. In other words, they can participate more completely in a community. Studies abound that suggest the importance of student involvement, learning through participation and engagement in the learning process. Astin’s (1985) theory of student involvement is based on the foundation of actively involving students in their A. W. Cheney, R. L. Sanders, N. J. Matzen, S. C. Bronack, R. E. Riedl, J. H. Tashner 92 own learning process. Such involvement leads to such outcomes as persistence, satisfaction, and academic achievement (Astin, 1985, 1993; Goodsell, Maher & Tinto, 1992; Kuh & Vesper, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Participation in learning communities is positively correlated to student engagement, outcomes and overall satisfaction (Zhao & Kuh, 2004). As we move into online environments for teaching and learning, new computer technologies provide significant challenges as we consider new options for fostering student engagement and the creation of learning communities. What tools and pedagogies are needed to develop and to provide for the kinds of student engagements that we see in the literature? Clearly, the traditional classroom model of teaching and learning cannot be moved directly to online instruction. Flat web pages can provide information to the reader; email can move research papers back and forth between student and instructor. However, the rich engagement of small peer group research, discussions and communication the very essence of that described above as requisite is not possible. Three dimensional (3D) immersive virtual worlds provide possibilities to enhance online student engagement in new and profound ways. Importance of building community The characteristics of learning communities are defined in varying ways in the literature. Wilson and Ryder (1996) state: “... one of the lessons of postmodernism and situated cognition is that learning cannot be separated from action. We are learning every day, in everything we do. We add the qualifying term to our definition to suggest a community sharing a consensual goal to support each other in learning.” Jonassen (1997) cites the following necessary components for a learning community: active, constructive, collaborative, intentional, complex, contextual, conversational and reflective. Wilson and Ryder (1996) added the term dynamic to the notion of learning community. They define a Dynamic Learning Community as one characterized by distribution of control, commitment to generation and sharing of new knowledge, flexible and negotiated learning activities, autonomous community members, high levels of interaction, and shared goals and projects. Wilson (2001) provides a list of supports which can foster a sense of community in online environments. These include: • Meaningful and authentic exercises and requirements • Extended opportunities for collaboration • User-friendly communication tools which move beyond alphanumeric exchange such as email and threaded discussion A Virtual World for Collaboration 93 • Tools for organizing, evaluating and publishing knowledge which are available to all group members • Effective means for making group decisions • Respect for individual members, including flexible accommodation of multiple goals, foci, and learning needs, and room for private exchanges. How then can these characteristics be an inherent part of an online experience? The importance of promoting sense of community and learner engagement in online learning environments is a growing topic of discussion. Shea, Li, Swan, and Pickett (2002) cite agreement with a growing body of researchers that a sense of shared purpose, trust, support, and collaboration –that is, a sense of community is an essential element in the development of quality online learning environments, and that online learning community may be established through effective instructional design and organization, the facilitation of productive discourse, and helpful direct instruction, all components of teaching presence. A study by Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, and Lee (2007) suggests significant relationships between sense of community and perceived learning engagement, perceived learning, and student satisfaction with online learning experiences. Positive relationships were also noted between feeling of belonging to the community and social presence in the online courses. Sense of belonging to a social community was also positively linked to instructor presence and facilitation. Another study of online course work by Lee, Carter-Wells, Glaesser, Ivers, and Street (2006) suggests that students cite community-centered approaches to learning and establishment of a constructivist learning environment as essential for building community during the course experience. Lee also cites interaction among all members of the community as an important factor. Goodfellow (2005) notes that membership of an online community is not just a matter of belonging to an organization, having a title or having personal relationships with some people, but also involves patterns of participation and non-participation in practice. Virtual community therefore resides in both the subjective experience and in observable patterns of practice in online interaction. Wilson and Ryder characterize dynamic learning communities as “...groups of people who form a learning community with the following attributes: distributed control; commitment to the generation and sharing of new knowledge; flexible and negotiated learning activities; autonomous community members; high levels of dialogue, interaction, and collaboration; and a shared goal, problem, or project that brings a common focus and incentive to work together” (Wilson & Ryder, 1996). A. W. Cheney, R. L. Sanders, N. J. Matzen, S. C. Bronack, R. E. Riedl, J. H. Tashner 94 Inadequacies of webpage-based tools As we explored distance-based alternatives for the Instructional Technology program at Appalachian State University, many types of resources were considered. A variety of widely accepted web-based tools and course management systems for higher education were available at the time, including WebCT. It became evident that tools such as these lacked the capabilities and structure to provide for the types of meaningful interactions we hoped to provide our students – the ability to provide an environment conducive to the building of community. Wilson and Ryder (1996) support this conclusion, noting that while both instructional design and dynamic learning communities can lead to learning, open systems are preferred because they address more fundamental learning outcomes, for example, self-directed inquiry, learning how to learn, and metacognition, and are more closely situated within natural performance environments. See a comparison between attributes of webpage-based tools and 3D learning environments in Figure 1. Figure 1. Comparison of Webpage-Based Tools to 3D Immersive Learning Environments.