Virtual Worlds

Fifteen-year-old Rashida walks into the living room in her house. She sits down at her computer, and logs onto Teen Second Life. Her avatar, a strong-looking panther, navigates to SchomePark, where the philosophy group she belongs to is congregating under the Tree of Knowledge. The Tree is run by the Open University’s library, and is a gateway to all sorts of material. Under the Tree, the group meets with an Aristotle avatar, who in the physical world is a Professor of Philosophy at Warwick University. They have an active discussion about the way in which they should handle a misdemeanor by another SchomePark member. After the discussion, Rashida logs out of Teen Second Life, and logs into Second Life. She knows she is really too young to be in SL, but there is a public lecture being given on NASA island by the head of the Mars programme that she really wants to attend. Rashida knows she might encounter uncomfortable or inappropriate sexual material in SL, but feels that because the computer is in the living room, and her parents are there, she is safe.

This vignette is based on a real conversation I had with a young woman participating in the schome-NAGTY Teen Second Life project. In many ways, it sounds idyllic. However, a number of issues arose that provide a starting point for discussion and thinking about virtual worlds.

A brief word about how we could define virtual worlds. They are sometimes described as ‘immersive worlds’, ‘metaverses’ or ‘3D online environments’, although as with all semantics, it could be argued there are subtle differences between them. Virtual worlds arose out of the multi-user dungeons (MUDs) of the 1980s, which were text-based. de Freitas defines a virtual worlds as ‘an environment where players and users can explore a 2D or 3D world, freely taking on the identity of an avator, play games and participate with online communities.’ Most virtual worlds for adults and children (such as Habbo Hotel) involve building things. This seems as good a definition as any. Higher Education has begun to adopt virtual worlds in pockets of practice, for example Edinburgh University’s SL Island, Ohio State University’s Outreach, University and STEAM presences. Similarly, vocational, medical and military training have all invested in virtual worlds for delivering immersive training around the world. There are some examples of schools using virtual worlds for future-gazing with young people, and with skills development.

But what are some of the issues researchers may want to better understand?

1. Hype vs reality?

There is a great deal of hype surrounding virtual worlds for learning in schools, and their potential advantages and disadvantages for education. Levels of engagement in ‘top down’ virtual world projects tend to be comparable with other electronic media, such as online forums, and it is not yet clear whether virtual worlds are likely to remain important in the 5-10 year socio-technical horizon. There are many barriers to realising the benefits of virtual worlds in schools and other settings, from technological barriers (e.g. some Local Authorities not allowing virtual worlds through their firewalls), to cost barriers (e.g. the cost of moderation) and socio-cultural barriers (e.g. justifiable concern about e-safety). While there are ways to overcome these challenges within the contexts of formal education, we need to bring critical approaches to bear on these tools, in the same way as we would in the physical world.

2. Knowledge age skills?
While it appears that many of the skills needed to engage with virtual worlds may have a bearing on more traditional forms of learning (e.g. 3D coordinates and complex 3D shapes), it is not clear what the impact of virtual worlds may be on what might be called ‘knowledge age skills’. Do we understand the ways in which collaborative learning really worlds in these environments, particularly for children and young people? Are they more communicative, more creative, and do they operate better in team contexts? While these applications might offer obvious imaginative opportunities for role play (e.g. Neverwinter Nights, Revolution) or meet long-dead key figures in history, will the learning be meaningful beyond the initial excitement, or encourage deeper reflection?

3. Developing identity?
At the start of the NAGTY-schome pilot, I ran a focus group with a group of highly able Bangladeshi young women (age 14-17) from socio-economically challenging backgrounds. Their primary concern at that stage was whether their avatars would wear a hijab (headscarf) in schomePark, and what their parents would think if they did not. They were reflecting on their developing identities online and offline, and in the end decided to create animalistic avatars, thereby circumventing the problem. I think this issue of developing multiple identities, and the ways in which these are communicated to others, is a key one for practitioners and for the research community.

4. Another instance of a disparity between formal educational and informal use of technology, and is this a problem?
This is a well-rehearsed theme of technology for learning research, and continues to stimulate debate regarding young people’s rights to have private spaces to operate within, whilst maximising the potential for enhancing learning with technology.

You might want to watch Philip Rosedale, founder of Second Life has a TED talk [the full address is http://www.ted.com/talks/the_inspiration_of_second_life.html] Do you think his vision is realistic?

You might want to read:

Sara de Freitas’ 2008 commentary on Emerging Trends in Serious Games and Virtual Worlds.

The schome-NAGTY Teen Second Life Final Report, led by Peter Twining at the Open University.