The purpose of this study was to identify constructivist concepts that are important to student-perceived learning outcomes in college courses that use a virtual world, such as Second Life, as an educational tool. Identification of these concepts will help instructors to make the best use of their course design efforts in mediated environments. Subsequently, this will benefit students by matching the learning environment to students' learning needs and potential preferences. This study used a web-based survey that asked respondents about their perceptions of how their experience in a class using a virtual world as an instructional tool represented several constructivist learning concepts. Their responses were compared to how they felt about different learning outcomes. The results indicate that authentic learning context is a major factor in all of the student-perceived learning outcomes measured in this study, while student responsibility and initiative is important to academic learning time and learning progress.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramiP. (2001). Improving judgments about teaching effectiveness using teacher rating forms. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 59–87. doi: 10.1002/ir.4
2.
ArthurJ.TubréT.PaulD.EdensP. (2003). Teaching effectiveness: The relationship between reaction and learning evaluation criteria. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 275–285. doi: 10.1080/0144341032000060110
3.
BerlinerD. (1991). What's all the fuss about instructional time? In Ben-PeretzM.BrommeR. (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
4.
BowersK. W. (2010). Constructing the new classroom: College student perceptions of classes using Second Life (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (881786145).
5.
BrownJ. S.AdlerR. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–32.
6.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi: 10.2307/1176008
7.
ClaysonD.FrostT.SheffetM. (2006). Grades and the student evaluation of instruction: A test of the reciprocity effect. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(1), 52–65. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2006.20388384
8.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
9.
CohenP. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement. A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51(3), 281–309. doi: 10.2307/1170209
10.
CrossK. P. (1998, March). What do we know about students' learning and how do we know it? Paper presented at the AAHE National Conference on Higher Education, Atlanta, GA.
11.
DalgarnoB.LeeM. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments?British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
12.
DittmerJ. (2010). Immersive virtual worlds in university-level human geography courses. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19(2), 139–154. doi: 10.1080/10382046.2010.482222
13.
EmeryC.KramerT.TianR. (2003). Return to academic standards: A critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 37–46. doi: 10.1108/09684880310462074
14.
FrickT.ChadhaR.WatsonC.WangY.GreenP. (2009). College student perceptions of teaching and learning quality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 705–720. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9079-9
15.
GirvanC.SavageT. (2010). Identifying an appropriate pedagogy for virtual worlds: A Communal Constructivism case study. Computers & Education, 55(1), 342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.compendu.2010.01.020
16.
GrabingerR. S.DunlapJ. C. (2000). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. In SquiresD.ConoleG.JacobsG. (Eds.), The changing face of learning technology (pp. 8–38). Cardiff, UK: University of Wales Press.
17.
HirumiA. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(4), 497–537.
18.
IbáñezM. B.GarcíaJ. J.GalánS.MarotoD.MorilloD.KloosC. D. (2011). Design and implementation of a 3D multi-user virtual world for language learning. Educational Technology and Society, 14(4), 2–10.
19.
JenningsN.CollinsC. (2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180–186.
20.
JonassenD. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(3), 34–37.
21.
JuniuS. (2006). Use of technology for constructivist learning in a performance assessment class. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(1), 67–79. doi: 10.1207/s15327841mpee1001_5
22.
KaragiorgiY.SymeouL. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.
23.
KirkpatrickD. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
24.
KulikJ. (2001). Student ratings: Validity, utility and controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109, 9–25. doi: 10.1002/ir.1
25.
MerrillM. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59. doi: 10.1007/BF02505024
RenaudR.MurrayH. (2004). Factorial validity of student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 46(8), 929–953. doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-6934-6
28.
ResnickL. B. (1987). The 1987 presidential address. Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13–20. doi: 10.2307/1175725
SherwoodR.KinzerC.HasselbringT.BransfordJ. D. (1987). Macro-contexts for learning: Initial findings and issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 93–108. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350010203
31.
SquiresD.HuittW.SegarsJ. (1983). Effective schools and classrooms: A research-based perspective. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32.
SuK. D. (2007). An integrated science course designed with information communication technologies to enhance university students' learning performance. Computers & Education, 51, 1365–1374. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.12.002
33.
TamM. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50–60.
34.
WalkerS. L.FraserB. J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8, 289–308. doi: 10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3
