Post on 27-Apr-2015
description
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 1
Running head: AN EXAMINATION OF ONLINE LEARNING IN MUVES
Literature Review:
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE)
Dallas McPheeters
NAU Graduate School of Education
2009
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 2
Abstract
This paper reviews 21st century research literature about the use of three dimensional (3D)
multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) technology to engage young minds to learn. The many
benefits of MUVE technologies are reviewed herein as supported by an emerging body of re-
search. However, the literature exposes three major challenges concerning the increased use of
new technologies in education: access to updated hardware, equal student access outside the
classroom, and teacher proficiency. The most popular MUVE – Second Life – is rich with pro-
fessional development opportunities, demonstrating how 3D platforms eliminate the challenges
noted above, by providing an immersive environment where teachers learn technology integra-
tion strategies hands-on with peers. This paper outlines reasons schools should integrate MUVE
technologies in their curriculum.
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 3
Literature Review:
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVE)
The use of technology in education is not a new subject as indicated by the myriads of
studies conducted during the past 40 years. However, research relevant to the use of 3D virtual
technology in education is a new subject. This paper reviews recent literature about the use of 3D
virtual technology to engage young minds to learn. The literature was chosen from varying
sources in order to present a panorama of where the research has brought us. Since virtual tech-
nology is quite new, this review of the literature will demonstrate what is lacking in the research
and where future research should therefore be aimed. The literature review will cover three ma-
jor arenas of contention: access to updated hardware, equal student access outside the learning
environment (especially among under-served populations), and teacher skill and proficiency
(professional development).
Updated Hardware
The first major area of contention found in the technology-in-education debate concerns
limited access to updated hardware which a majority of public schools face today. New ideas
about the use of technology to educate are constantly bombarding educators because shifts in
learning styles prompt shifts in knowledge construction (Dede, 2005). According to Dede’s Edu-
cause Quarterly submission about how to plan for neomillennial learning styles, technology has
advanced and this advance changes learning styles. MUVEs (multi user virtual environments)
and ARs (augmented realities) are offering completely new settings in which to conduct class-
room lectures. “This induces learning based on seeking, sieving and synthesizing rather than on
assimilating a single validated source of knowledge as from books, TV, or a professor’s lectures”
(Dede, 2005, p. 7). The virtual classroom goes a step further than Web 2.0 technology by allow-
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 4
ing a greater degree of interaction. “[The] world-to-the-desktop interface is not psychologically
immersive, while virtual environments and augmented realities induce a strong sense of virtual
presence” (Dede, 2005, p. 8). Dede’s claim counters the commonly heard argument that online
courses don’t offer the face-to-face interaction that learners need and want.
Dede’s claims are further supported by research concerning computer simulations and
their appeal to students’ love of video games, demonstrating that compelling educational benefits
are available (Blaisdell, 2006). Video games, though often viewed by parents as the enemy, are
valued by young people and fully engage the young mind. In classroom experiments, integrating
such technologies has proven to reduce absenteeism, increase concentration, enhance learning,
and develop skills faster. “Players have only one goal: learning” (Blaisdell, 2006, ¶ 5). The dis-
covery of this one goal of learning is based on Blaisdell’s testing within a virtual environment
named River City. “After using river city for 20 class periods, students showed a 32-35 percent
improvement in their knowledge of biology” (¶ 11). The research noted a 35% decrease in absen-
teeism as another benefit of MUVEs in the classroom.
Many more benefits of using MUVE technologies were noted in Blaisdell’s research.
Virtual environments decentralize the role of teacher by recreating the teacher as a guide who
helps students navigate the new, virtual world. Virtual environments allow students to do as
much as they like on their own timeline, making time a variable rather than a fixed constant as
has been historically the case. However such environments are complex and require sophisti-
cated hardware in order to render the intense graphics inherent in virtual worlds. The challenge,
therefore, becomes two-fold: gaining access to technology at home is the first challenge. Faculty
development at school is the second challenge. Both challenges center on gaining access to up-
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 5
dated hardware in order to take advantage of MUVE technology with its inherent demands for
fast processor speed, ample bandwidth requirements, and graphics rendering capabilities.
However, just because technology such as video games has been shown to engage student
minds more readily, does it actually help learning? Matt Villano’s (2008) study published in
T.H.E. Journal discovered that kids are more comfortable working together within a gaming en-
vironment than outside of it, and that interactive gaming environments impact motivation leading
to increased participation. “Technology is a boundless world of surprise and adventure about cre-
ativity” (Villano, 2008). Getting students out of the classroom and into environments of team-
work and interdependence induce learning that is otherwise missed in traditional settings. Ac-
cording to Villano, augmented realities proved a “ubiquity and mystery” (¶ 18) that “heighten
engagements, encourage collaboration, and facilitate learning” (¶ 27). Therefore, the big chal-
lenge that remains is getting devices into the hands of students.
Doug Johnson’s (2007) study, “Get a MUVE On,” further develops this trend by claim-
ing that 3D worlds may be the next incarnation of our interface with information and others on-
line. Virtual world classrooms are the “ultimate tinker toy set” (¶ 11). These environments are re-
sulting in elaborate examples of collaborative and constructivist learning such as that demon-
strated by a student history project which created a virtual Holocaust museum. Art classes are
creating virtual galleries where students may display their creations. Drafting classes can build
both real and imagined projects to scale ranging from a simple cabin in the woods to a grand
city-scape.
The question that remains to be answered is whether increased interest and engagement
genuinely increases learning or simply maintains heightened interest. Specific studies partly un-
cover the answer to this question. One recent study focused on whether or not MUVEs can im-
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 6
prove student writing (Warren, Dondlinger, & Barab, 2008). The Warren, et. al. study sets out to
determine if learning takes place by studying a group of 4th graders. The 4th graders participated
in a 3D MUVE called Quest Atlantis. Researchers wanted to determine if the use of Quest At-
lantis could improve the students’ writing, to meet educational standards. The authors conclude
in the affirmative and confirm the findings of their research predecessors, that virtual technolo-
gies are indeed more engaging. They further acknowledge the need for additional research to
strengthen their findings prior to any generalizable claims being made since their study was lim-
ited to a particularly narrow scope of participants.
One final hurdle to be overcome by MUVEs concerns issues of accessibility to the physi-
cally challenged. “What sorts of accessibility challenges and opportunities does this new technol-
ogy pose?” (Bell & Peters, 2007, p. 34). Impairments come generally in one or more of three cat-
egories; visual, hearing, and/or physical. MUVEs offer in-line, synchronous chat for the hearing
impaired. And avatars can walk and even fly which is why MUVEs are perceived among the mo-
bility impaired as an opportunity rather than a challenge. Therefore the greatest challenge will be
for the visually impaired, and technology has yet to answer this need. However, Bell & Peters
(2007) acknowledge that societal pressures ensure the answers are forthcoming.
Aside from this need for adaptation of technology hardware to meet the needs of those
with physical impairments, is the clear transformative effect of MUVEs on traditional education
as seen in their pivotal ability to switch the roles that time and achievement have long played.
Traditional education with its varied achievement levels, establishes a fixed timeframe of around
180 days per school year (Blaisdell, 2006). Therefore, time is the constant and achievement is the
variable. But as Laura Fording (2004) notes in her Newsweek article about changing educational
styles in the 21st century, MUVEs have the transformative effect of switching these roles. Time
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 7
becomes the variable. This helps explain the increasing popularity of distance education pro-
grams in our time-pressed culture. Coinciding with this switching of roles, achievement becomes
the constant. Certificates and degrees are received once requirements are met, regardless of the
time it takes to complete them. Fording foresees virtual classrooms as a glimpse into the future
of education-at-large, with the added value of one-on-one interaction and personalized instruc-
tion. Fording concludes that the same technological advances that paved the way for MUVEs are
“fundamentally re-engineering education through virtual learning” (Fording, 2004, ¶ 34). But
how?
Fording’s research focused on determining whether distance interaction improved com-
munication between participants or weakened it. Using an experimental group and a control
group, she discovered that global access and interaction increased student/teacher email interac-
tions by an average of 15 per day. Student-Teacher interaction occurred three times more often
than in settings where participants sat in traditional, face-to-face classrooms. The instructors in
the experimental group confirmed their surprise that the increased interaction was positive for
learning and more-so than in the traditional setting. “We can use technology to transform educa-
tion rather than just automating the old ways of learning” (Fording, 2004, ¶ 36). The role of edu-
cation is changing and not just with regard to the mechanics of implementation. Needless to say,
the spreading of this transformative influence is limited by the challenge of access to technology.
This issue of uneven access is a recurrent theme found in the literature and will be examined
next.
Under-served Populations
We now turn to the second of the three major areas of contention; unequal access to tech-
nology among the under-served populations (Blaisdell, 2006; Lim, Norris, & Hedberg, 2006;
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 8
Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007; Villano, 2008). Technological advances represent innovations that typ-
ically cost more money when first introduced. As public acceptance of the new technologies
grows, prices come down. In other words, mass production rises to meet wide-scale acceptance.
For this reason, the poorer inhabitants of any population may not be able to participate in cutting-
edge inventions until the new inventions become more widely distributed and thereby more af-
fordable.
Education’s role is to prepare the next generation to take the lead by teaching them the
concepts and skills required by society for its perpetuation. However, unlike the business com-
munity, education neither infuses nor generates direct capital into the economy. Rather, educa-
tion is a public expense budgeted for the public good. The product produced by schools is a gen-
eration of knowledgeable and skilled workers who can contribute to society by replacing the
worn [retired] parts and innovate for the future needs of society. Businesses can easily justify the
increased expense of upgrading computer hardware simply by promising increased profitability.
But education’s role in society is long-term and less easily quantified. This monetarily centered
discrepancy between the business and education sectors of society is evident when businesses
customarily upgrade their computer hardware every two or three years while schools make do
with outdated equipment, unable to take advantage of the newest operating systems, software,
and web-based innovations. To make matters worse, poorer school districts fall even further be-
hind, being last to receive community support in the form of resources allocated for needed hard-
ware upgrades (Villano, 2008). The result is that poorer populations remain under-served.
Skewed as well is the technology upgrade supply chain that favors higher education over
elementary, middle, and high schools. The youngest among a population are understandably the
most native to technological innovation yet enjoy the least access to it. The higher the grade
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 9
level, the better the technology tools provided. This reversal of priorities creates severe conse-
quences as society gradually dumbs down its young population while allowing the burgeoning
aged population to access and participate during their shorter remaining life-span. Real-world in-
quiry should be offered first to those with the least experience which comprise the elementary
age students. The big challenge before educators is getting devices into the hands of students
(Fording, 2004; Villano, 2008).
Further developing this matter of unequal access, Nelson and Ketelhut (2007) conducted
a study to ask whether MUVE based curricula supports real-world inquiry. If their study could
determine that MUVEs support real-world inquiry, then lack of access to hardware and band-
width required by MUVE technologies would be significantly detrimental to the health of the
whole society. Their study also examined whether virtual environments were compelling for
both sexes and whether increased engagement necessarily equated to increased learning. Again,
if the results prove there is a difference between gender engagement and learning, the matter of
unequal access would need to be addressed since cultural expectations of one sex over the other
may be skewed. Some countries like Malaysia have been successful in developing their female
population to become the top computer scientists while others like the United States have shown
a significant decline in interest among female students (Barrett, 2008). Such inequities must be
address if society is to remain healthy, viable and competitive. Equal access across age and gen-
der is summarily required.
Additionally, Nelson and Ketelhut (2007) queried whether or not the informal settings of
MUVEs did not, in fact, produce informal participation on the part of students. Their research
uncovered that “Girls prefer games that closely simulate real life and ... allow for role play,”
whereas “low performing students and non-asian minorities have little access to scientific in-
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 10
quiry” (Nelson & Ketelhut, 2007, p. 279). There are many under-served demographic groups. As
an example, the largest proportion of non-asian minorities in the U.S. has recently become the
Hispanic, which on a per capita basis, is noticeably deficient in the use of the newest computer
hardware as well as access to the high-speed internet needed for participation in MUVE tech-
nologies. How can any low performance among Hispanics be corrected without accommodating
this lack of access to technology?
Nelson and Ketelhut’s (2007) study acknowledges their research was limited by several
factors. The most disturbing factor of limitation they reported was the reality that K-12 schools
often lack the equipment and resources to offer virtual experiences. Census information (Belsie,
2001), shows the most common jobs among immigrant populations to be in the service and con-
struction sectors at nearly double the rate of non-immigrants. If children of immigrants are not
given access to updated equipment, how can they be expected to improve their quality of life?
Nelson and Ketelhut conclude with an urgent call for further research of under-served popula-
tions to determine how best to eliminate the unequal access and thereby propel them onto the
global playing field.
Professional Development
In spite of these two commonly found setbacks regarding upgraded hardware and unequal
access noted in the literature thus far reviewed, an interesting phenomenon has emerged sur-
rounding the use of MUVEs for professional development, the third major area of contention.
Professional development continues to be a weak link in the education and technology equation
which makes the increased use of MUVEs for professional development even more significant
(Blaisdell, 2006; Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, & Rasmussen, 1998; Lim, Norris, & Hedberg,
2006). John Waters (2009) reported in T.H.E. Journal, his research of the MUVE, Second Life
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 11
(SL). Second Life was developed in 2004 by Linden Labs in San Francisco as a 3D, virtual real-
ity environment where participants are unrestricted when it comes to content creation. The entire
grid is the product of its residents. Today, SL boasts millions of users, millions of dollars trans-
acted daily in world, (terminology used by residents of SL) and over 100 regions dedicated to ed-
ucation. Inside SL, users navigate with Avatars (customizable graphical representations of per-
sons) and can encounter hundreds of resident-created replicas of historical and educational
venues including the Alamo, the Sistine Chapel, and the Holocaust museum. Such replicas were
developed as educational tools, however, the biggest use of SL for education has been by teach-
ers for their own enrichment. Prior to SL, the internet was already loaded with websites designed
by and for teachers in order to network and collaborate for ideas, lesson plans, activities, and
more. However, SL offers a surprisingly unprecedented magnitude of educational offerings
within a fully interactive and voice synchronous environment, making it the “strongest and most
compelling network” of online educators, according to Waters (2009, ¶ 22). Everyday, teachers
gather at various in-world locations to try-out new lesson plans aimed at improving student per-
formance through collaborative learning. SL offers real-time interaction which simulates the
classroom’s face-to-face experience, yet with the added draw of participants being able to build,
create, fly and alter one’s appearance and thus identity. All of these benefits add up to increased
student interest and engagement, according to current research findings (Warren, Doddlinger, &
Barab, 2008).
Professional development in the use of cutting-edge technologies represented by MUVEs
such as SL, is necessary for several reasons. First, MUVEs have been typically associated with
gaming and not educational environments. And to parents, games are the enemy that distract
from learning rather than teach (Blaisdell, 2006). Children value the engaging interaction offered
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 12
by MUVEs but for schools and parents to buy-in (Lim, Norris, & Hedberg, 2006), professional
development within the virtual environment needs to be further developed (Waters, 2009). Sec-
ondly, professional development is needed because MUVEs require some practice in order to
manipulate and maneuver within the virtual environment (Blaisdell, 2006). Becoming comfort-
able within a virtual environment requires time and practice to learn how to move, create, build,
and navigate within a space populated by others. Finally, MUVEs will provide the platform for
the classroom of the future (Johnson, 2007) and are thereby transforming the education process
and experience (Fording, 2004) from mere task orientation to providing an out-of-the-classroom
experience (Villano, 2008) similar to field trips. Teachers must become skilled at working within
this new environment in order to lead the next generation. But where teachers lead, will students
follow?
The current economic crisis makes virtual learning environments even more attractive to
budget-conscious administrators because teachers can attend workshops remotely from home
rather than having to travel great distances that require time and money already in short supply.
Waters noticed that in SL, “educators exhibit a fundamental predisposition to collaborate” (¶ 9),
and today’s constructivist learning-led curriculum demands collaboration. MUVEs such as SL
provide the ideal platform because, as Waters discovered, “accidental interactions” (¶ 28) can oc-
cur in virtual worlds. Accidental interactions are common in the traditional, real-world, real-time,
education experience but not widely experienced online apart from MUVEs. Thus, MUVEs can
save valuable resource in time and money on the part of educators, while providing a more life-
like platform for learning.
Avatar-based learning offers some additional nuances to teachers who are interested to
know how identity issues affect student learning and engagement (Waters, 2009). Poor self-im-
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 13
age often leads to student isolation and detachment, further complicating the teacher’s role in the
classroom. With this detachment, student engagement is compromised and learning frustrated.
Teacher participation in MUVEs such as SL provides the professional development – in the way
of experiential knowledge – needed to better understand the identity crises and disconnects fac-
ing the next generation of technology natives. Previous generations of immigrants to technology
have not experienced this crisis to such a degree and professional development must address it.
What are the components of learning engagement with 3D MUVEs? “Learner engage-
ment is paramount to learning success” (Lim, Nonis, & Nedberg, 2006, p. 213). According to the
authors of the Lim et. al. study reported in the British Journal of Education Technology, engage-
ment equals mindfulness, intrinsic motivation, cognitive effort, and attention. The authors (Lim
et. al., 2006) found that 3D virtual environments are filled with tasks just like their counterparts.
However the 3D “space” detracts from the drudgery of task oriented learning and turns partici-
pant attention to experience-oriented learning (Lim, Norris, & Nedberg, 2006). The biggest chal-
lenge, is the “buy-in by the school and parents” (p. 227). The buy-in referred to, means that both
parents and schools need to be convinced that the time and expense involved in bringing new
technologies to the education experience, will actually produce increased learning and achieve-
ment.
However, many of the decision makers find MUVEs to be sensory overload and therefore
too distracting to enable students to concentrate and thereby learn subject matter. To counter this
tendency, educators are being encouraged to meet and collaborate in virtual environments so as
to learn firsthand what is involved. Teachers are discovering how engaging virtual worlds can be
and what the ramifications for their students may be. The role of education is being expanded
even beyond mere distance to the virtual platform where multiple player [student] presence can
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 14
be experienced in a way that simulates the synchronicity of the live classroom (Fording, 2004)
while adding the focused engagement factor of the 3D virtual platform.
Teachers are using MUVEs such as SL to ascertain firsthand, these many accusations that
abound with regard to 1) engaging without learning, 2) distraction rather than concentration, and
3) cognitive overload. Cognitive overload is the subject of recent research (Nelson & Erlandson,
2008) focusing on MUVE interface design. Whereas the principles for quality design of static
two dimensional webpages is well established, the design principles for MUVEs must take into
account cognitive load due to their 3D nature including movement, sound, voice chat interaction,
and the whole gamut of possibilities with regard to creating content both individually and collec-
tively (Bell & Peters, 2004).
According to cognitive theory, people possess two primary channels for receiving input;
visual and verbal. People are limited by the capacity of each channel. A firm and broadly ac-
cepted principle of multimedia design is that people learn better from words and pictures than
from words alone. Yet 3D MUVEs add sounds and animations as well, and therefore cognitive
overload is possible. “Cognitive overload occurs when one or both of the processing channels are
overloaded by information that is either essential or extraneous to the learning process” (Nelson
& Erlandson, 2008, p. 624). Good design principles, when applied to MUVEs, ensure learners
can manage the cognitive load. The move from 2D to 3D web platforms produces tension and
the 3D is prone to splitting attention. Therefore, where rich media are concerned, spatial reorga-
nization is called for. This is another reason more than 100 sites within SL alone are owned and
managed by Universities. These Universities are using 3D virtual platforms for the purpose of
testing pedagogical practices and learning styles. If learning styles are indeed shifting in terms of
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 15
how knowledge is constructed (Dede, 2005), then teachers must be professionally trained to rec-
ognize and understand this shift while engaging students within the new framework.
Conclusion
The primary interface of education is changing from the traditional classroom to online
virtual communities (Johnson, 2007). This transition requires up-to-date hardware and infrastruc-
ture retrofitting, which come at a high price. Schools must overcome the barriers to access by
finding ways to get devices into the hands of students. And teachers must be trained to work ef-
fectively within the new virtual platform. In light of these 3D virtual technology trends, Chris
Dede predicts that the “mission and structure of ... education might change” (Dede, 2005, p. 11).
The biggest challenge for educators involves unlearning, according to Dede, and herein lies the
crux of the problem concerning technology in education. Until educators unlearn what they think
they know, the disconnect between students and teachers will remain, with students continuing to
deem as irrelevant, the perceived direction educators are attempting to lead them. Without un-
learning, educators will strive to improve an antiquated design that was created for a centuries-
old style of pedagogy that may be on the verge of extinction. The shift in learning styles requires
a shift in pedagogy and nothing less will reach the emerging culture of uncertainty facing the un-
known future.
For these reasons, continued research is encouraged herein that could confirm the bene-
fits of time and money being spent on 3D virtual technologies in education. And based on the lit-
erature, the simplest place to begin is with professional development. Carefully designed courses
within a MUVE such as Second Life can provide the feedback from educators to answer many
remaining questions such as: “Is primary and/or secondary school too early to benefit from
MUVE technologies?” and, “Can 3D virtual environments convey standards-based curriculum
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 16
better than the traditional setting?” Using the 3D MUVE platform as a venue for professional de-
velopment of experienced K-20 teachers will help answer these questions while confirming the
present body of research reviewed in this paper.
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 17
References
Barrett, C. (2008). Technology the human impact. Interview presented at TedTalk.com. Re-
trieved November 10, 2008 from
http://fora.tv/2008/06/30/Craig_Barrett_Technology_the_Human_Impact_2_of_2#chapte
r_01
Bell, L., & Peters, T. (2007). MUVEing toward accessibility. Computers in Libraries, 27(4), 34-
36.
Belsie, L. (2001). Ethnic diversity grows, but not integration. Christian Science Monitor, March
14, 2001. Retrieved April 30, 2009, from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0314/p1s2.html
Blaisdell, M. (2006). All the right MUVEs. T.H.E. Journal, 33(14), 28-30, 32, 37-8. Retrieved
February 19, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/19173
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 1, 7-12.
Fording, L. (2004). Education, 21st century-style [Electronic version]. Newsweek, March 30,
2004, Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/148212
Johnson, D. (2007). Head for the edge get a MUVE on. Library Media Connection, 26(2), 98-98.
Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1998). Plugging in: Choosing and
using educational technology. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Labo-
ratory. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from
http://edtech.kennesaw.edu/kris/techplanweb/Plugging%20In.pdf
Lim, C. P., Nonis, D., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Gaming in a 3D multiuser virtual environment:
Engaging students in science lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2),
211-231.
An Examination of Online Learning in Multi-User Virtual Environments 18
Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual envi-
ronments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 265-283.
Nelson, B., & Erlandson, B. (2008). Managing cognitive load in educational multi-user virtual
environments: Reflection on design practice. Educational Technology Research & Devel-
opment, 56(5), 619-641.
Villano, M. (2008). When worlds collide: An augmented reality check. T.H.E.Journal, 35(2), 32-
38.
Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M. J., & Barab, S. A. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects
of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113-140.
Waters, J. K. (2009). A 'second life' for educators. T H E Journal, 36(1), 29-34.