Brave New (Interactive) Worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 13, Issue 1-2, 2005, Pages 121-137

  Dickey, Michael D ^a  

^a MIAMI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844488373     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820500173714     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Bailey, F., & Moar, M. (2001). Walking with avatars. Paper presented at CADE 2001 (Computers in Art and Design Education), Glasgow School of Art, April 9-11.
2. Bailey, F., & Moar, M. (2002). The Vertex Project: Exploring the creative use of shared 3D virtual worlds in the primary (K-12) classroom. Paper presented at SIGGRAPH 2002, San Antonio. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference Abstracts and Applications (pp. 52-54). New York: ACM SIGGRAPH.
3. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Squire, K., Barnett, M., Schmidt, R., Karrigan, K., et al. (2000). Virtual solar system project: Learning through a technology-rich, inquiry-based, participatory learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9, 7-25.
4. Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M. G., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices/understandings. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 47-94.
5. Bers, M. (1999). Zora: A graphical multi-user environment to share stories about the self. In Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL'99) (pp. 33-40). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
6. Bers, M., & Cassell, J. (1999). Interactive storytelling systems for children: Using technology to explore language and identity. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 9(2), 603-609.
7. Bricken, M. (1991). Virtual worlds: No interface to design. In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First steps (pp. 363-382). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Bricken, M., & Byrne, C. M. (1993). Summer students in virtual reality: A pilot study on educational applications of virtual reality technology. In A. Wexelblat (Ed.), Virtual reality: Applications and explorations (pp. 199-218). Boston, MA: Academic.
9. Bricken, W. (1990). Learning in virtual reality. Memorandum M-90-5. Seattle, WA: Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
10. Bruckman, A. (1997). MOOSE Crossing: Construction, Community, and Learning in a Networked Virtual World for Kids. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
11. Byrne, C. (1996). Water an tap: The use of virtual reality as an educational tool. Doctoral thesis, University of Washington, Human Interface Technology Lab. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from http:// www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/dissertations/Byrne/.
12. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52-70.
13. Corbit, M., & DeVarco, B. (2000). SciCentr and BioLearn: Two 3-D implementations of CVE science museums. In E. Churchill and M. Reddy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (pp. 65-71). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
14. Damer, B. (2004). BrahmsVE: Platform for design and test of large scale multi-agent human-centric mission concepts. Technical Progress Report NNA04AA32C SBIR). DigitalSpace Corporation. Retrieved September 21, 2004, from http://www.digitalspace.com/reports/sbir04-phase1/.
15. Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46-52.
16. Dede, C., Salzman, M., & Loftin, R. B. (1996). The development of a virtual world for learning Newtonian mechnics. In P. Brusilovsky, P. Kommers, & N. Streitz (Eds.), Multimedia, hypermedia, and virtual reality (pp. 87-106). Berlin: Springer/Verlag.
17. Dickey, M. D. (2000).
18. Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105-121.
19. Dickey, M. D. (2004). An architectural perspective for the design of educational virtual environments. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(1), 49-66.
20. Dickey, M. D. (in press). Three-dimensional virtual worlds and distance learning: Two case studies of Active Worlds as a medium for distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology.
21. Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan.
22. Hannafin, M. J., Hall, C., Land, S., & Hill, J. (1994). Learning in open environments: Assumptions, methods, and implications. Educational Technology, 34(8), 48-55.
23. Hannafin, M. J., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Vol. II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Heim, M. (1999). Transmogrification. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.mheim.com/html/transmog/transmog.htm.
25. Heim, M. (2001). CyberForum. Retrieved August 30, 2004, from http:// www.mheim.com/cyberforum/.
26. Jakobsson, M. (2001). Rest in peace, Bill the bot. Death and life in virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The social life of avatars. Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. London: Springer.
27. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.
28. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivist learning. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 137-148). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
29. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Vol. II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning WITH technology. A constructivist perspective. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
31. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-in-action with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 37-53.
32. Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Patterns of understanding with open-ended learning environments: A qualitative study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 47-73.
33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
34. Osberg, K. M. (1997). Constructivism in practice: the case for meaning-making in the virtual world HITL Report R-97-47. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/ r-97-47/.
35. Riner, R. D. (1996). Virtual ethics - Virtual reality. Futures Research Quarterly, 12(1), 57-70.
36. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Winn, W. D. (1993). A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality. HITL Report No. R-93-9. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
38. Winn, W. (1997). The impact of three-dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy. HITL Technical Report R-97-15. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
39. Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331-351.