Abstract
Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) provide a rich and immersive context for introducing inquiry-based and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) into science classrooms. MUVES can have a significant effect on learning outcomes, however, illuminating how particular design features interact with those outcomes is an important area of investigation for the field. There has been a trend in the development of instructional technology towards designing MUVEs with a top-down, central narrative and positioning the student as an active protagonist in the storyline. A case study contrasted two MUVEs focused on the same science content, a eutrophication scenario, but with different overarching structures and types of guidance. Quest Atlantis: Mystery of Taiga River adopts a narrative approach in which students enter into the storyline about a declining fish population in a local national park and develop an explanation for who is responsible. EcoXPT adopts an epistemological approach that seeks to leverage the affordances of MUVEs to engage students in the investigative approaches that ecosystems scientists use; it invites students to explore an ecosystem in which they discover an environmental puzzle and then, using epistemologically authentic approaches, try to figure out what is going on and why. The case study found that these contrasting structural features interacted with student modes of engagement and their learning outcomes, with the Taiga classes grasping complex human impacts on the environment and EcoXPT classes understanding the epistemologies involved in understanding complex processes within ecosystems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of science education and technology, 16(1), 59–82
Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112
Carini P. F. (1982). Interpretation, Ambiguity and The Art of Observation. Unpublished manuscript. An Address to the Philosophical Division of the American Psychological Association.
Carini, P. F. (1979). The Art of Seeing and the Visibility of the Person. University of North Dakota Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Chen, J., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2018). Using a three-dimensional thinking graph to support inquiry learning. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1239–1263.
Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction. (pp. 158–183). Success or failure.
Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. J. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City Curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. (4th ed.). Sage.
Cuzzolino, M. P., Grotzer, T. A., Tutwiler, M. S., & Torres, E. W. (2019). An agentive focus may limit learning about complex causality and systems dynamics: A study of seventh graders’ explanations of ecosystems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(8), 1083–1105
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D., & Ruess, K. (2004). Designing for motivation and usability in a museum-based multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference.
Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 415–442
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., & MacDougall, M. (1996). Students’ responses and approaches to case-based instruction: The role of reflective self-regulation. American Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 719–752. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163282
Fokides, E., & Chachlaki, F. (2020). 3D multiuser virtual environments and environmental education: The virtual island of the mediterranean monk seal. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 1–24
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415
Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive psychology, 46(4), 414–466
Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29.
Grotzer, T. A., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S., & Dede, C. (2013). Learning to reason about ecosystems dynamics over time: The challenges of an event-based causal focus. BioScience, 63(4), 288–296.
Grotzer, T. A., Tutwiler, M. S. Kamarainen, A. M., Derbiszewska K. M., Metcalf, S. J., & Dede, C. J. (2016) Students’ Reasoning Tendencies about the Causal Dynamics of Ecosystems and the Impacts of MUVE vs. Non-MUVE Instructional Contexts, The Next Phase of Research in Complex Systems in Science Education, American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Washington D.C.
Grotzer, T. A., Metcalf, S. J., Tutwiler, M. S., Kamarainen, A. M., Thompson, M. & Dede, C. (2017). Teaching the Systems Aspects of Epistemologically Authentic Experimentation in Ecosystems through Immersive Virtual Worlds, National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Antonio, TX.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112
Herman, P., & Gomez, L. M. (2009). Taking guided learning theory to school: Reconciling the cognitive, motivational, and social contexts of instruction. Constructivist Instruction (pp. 74–93). Routledge.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54
Hogan, K., & Fishkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bi-dimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 941–970
Horwitz, P., Lord, T., & Reichsman, F. (2020). Students learn genetics with Geniventure. @Concord 24(2).
Kafai, Y. B. (2010). World of Whyville: An introduction to tween virtual life. Games and Culture, 5(1), 3–22
Kamarainen, A. M., & Grotzer, T. A. (2019). Constructing causal understanding in complex systems: Epistemic strategies used by ecosystem scientists. BioScience, 69(7), 533–543.
Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B., Bergey, B., & Ryu, M. (2014). Design and gender in immersive learning environments. In C. Busch (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-based Learning (pp. 265–271). Dechema.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J. D. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 708–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.021
Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2010). Virtual expeditions: Google earth, GIS, and geovisualization technologies in teaching and learning. Teacher Librarian (Vancouver), 37(3), 81
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-Directed Learning in Problem-Based Learning and its Relationships with Self-Regulated Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9082-7
Manz, E. (2018). Designing for and analyzing productive uncertainty in science investigations. International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2018). School and District Profiles. Retrieved from: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu.
Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740
Metcalf, S., Kamarainen, A., Torres, E., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2018). EcoMUVE: A case study on the affordances of MUVEs in ecosystem science education, In Y. Qian (Ed.) Integrating Multi-User Virtual Environments in Modern Classrooms (pp.1–25). Hershey, PA, IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3719-9.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., Kyza, E., Edelson, D., & Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386
Reilly, C. M., Yang, S. Y., Grotzer, T. A., Joyal, J. A., & Oriol, N. E. (2019). Pedagogical moves and student thinking in technology-mediated medical problem-based learning: Supporting novice-expert shift. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5).
Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304
Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing (2nd ed.): The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SA GE Publications, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226651
Sawyer, R. K. (2011). What makes good teachers great? The artful balance of structure and improvisation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching. (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press.
Schaller, D. T., Goldman, K.H., Spickelmier, G., Allison- Bunnell, S., & Koepfler, J. (2009). Learning in the wild: What Wolfquest taught developers and game players. Museums and the Web. http://www.archimuse.com/ mw2009/papers/schaller/schaller.html
Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “ Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–216
Tawfik, A. A., Gill, A., Hogan, M., York, C. S., & Keene, C. W. (2019). How novices use expert case libraries for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 23–40
Tutwiler, M.S., (2014). Trends in the salience of data collected in a Multi-User Virtual Environment: An exploratory study. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.
Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. Constructivist Instruction (pp. 94–117). Routledge.
Acknowledgements
The authors express appreciation for the contributions of Dalia Abbas, Jennifer Walker, Hannah Boston, and Kaitlin Griffith to the transcription and coding of the data, Chris Dede for substantive intellectual guidance, and the teachers and students at the participating schools. The authors would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant #1416781 to Tina Grotzer and Chris Dede, Harvard University. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gonzalez, E.A., Grotzer, T.A., McGivney, E. et al. Details Matter: How Contrasting Design Features in Two MUVEs Impact Learning Outcomes. Tech Know Learn 27, 801–821 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09513-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09513-6