This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 21 October 2014, At: 16:32Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Review of Hypermedia andMultimediaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tham20

Engaging students in blended andonline collaborative courses atuniversity level through SecondLife: comparative perspectives andinstructional affordancesNikolaos Pellasa & Ioannis kazanidisb

a Department of Product and Systems Engineering, University ofthe Aegean, Syros, Greeceb Department of Industrial Informatics, Kavala Institute ofTechnology, Kavala, GreecePublished online: 05 Feb 2014.

To cite this article: Nikolaos Pellas & Ioannis kazanidis (2014) Engaging students in blended andonline collaborative courses at university level through Second Life: comparative perspectivesand instructional affordances, New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 20:2, 123-144, DOI:10.1080/13614568.2013.856958

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2013.856958

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Engaging students in blended andonline collaborative courses at

university level through Second Life:comparative perspectives and

instructional affordances

NIKOLAOS PELLAS†* and IOANNIS KAZANIDIS‡†Department of Product and Systems Engineering, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece

‡Department of Industrial Informatics, Kavala Institute of Technology, Kavala, Greece

(Received 24 February 2013; final version received 15 October 2013)

Students’ opinions about the degree of impact, status, and socio-cognitive viability with theutilization of the emerging three-dimensional (3D) computer-generated technologies mayvary. Indisputably, 3D technology-enhanced environments have provided considerablebenefits and affordances to the contemporary e-Education. In these circumstances, virtualworlds (VWs) like second life (SL) have generally intensified with an extensive perpetuationand penetration of innovative performances that encapsulated or enacted from the vastmajority of higher education fields. At the same time, there is growing widespread recognitionof reasons affecting the high or low degree of students’ engagement in online and blendedcourse delivery methods held in 3D VWs. Notwithstanding that most notable studies havedisclosed SL functional capabilities from a plethora of pilot case studies, however, it is stilllacking an experiential-based research approach to determine the degree of students’engagement in blended and online courses at university level through SL. The presentcomparative study explores students’ engagement overall as a multidimensional constructconsisting of emotional, behavioral, and cognitive factors. One hundred and thirty-fiveundergraduate and postgraduate students in almost identical blended and online instructionalconditions held in SL took part in this project. Preliminary results have decoded students’satisfaction for both methods, despite the fact that the voluntary sample composed of differenteducational disciplines. The quantitative analysis showed that postgraduate students of theonline course had more positive results and the degree of engagement significantly increasedcompared to those who enrolled with the blended course delivery method. The instructionalaffordances from the utilization of SL were the collaborative climate between users (instructorand students) who eliminated various intractable boundaries which were predominantlyobserved by several conventional methods. Specifically it was revealed that the online coursedelivery method engaged more students with the collaborative activities. Educationalimplications and recommendations for future research are also included.

Keywords: Virtual worlds; Online learning; Blended learning

*Corresponding author. Email: npellas@aegean.gr

New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 2014Vol. 20, No. 2, 123–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2013.856958

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Introduction

The broad mediation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) indifferent educational disciplines has revealed some of the most importantperspectives on cultural and social cognition. Meanwhile, those scholars oreducators who contemplate ICT as major sources of cultural invasion are stillcurrently challenged with the view of many technology enthusiasts who areconvinced that it has and will continue to revolutionize every aspect of thenewfangled world (Zare-ee 2011). Web 2.0-based technologies as a part of ICTare the most prominent and worthwhile innovations to date, contributing greatlynot only to improve students’ outcomes, but also to enhance the pedagogy at alllevels of e-Education. The large number of Web (2.0)-based pedagogical methodsand models aim to support students on attaining the necessary skills in order todevelop a unique “knowledge field” that will enable them to be successful in thetwenty-first century demands.In the last decade, a novel phenomenon with the conjunction of the Computer

Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and Web (2.0)-based applications,such as blogs, wikis, social networking sites, and social indexing tools (socialbookmarking) was emerged. Even more virtual worlds (VWs) as an increasingpart of Web 2.0 transactions have heightened both educational and researchrounds which importantly claimed as an alternative option for implementingstudents’ collaborative activities (Dickey 2005, Park and Seo 2011).Relevant studies (Bennett et al. 2012, Chen et al. 2012) have also justified that

Web 2.0 transactions can increase users’ (students and instructors) abilities andlearning opportunities. Web 2.0 has many other dynamic characteristics that areexpected to provide a catalytic effect on the entire e-Education (Olaniran 2009,Brown 2010, Pellas 2012). Some examples are the following:

(1) The radical change of its nature to access users in an innovative field ofknowledge.

(2) The transformation of learning materials by offering multiple opportunitiesfor constructive, collaborative, ubiquitous, and lifelong learning.

(3) The growth-promoting requirements of three-dimensional (3D) technologic-ally advanced environments have radically changed the course deliverymethod from the strict instructional learning formats (formal or informal) toaccess into a novel knowledge field with fully online and blended methodsand becoming exponentially the most eligible for “edutainment” (educationand entertainment) learning approaches in VWs.

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE 2008) has beenemphasizing on educators’ needs that might enrich the instructional methodology,in order to foster students’ creativity on the one hand and to design and evaluateauthentic or contextualized learning workflows through face-to-face (f-2-f) andonline educational courses on the other. This has led scholars and educators torethink or develop novel models and methods for e-Education (Mirabella et al.2004, Flecknoe 2002, Marković et al. 2007, Somekh 2007, Bocconi et al. 2012,Pellas 2013b) that have a unique design, and besides being adapted to replace f-2-finteraction, still users are able to be in contact and learn together with other peers.

124 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Online and blended (or hybrid) are two of the most eligible and reliableinstructional formats. The pedagogical framework of these learning methods canoffer users the ability to integrate the advancements, best practices, and benefits oftraditional learning methods with various Web (2.0)-based technologies and VWs,such as second life (SL). In this notion, both course delivery methods can providevarious learning affordances which become more efficient than the conventional(Pellas et al. 2013). Within this context, students’ performances are enhancedthrough the acquisition of the diverse training, whereas in the real-life situationsthe student’s ability to apply appropriate skills and the right knowledge in thisparticular case is the fundamental requirement.When compared to the traditional teaching and learning mediums of two-

dimensional (2D) systems (blogs, wikis, learning management systems, LMSs),3D (social) VWs and in particular SL can offer many advantages, even more thanthe particular 3D game-oriented technologies (online video games), somethingthat was underlined also by Masters and Gregory (2010). These advantagesinclude the following: (1) students’ participation in virtual workshops,(2) students’ interactions with other users and communication in a common placeas cyber entities (avatars), (3) the reinforcement of the students’ engagement inmultiple performances (e.g. analyzing several case studies of experiential learningprocedures), and (4) the utilization of various simulations with geometricprimitives for teaching specific teaching and learning objects (e.g. constructingvisual artifacts from avatars).Social VWs in the last seven years have drawn considerable attention largely

due to their inherent strength in modeling many real-world complex systems,which are, otherwise difficult to be constructed by using the traditional existingWeb 2.0 tools or LMS. SL as a part of social VWs provides a common 3D-persistent multimedia environment that offers to adult users (aged >18 years) theopportunity to coexist, co-construct authentic or at least pragmatic grids (virtualislets), and to use metaphors of visual objects or artifacts in real-time interactivesimulations without distractions. These can assist students to:

(1) Redefine their intentions to determine the most appropriate conditions ofinstructional purposes in effortful and meaningful ways.

(2) Transform the social dynamic impression in a virtual community andinvestigate benefits or boundaries.

(3) Improve the learning process with dynamic dimensions derived from avatarsand designate the effectiveness of an instructional approach.

In these circumstances, in order to understand the inspiration of this study, it iscrucial to observe affordances of SL in e-Education, such as:

. The propagation and utilization of SL attained from the exponential growth ofWeb 2.0 by validating teaching and learning procedures in different disciplinesof the higher education.

. The vast majority of previous studies (Konstantinidis et al. 2010, Dass et al.2011, Pellas 2013a) have disclosed the technological capabilities and

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

affordances from collaborative learning approaches fostering the co-construc-tion of an innovative knowledge domain.

. SL can enrich the valuable contribution of constructive or collaborativelearning processes via multimedia tools, artifacts, and verbal (chat text, VoIP)or nonverbal (gestures) forms of communication.

Nevertheless, given the fact that many universities and institutions have deployedand offered courses in the blended and online instructional formats of e-Educationthrough SL (Mayrath et al. 2011, Beaumont et al. 2012, Childs et al. 2012, Pellas2012, Pellas and Kazanidis 2012, Wang and Burton 2012), the effectiveness ofstudents’ engagement with both methods is largely unknown. The originalcontribution that the present comparative research makes valid to study are thegrowth-promoting factors (emotional, behavioral, and cognitive) that may affectstudent engagement in blended and online courses, which until these days havenot been examined yet.The purpose of this study is to determine basic propositions of the beneficial

formalization and instructional affordances from students’ engagement (under-graduate and postgraduate) with blended and online course delivery methods atuniversity level held in SL.

Theoretical underpinnings

Contemporary methods of e-Education

The online course delivery method. The online learning is at a large extent a newpromising and alternative method that allows users (instructors and students) toaccess or set their own information sources in electronic forms. The way in whichformal or informal requirements of the e-Education with the use of this methodreduce the gap between users who preliminary have different cognitive back-grounds and are geographically distributed is today well established. However, thespatial–temporal constraints from the formation of the online method, and thus theintegration of different educational disciplines (adult education, providingadditional material at universities) cannot pronounce that each course with theonline method can be successfully implemented and bring positive learningoutcomes (Hrastinski 2009, Shea and Bidjerano 2010).Concurrently, online learning gives students a basic structure for the course

selection mainly in 2D LMS, while also pique the interest of those who wish tofurther increase their professional or personal advancement. It is also worthmentioning the financial benefits that this type of learning can offer bysignificantly reducing or in some cases even eliminating economic costs.Furthermore, online learning provides interactive communication betweeninstructors and students who are typically distributed in different places, and asa result the collaboration on activities continues even outside the classroomclimate (Kali et al. 2009).

The blended course delivery method. Many higher education institutions havealready offered blended courses with various learning strategies (complementary

126 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

with f-2-f) provide sundry advantages over other simpler forms of teaching. Whilethe e-learning setting could not replace the traditional instructional formats, blendedlearning approaches were launched by using different learning platforms, such asLMS (Dziuban, Hartman & Moskal, 2004, Burgess et al. 2010). It seemed thatthese approaches were able to fill the gap created by users’ presence, in both naturaland artificial environments, resulting in easier f-2-f communication and interactionwith other users.Dean et al. (2001) in this vein have shown that the combination of f-2-f with

online instruction offers an added value on supporting both learner-centered andcollaborative learning. Hence, a blended teaching process does not only usetraditional (f-2-f) and distance activities separately, but it is coordinated into aneffective method, where users are able to exploit the strengths of both approaches.Likewise, Harrington (2010) stressed that the educators need to be involved inmixed methods as well as become aware of the benefits from their enrollment.In the light of these findings, Tselios et al. (2011) have also shown that the

combination of f-2-f interaction with the online instruction format can add valueby supporting both learner-centered and collaborative learning processes. More-over, the blended procedure not only applied to the traditional and distanceactivities, but it also determined a more effective approach in which users can getthe benefits of collaboration and coordination (Voogt et al. 2005, Johnson et al.2011), and in this notion became more satisfied with themselves.

Students’ engagement

In recent years, many researchers (Appleton et al. 2008, Alvarez 2012) haveshown renewed interest in order to study the characteristics of students’ emotionaland behavioral reactions during the learning process in order to discover themechanisms that may help students to engage in educational practices andfacilitate the knowledge acquisition. Previously, educators and scholars (Finn1989, Skinner and Belmont 1993, Ogbu 2003) have adopted a two-componentmodel that usually included a “behavioral” factor (e.g. positive conduct, effort,participation) and an “emotional or affective” factor (e.g. interest, identification,belonging, and positive attitude to learning) in an attempt to understand thestudent engagement. However, more recent studies (Fredricks et al. 2004,Glanville and Wildhagen 2007) have compromised a tripartite model that addedthe “cognitive” factor (e.g. self-regulation, learning goals, and investment inlearning), which is more consistent with the learning approaches that take intoaccount students’ basic learning needs such as autonomy, competence, andrelatedness.Similarly noteworthy are the results from a growing body of literature by

scholars (Finn 1993, Duran et al. 2006, Suárez-Orozco et al. 2009, Shernoff2010) which suggest that the concept of school engagement is essential inpredicting both students’ academic outcomes and dropping out of school. As forthe latter, it is significant for students and especially for adolescents who aregrowing into adults to fully participate before getting involved in a contemporaryproductive society, both socially and technologically. Hence, promoting academiccompetence in adolescents is both a complicated and challenging task. In their

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

study for the social relationships of adolescents, Fredricks and Eccles (2004) haveargued that adolescents tend to perform better when their psychological needswere met.Additionally, there is diffusive agreement that students’ engagement affects the

social contribution regarding: (1) the students’ achievements and successes withschool’s activities (Kuh et al. 2006), (2) the several benefits that were raised fromthe students’ confidence and satisfaction in adjusting to the school environment(Zhao and Kuh 2004, Pascarella and Terenzini 2005), and (3) the enhancement ofthe student’s self-efficacy where students are conscientious and dedicated in thelearning course. These can afford mutual characteristics of the development andexpression of the creativity, enthusiasm, inspiration, and feedback prompt of thestudents’ actions (Hu and Kuht 2002).Summing up all the aforementioned, a framework of “engagement” should

endorse the tripartite conceptualization of factors, which was typically describedfrom Fredricks et al. (2004), and firmly accepted until today as:

(1) “behavioral,” which refers to positive conduct, effort, and students’participation in the class;

(2) “emotional or affective,” which stimulates interest, identification, positiveattitudes, and values about learning; and

(3) “cognitive,” which refers to self-regulation, learning goals, and investment inlearning.

Engagement in VWs

In their study, Mount et al. (2009) have stressed that “engagement, presence andimmersion are highly related terms of 3D VWs that are difficult to thoroughlydisentangle and possess some commonality (i.e. the idea that achieving deeplevels of engagement and engrossment generally requires a degree of presence”(p. 54). Users in VWs are engaged in situations that mimic the real world to alarge extent, use 3D visual prototyping conceptual concepts as “constructive”tools for gaining meaningful insights, and solve authentic problems collabora-tively with others in a common place (Gresalfi et al. 2009).Some relevant points of the “engagement” in 3D game-based VWs have

denoted users’ experiences or interests in order to sustain and expand thepopularity with the associated outcomes (Franceschi et al. 2008). Therefore,learners’ engagement in VWs can be considered from (McMahan 2003, Shen andEder 2009): (1) the level of interaction with other users that is achieved, (2) thelevel of feedback from the virtual environment, and (3) the level of engagementthat promoted from various learning activities.

VWs—SL

VWs are increasingly becoming a potential task of the modern global culture andin fact there is a common conviction that augurs as another social phenomenon.From the beginning of 2006, VWs in general and SL in particular have become anintegral part of the social networking media (Web 2.0) and educationalcommunities (especially from students of higher education recognized today as

128 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

“digital natives”) for the implementation of collaborative learning activities. Thefunctional capabilities of multi-factorial visual applications offer to users a 3Dmultimedia-interactive environment, where the main emphasis is focused on theco-creation and co-construction of a novel knowledge field. The conditions of therealization for the creation of new “social norms” and learning procedures toempowerment new students’ roles in a VW are also complementary with theeducational functions that are being constructed.The “technological infrastructure” of SL gathered on the user’s computer screen

a 3D virtual reality (VR) networked system that is common to all users andsupport the communication or collaboration of geographically (or not) distributedusers, older than 18 years. SL is defined as “persistent” because it allowsparticipants to coexist as “cyber entities” (avatars), co-create or co-manipulatemetaphors of 3D visual artifacts or simply communicate via multiple forms,verbal (VoIP, IM), or nonverbal (chat text and gestures), and finally amplify thepresuppositions of meaningful educational structures with other peers, in acontinuous workflow where it still exists beyond the fact that some users exitfrom it.For more than seven years, universities (e.g. the Open University of the UK or

Ohio University) and organizations (e.g. ISTE or New Media Consortium-NMC)have utilized and provided SL alternative expressions of e-learning and blendedlearning courses, like course lectures, design-based activities, or experimentalprocesses, with positive results. The 3D computer-oriented environment inconjunction with the appropriate real-time interactive simulations in a plausibleillusion permit users to construct realistic and authentic places, refine rules of thespatial proximity, and overly transform socially the dynamic dimensions in orderto improve learning outcomes (Bell 2009, Wang and Burton 2012).

Research methodology

Design

The present study was conducted from mid-March to April 2012. The aim of thisproject was to examine students’ engagement in blended and online experiencesin SL. The participants were undergraduate (those who pursued a post-secondarydegree) and postgraduate students (those who pursued a master’s degree) enrolledin the spring semester courses at the Kavala Institute of Technology (KIT) innorthern Greece. The research was based on an experimental design and criteriaof a quantitative research method.

Purposes and research questions about this study

The purpose of the present study was twofold:

(1) to determine the degree of independence between students’ socio-demo-graphic characteristics (especially on “gender” and “previous experienceswith Web 2.0”) with both course delivery methods; and

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

(2) to elaborate and articulate the extent in which blended or fully onlineinstructional formats have influenced undergraduate and postgraduate stu-dents’ engagement (behavioral, emotional, and cognitive factors) in SL.

The main research questions (RQ) are as follows:

RQ1: Is there any relationship between the students’ gender, age, or prior experience withWeb 2.0 applications and course delivery methods (online and blended)?

RQ2: Is there any significant difference in students’ engagement between blended and onlinecollaborative courses at university level held in SL?

Sample

The target-sample composed of 135 students (undergraduate and postgraduate),with 80 (64.4%) participants enrolled in blended and 55 (35.6%) in (fully) onlineuniversity-level sessions (Table 1). Students have never participated before inonline or hybrid course delivery methods held in SL and this was the mainpresupposition for their enrollment in the present project.

Instrumentation

The construction of the main instrument was adapted from Kong et al.’s (2003)study that proposed to measure the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors ofstudents’ engagement. After completing various activities, 135 correspondentsfrom the overall 189 participants of the entire project answered 57 close-endedquestions, according to a 5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree to 5 = strongly agree)questionnaire. The current instrument also included another three open-endedquestions about the socio-demographic characteristics. The questionnaires of bothsessions attempted to evaluate the following indicators of the three engagementfactors with the following dimensions:

(1) the emotional engagement (EE) with 22 items: interest, boredom, achieve-ment orientation, anxiety, and frustration;

Table 1. Target-sample from blended and online course delivery methods.

Course deliverymethod M SD

Undergraduatestudents (%)

Postgraduatestudents (%)

Overall(%)

Blended (N=80) 21.6a 4.14 62 (77.5) 18 (22.5) 80Male 21.7a 4.22 50 (84.7) 9 (15.3) 59 (73.7)Female 22.5a 4.05 12 (57.1) 9 (42.9) 21 (26.3)Online (N=55) 21.5b 4.32 47 (91) 8 (9) 55Male 22.6b 4.63 31 (86.1) 5 (13.9) 36 (65.4)Female 22.4b 4.21 16 (84.2) 3 (15.8) 19 (34.5)

aThe mean scores for the ages of the group that enrolled with the blended course delivery method.bThe mean scores for the ages of the group that enrolled with the online course delivery method.N, number of items; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

130 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

(2) the behavioral engagement (BE) with 14 items: attentiveness, perseverance,and time spent; and finally

(3) the cognitive engagement (CE) with 21 items: surface strategy, deep strategy,and reliance.

Each part of this instrument was translated in the Greek language, took no morethan 15 minutes to be completed, and it was sent to each student via email.

Treatment

Both online and blended courses followed the mutual seven-week universitycalendar for the same project and of course in the same platform (SL). Thecontent of these research efforts was focused on applications with SL’s functionalcharacteristics that users needed to utilize with the Linden programming language(LSL) in order to construct visual prototypes and scripting objects or artifacts forthe construction of a 3D “micro-world” that will allow the experimentation (“learnby doing”) activities without the real-world’s repercussions. The current projecthad the same objectives for both groups. The current treatment was designed inorder to learn and amplify students’ innovative, “constructive” processes andaffordances from 3D VWs that can be supported for alternative instructionalmethods, and of course understand how to use these preconstructed 3D “eco-systems” as reliable and viable platforms for e-Education.The blended group had a traditional two-hour weekly class and SL (in-world)

meetings. Students had weekly class meetings (f-2-f) in a computer lab or (online)in-world sessions that changed every second week, according to students’ needs.During the first week, particular meetings were in SL (or alternatively one weekthe meeting was in the computer laboratory and the following was in-world). Theinitial encounter problems that existed were about procedures that students shouldfollow for in-world meetings (e.g. making visual artifacts, recognizing thecommunication tools), and the next class lesson was a discussion of the firstresults and the formative assessment on this issue.As for the online group concerns, the teleconference program Big Blue Button

(BBB), which had been directly connected with Moodle was used for the first twosessions. In particular, students selected the appropriate link into the Moodleonline course and they were automatically connected to the teleconference virtualroom. The first online session was an easy and student-friendly process. In thefirst session, the original concepts discussed and the instructor presented SL andtried to provide solutions on how students could interact with it. The othersessions took place through SL. All online courses also attended two-hour weeklyclass meetings. The group of online sessions had a two-hour weekly class meetingin SL (in-world and at a distance). The first two sessions were implemented viathe teleconference program BBB, which had been directly connected with Moodlewhich was previously being used for them as a “warehouse of knowledge.” Inaddition, students selected the appropriate link into the Moodle online course andthey were automatically connected to the teleconference virtual room.A well-structured pedagogical-didactic framework should prepare students for

an open in-world (SL) exploration. The students’ cohesion and coordination in

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

small teams guided initially by the instructor in order to complete a collaborativetask and achieve a common purpose. Through exploratory activities by utilizingvarious multimedia applications and the instructor’s interventions in worksheets, itwas expected that students may contribute to a more constructive and meaningfullearning process compared to the traditional teacher-centered approach.Regardless of the course delivery method that students needed to follow, they

had as a common exercise to utilize interactive tools that endorsed (primitives,artifacts, tools, etc.) in SL and they also separated as groups of four, in order toprepare a short report that assessed the preconstructed virtual environment.Students’ formative assessment was about interactivity issues, visual tools, orprimitives and the appropriate use of a preconstructed virtual environment forcollaborative activities by using synchronous and asynchronous forms ofcommunication (initial assessment reports). Another characteristic that is crucialto be mentioned is that students were not really familiar with the utilization ofsecond Life Scripting Language (LSL), the available artifacts (materials or virtualobjects and tools for scripting and texturing). However, with the instructor’sguidance, they tried and succeeded to learn. The basic expectation was to initiallyfind information about the construction of a virtual educational island (grid) andafterward each team to be configured collaboratively programmed artifacts andpresented their thoughts, opinions, or projects to other peers. The featuringinspiration is to co-construct a grid that can be used for Institute’s lessons.The instructor’s guidance in the weekly meeting was to encourage students to

think, explore, discover, and manage the learning materials in order to solveproblems and acquire knowledge. Since problems became more complex, forlearners’ interactions also become more complex through their participation in aproject. The instructor, as the facilitator of this project, tried to help students ofboth groups at the same time and provide the appropriate feedback in order toavoid students the complex dimensions that a 3D virtual environment can distractthem during their introduction. More specifically the instructor had the respons-ibility to intervene in activities and support students at all stages (fadingscaffolding approach) from their introduction to their final activities. After that,students had gradually begun to interact with others and gain the appropriateknowledge collaboratively. The main role of the instructor was to drive studentson more effective solutions to exploratory approaches of a problem that acquires amore intense and fruitful learning experience.For better processing and coordination of the two student groups, the instructor

decided to structure for each group (blended or online) a specific schedule thatstudents should follow. The online group was composed of two subgroups with25 and 30 students, respectively. The blended group was composed of foursubgroups with a minimum of 20 students in each. For better coordination ofgroups, the instructor decided to separate each of these groups into under-graduates and postgraduates. The groups were formed by students volunteering tobelong to one or the other; however, there were some cases that had to belong tospecific groups. For example, those who lived far from the KIT or had to work faraway from the Institute, and thus could not attend in-person workshops wereplaced in the fully online group. In this vein, those students from previous

132 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

semesters who still had not passed the laboratory course exams and were onlyobliged to attend the final examinations were also placed mandatory in the samegroup.The research was expanded to also include those students from other three

different disciplines (Industrial Informatics, Accountancy, and ArchitecturalDesign) whose mutual course was the Computer Science and ICT services fore-Education and wished to study in other instructional formats and platforms as ameans to improve and facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. The course wasentitled as the Designing collaborative virtual learning spaces and 3D visualprototyping in Virtual Worlds focused on the possible use of Collaboration &Design in Learning (CDL) processes and results through 3D virtual places andartifacts that can be useful from a larger group of users for various teaching andlearning processes.In the whole process, students were involved in online or blended groups and

implemented collaborative activities in five different phases of varying length(three to five days), and each one lasted for about 50 minutes. The content of thestudy focused on:

(1) the co-manipulation and coordination of learning activities with the functionalcharacteristics that SL serves, where students by using the Linden program-ming language (LSL) scripting objects or artifacts, in conjunction with the“Constructionism” as the main theoretical background;

(2) the co-construction of 3D “micro-worlds” include opportunities for experi-mentation without real-world repercussions, opportunities to “learn by doing”or “experiential learning,” and abilities for students to personalize anenvironment of future-driven collaborative applications in SL.

Figure 1 portrays phases of this project, in which both groups in differentlearning situations had the common purpose that was described above.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

The first intention was to describe the socio-demographic results from students’e-profiles, as Table 2 summarizes. All 135 members enrolled in blended or onlinecourses and agreed to complete the anonymous (online) questionnaire. Similarlynoteworthy is that all students have never taken part in either blended or onlinegroups.

Factors influencing the blended and online course delivery methods

To answer RQ1, we used the one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)conducted to determine the effect of both course delivery methods on students’personal data when controlling for “gender,” “age,” and “previous experienceswith Web 2.0 applications.” Of the three covariates, only gender has signifi‐cantly influenced the online group, F(1,133) = 5.842, p < .05, partial η2 = .42.Obviously, when controlling gender, students who enrolled with the online

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Figure 1. The blended and fully online learning courses in Second Life.

134 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

method were significantly more satisfied with the course rather than those in theblended group (Hybrid, M = 3.27, SD = .67; Online, M = 3.41, SD = .57). Withthe gender controlled, the partial η2 indicated that the online group seems to havea positive effect on this method. Particularly, η2 shows that online course deliverymethod accounts for approximately 36% of the variance of the dependent variable(Table 3). According to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines this referred to a mediumeffect size.

Contemporary course delivery methods and engagement

In order to answer RQ2, the three engagement factors were used as dependentvariables, whereas each phase of the measurement between the two researchgroups (undergraduate and postgraduate) and the two contemporary methods(blended and online) were used as independent variables.Table 4 shows that graduate students’ engagement reliability analysis of

Cronbach’s alpha has a satisfying internal consistency (α = .788). Additionally, in

Table 2. Frequency and percentage of the socio-demographic characteristics.

Blended method (%) Online method (%)

N (%)Undergraduatestudents (%)

PostgraduateStudents (%)

Undergraduatestudents (%)

Postgraduatestudents (%)

A. Previous experiences with Web 2.0 applications

A.1. 1–6 months 32 (23.7) 5 (8.1) 8 (44.5) 15 (31.9) 4 (50)A.2. 7–12 months 57 (42.2) 25 (40.3) 10 (55.5) 20 (42.5) 2 (25)A.3. More thana year

46 (34.1) 32 (51.6) 0 (0) 12 (25.5) 2 (25)

Overall 135 62 18 47 8

B. Student’s statusB.1. Part-timestudent

82 (60.7) 30 (48.3) 10 (55.5) 40 (85.1) 2 (25)

B.2. Full-timestudent

53 (39.2) 32 (51.7) 8 (44.5) 7 (41.9) 6 (75)

Overall 135 62 18 47 8

Table 3. ANCOVA results of both course delivery methods.

Source DF MS F p η2

Covariate Gender 1 42.117 5.842 0.01* 0.42Covariate Age 1 7.836 0.124 0.85 0.06Covariate “Web 2.0 applications” 1 85.425 1.714 0.28 0.07IV Course delivery method (Blended) 1 45.008 0.96 0.03* 0.17IV Course delivery method (Online) 1 111.521 14.064 0.02* 0.36

DF, degrees of freedom; MS, mean square error; IV, independent variable.*p< 0.05.

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 4. Students’ engagement reliability indices.

Engagementfactors

Numberof items

Cronbach’s alphafor answers onundergraduate

students

Cronbach’s alphafor answers onpostgraduatestudents

Engagementfactors

Numberof items

Cronbach’s alpha foranswers of students thatenrolled with the blended

method

Cronbach’s alpha foranswers of students thatenrolled with the online

method

All factors 57 0.788* 0.886* All factors 57 0.767* 0.836*

EE 22 0.782 0.884 EE 22 0.756 0.844BE 14 0.789 0.899 BE 14 0.769 0.833CE 21 0.786 0.888 CE 21 0.786 0.812

*Cronbach’s alpha requires a reliability of 0.70 or higher to obtain on a sustainable sample.

136N.Pellas

andI.Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

the postgraduate group, reliability testing alpha Cronbach was .886, has a highlysatisfying internal consistency (see recommendations from Singh 2007).Both undergraduate and postgraduate groups in the blended method were

considered as equivalent concerning the level of overall engagement, even beforetheir intervention to the SL. Independent samples t-tests at the level ofsignificance (p < .05) were not indicated any statistically significant differences[t(60) = −1.51, p > .05] in Table 5.On the contrary, Table 6 shows the online group that the effect on the overall

and each factor of engagement between the graduate and postgraduate groupafter the online intervention was desperate, as independent samples of the t-testbetoken a statistically significant difference in favor of the first group [t(45) =4.17, p < .05], [t(45) = 4.14, p < .05], [t(45) = 4.49, p < .05], and [t(46) = 5.34,p < .05]. There is a large correlation between the two variables (r = .63),suggesting quite a strong relationship between the overall engagementand the online group, following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines. As well as theCE value (r = .59) has higher levels than the other two engagement factors(CE > EE > BE).

Students’ groups and engagement factors

Table 7 depicts a paired sample t-test between the undergraduate and postgraduatescores for determining the intervention effect on the learning engagement of bothgroups, which divulged a statistically significant difference in favor of theundergraduate mean scores [t(107) = −3.47, p < .05]. On the other side,concerning the postgraduate group mean scores were significantly higher forthose of the graduate level [t(14) = 6.35, p < .05].Also, as Table 8 depicts the comparison of the mean scores between

blended and online methods of two subgroups. It was found that there is astatistically significant difference in favor of the blended group [t(68) =−2.17,p < .05].

Table 5. Engagement factors of the independent sample t-tests in blended courses.

Engagement factors inblended courses Research group N Mean SD t Sig.

Overall Undergraduate 62 4.33 0.36 −1.51 0.23*

Postgraduate 18 4.33 0.33EE Undergraduate 62 4.35 0.22 0.56 0.75

Postgraduate 18 3.84 0.29BE Undergraduate 62 4.44 0.44 −2.35 0.36

Postgraduate 18 4.28 0.42CE Undergraduate 62 3.98 0.54 −0.75 0.22

Postgraduate 18 3.54 0.51

*p<0.05.EE, emotional or affective engagement; BE, behavioral engagement; CE, cognitive engagement.

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine and elucidate the different propositionsof students’ engagement in blended and online courses at the university level heldin SL. This option was based on the statement that learning can affect all userswho participate in educationally purposeful activities (Masters and Gregory 2010,Dass et al. 2011, Grenfell and Warren 2010, Sajjanhar 2012). Consistent withHolley and Oliver’s (2010) results, in the current study SL finally gained students’attention, because they adequately coordinated and managed their own virtuallearning spaces and worked together like teams. According to Krause’s (2005)suggestions, there are various ways where students can be envisaged through theassociation of other class members where they engaged equally with other peersor even with the academic staff. On these demands, VWs are more eligible andrelevant for students’ demands or needs, rather than other 2D conventionaltechnologies (Wasko et al. 2011).Actually, notable studies (Antonacci and Modaress 2008, Boulos et al. 2007,

Pellas 2012) have provided SL capabilities that can be used to foster students’

Table 6. Engagement factors of the independent sample t-tests in online courses.

Engagement factors inonline courses Research group N Mean SD t Sig. Cohen’s d

Overall Undergraduate 47 3.63 0.26 4.17 0.02* 0.63Postgraduate 8 4.58 0.71

EE Undergraduate 47 3.77 0.19 4.14 0.03 0.57Postgraduate 8 4.54 0.85

BE Undergraduate 47 3.54 0.21 4.49 0.01 0.54Postgraduate 8 4.58 0.78

CE Undergraduate 47 3.57 0.29 5.34 0.03 0.59Postgraduate 8 4.61 0.67

*p<.05.EE, emotional or affective engagement; BE, behavioral engagement; CE, cognitive engagement.

Table 7. Paired sample t-tests scores between blended and online groups of undergraduate andpostgraduate users.

Engagement factors Research group N Mean Difference SD t Sig.

Overall Undergraduate 109 −0.76 0.78 −3.47 0.02*

Postgraduate 16 0.52 0.35 6.35 0.04EE Undergraduate 109 −0.84 0.86 −3.64 0.03

Postgraduate 16 0.41 0.27 5.34 0.04BE Undergraduate 109 −0.67 0.75 −3.59 0.01

Postgraduate 16 0.74 0.45 6.37 0.02CE Undergraduate 109 −0.63 0.98 −2.54 0.03

Postgraduate 16 0.44 0.43 4.15 0.01

*p<0.05.EE, emotional or affective engagement; BE, behavioral engagement; CE, cognitive engagement.

138 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

engagement with more emphasis on their participation in collaborative project-based activities, in order to involve and engage the design and construction oftheir virtual workflows. Overall, the results of the present study suggested SL as anascent and innovative virtual learning environment for students’ engagement invarious blended and fully online collaborative activities. Postgraduate students, inparticular, may have some previous experience of online courses, which couldhelp them to become familiar with this method easily. Compared to other well-known LMS, such as Moodle or Blackboard, SL can accommodate betterinstructional formats with durable communication tools via both verbal (e.g. VoIPand brainstorming-based text) and nonverbal communication (e.g. gestures andIM). In contrast, the findings of Macías-Díaz’s (2008) study indicated that theonline method with SL was more effective and provided better learning outcomesthan the blended approach.The instructional affordances that unveiled from the current research are very

interesting. As a result of all the aforementioned, SL as an educational platform isable to:

(1) Serve students’ educational needs who live far from the Institute (KIT) and/orwork in other places and cannot follow KIT (in-world) appointments whichare made in the evenings, even more for those who have finished work andhave a freer schedule;

(2) Facilitate the learning process in a common 3D virtual environment where allstudents studied in identically learning conditions with various media sharingdevices, visual artifacts or objects (primitives) instructors can sufficientlyreduce running costs and contribute to savings of revenue. This is currentlyimportant due to budget cuts in this contemporary era which is widelyobserved with the significant reduction of working hours from the temporaryteaching staff.

(3) Empower the students’ engagement and learning outcomes in each method,but mainly it was higher for students who enrolled with the online coursedelivery method. In these circumstances we should underline that beyond thepositive feedback from all students about the online and blended courses,

Table 8. Independent sample t-tests scores between blended and online groups mean scores.

Engagement factors Students groups N Mean difference SD t Sig.

Overall Blended 80 0.36 0.24 −2.17 0.02*

Online 55 0.71 0.35EE Blended 80 0.31 0.28 −1.47 0.13

Online 55 0.53 0.29BE Blended 80 0.49 0.31 −2.77 0.19

Online 55 0.74 0.42CE Blended 80 0.33 0.31 −1.91 0.43

Online 55 0.57 0.47

*p<.05.EE, emotional or affective engagement; BE, behavioral engagement; CE, cognitive engagement.

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

both instructional formats were not exclusive or substitute for one another,but can be very complementary in many ways with the conventional.

(4) Provide a better understanding of the added value of SL in general, and VWsin general for design-based (collaborative) activities and 3D visual prototyp-ing processes.

Conclusion

From the teaching point of view, regarding to the rapid development of 3Dtechnologically advanced environments, the systematic and practical frameworkof blended or online learning can become a viable and sustainable solution forhigher education courses. Being familiar with Web 2.0 applications seemed toaffect positively students’ engagement with collaborative learning activities heldin SL.The study findings showed that postgraduate students who did courses with

online instruction in SL had a significantly higher engagement level than thegroup of undergraduates who enrolled in blended; this is despite the fact that bothresearch groups were taught the same subject matter by the same instructor.However, after the intervention, in the case of the blended group, the degree ofengagement of all three factors diminished significantly, whereas in the case of theonline group the engagement level was increased. Furthermore, the postgraduatesubgroup of the online course delivery method reported significantly higher pointsof an overall engagement in comparison with others. Thereupon, it should bementioned that the online group appeared to have a positive effect of this methodamong to its gender. Finally, it is indispensable to underline that the instructors’attention and feedback for newcomers in the first period of the project for bothmodes was daily. Concluding remarks of the main study that were obtained are asfollows:

. The basic propositions for the beneficial formalization of students’ engage-ment enrolled in blended and online courses at university level were heldin SL.

. The experiential-based learning in SL may have a positive effect on learners’engagement and in these circumstances to help further studies identifyevidences of which method can be the most predominant method in order tohave a considerably better learning process.

. The widespread adoption of a positive stance toward to a more innovativeinstruction with SL that requires from learners to actively engage in theemerging spread of future-driven simulations.

Implications for educational policies that unveiled are:

. SL can represent a relatively innovative generation of 3D virtual learningenvironment that is potential for the development of constructive andexperiential-based activities with an online instructional format.

140 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

. SL can be the “next step” of Web 2.0 transactions and not a “Pandora’s Box,”where virtual communities can co-manipulate a unique social experience orinteract and collaborate with other members.

. Educators and researchers should be concerned about what VWs are best at,and more important to identify collaborative learning-based scenarios that maysufficiently determine the learning procedure and the acquisition of knowledgefor students.

Last but not least, some contributing efforts that must be underlined are:

. The expanded analysis of 135 undergraduate and postgraduate students’engagement who involved in blended or online courses in SL, as in VWs arealacks an empirical study.

. The analysis of dynamic dimensions from students’ engagement that it wasoffered with the intervention in SL for blended and online groups.

. The comparative study results that emerged from the interrelation betweenthe students’ engagement and two of the most eligible course deliverymethods.

. The current study can be suggested to instructors of the Higher education as aguideline to for contacting and organizing educational activities held in SLwith two of the most reliable instructional formats.

Limitations of the study

The fundamental limitations which we should be worth bearing in mind wheninterpreting the present findings were:

(1) the sample size was voluntary and 135 correspondents wanted to participatefrom the overall 189 (response rate 71.5%);

(2) the subject availability was limited to three months. The study took place inthe middle of March 2012 and students may have to devote their time to otheruniversity-level courses or have preparations for other workshops;

(3) the students’ characteristics (socio-cognitive background, novice, moderate,or expert level in the use of ICT and Web 2.0 services) may differ fromstudents of other universities;

(4) Students’ characteristics may differ from other universities, and the results ofthis study cannot be generalized.

Future directions

The future research needs to elucidate the engagement factors with:

(1) Usable authoring tools for instructors to better monitoring the learningprocess, and

(2) Best design practices for rethinking a meticulous and innovative digitalapproach in order to reinforce Instructors’ Continuing ProfessionalDevelopment.

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

References

M. Alvarez, “Promoting academic success through student engagement”, Children Schools, 34(1), pp. 1–2, 2012.doi:10.1093/cs/cdr005D. Antonacci and N. Modaress, “Envisioning the educational possibilities of user-created virtual worlds”, AACEJournal, 16(2), pp. 115–126, 2008.J. Appleton, L. Christeson and J. Furlong, “Student engagement: Critical conceptual and methodological issuesof the construct”, Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), pp. 369–386, 2008. doi:10.1002/pits.20303C. Beaumont, M. Savin-Baden, E. Conradi and T. Poulton, “Evaluating a second life problem-based learning(PBL) demonstrator project: What can we learn?”, Interactive Learning Environments, 2012. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.641681D. Bell, “Learning from Second Life”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), pp. 515–525, 2009.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00943.xS. Bennett, A. Bishop, B. Dalgano, J. Waycott and G. Kennedy, “Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in highereducation: A collective study”, Computers and Education, 59(2), pp. 524–534, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022S. Bocconi, P. Kampylis and Y. Punie, “Innovating teaching and learning practices: Key elements for developingcreative classrooms in Europe”, eLearning Papers, 30, 1–13, 2012.K. Boulos, L. Hetherington and S. Wheeler, “Second life: An overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds inmedical and health education”, Health Information & Libraries Journal, 24(4), pp. 233–245, 2007. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00733.xS. Brown, “From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching”, InteractiveLearning Environments, 18(1), pp. 1–10, 2010. doi:10.1080/10494820802158983M. Burgess, J. Slate, A. Rojas-Lebouef, and K. Laprairie, “Teaching and learning in Second Life: using thecommunity of inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate students in instructionaltechnology”, The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), pp. 84–88, 2010.Y.-C. Chen, R.-H. Hwang and C.-Y. Wang, “Development and evaluation of Web 2.0 annotation system as alearning tool in an e-learning environment”, Computers and Education, 58(4), pp. 1094–1105, 2012.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.017M. Childs, L. Schnieders and G. Williams, “‘This above all: To thin own self be true’: Ethical considerations andrisks in conducting higher education learning activities in the virtual world Second Life™”, Interactive LearningEnvironments, 20(3), pp. 253–269, 2012. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.641679J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 1988.S. Dass, N. Dabbagh and K. Clark, “Using virtual worlds. What the research says?”, Quarterly Review ofDistance Education, 12(2), pp. 95–111, 2011.P. Dean, M. Stahl, D. Sylwester and J. Peat, “Effectiveness of combined delivery modalities for distance learningand resident learning”, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(3), pp. 247–254, 2001.M. Dickey, “Brave new (interactive) worlds: A review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3Dvirtual worlds as interactive learning environments”, Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1–2), pp. 121–137,2005. doi:10.1080/10494820500173714A. Duran, N. Extremera, L. Rey, P. Fernαndez-Berrocal and F.M. Moltalbαn, “Predicting academic burnout andengagement in educational settings: Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emotional intelligencebeyond perceived stress and general self-efficacy”, Psicothema, 18(suppl.), pp. 158–164, 2006.C.D. Dziuban, J.L. Hartman and P. D. Moskal, “Blended learning”, Educause Center for Applied Research,March 30, 2004. Available online at: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf (accessed 15October 2012).D. Finn, “Withdrawing from school”, Review of Educational Research, 59(2), pp. 117–142, 1989. doi:10.3102/00346543059002117D. Finn, School Engagement and Student at Risk, Washington, DC: National Center for Education, 39(4), pp.271–279, 1993.M. Flecknoe, “How can ICT help us to improve education?” Innovations in Education & Teaching International,39(4), pp. 271–280, 2002. doi:10.1080/13558000210161061K. Franceschi, R. Lee and D. Hilds, “Engaging e-learning in virtual worlds: Supporting group collaboration”,in Proceedings of the 41th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008), Waikoloa,Hawaii: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2008.

142 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

A. Fredicks, C. Blumenfeld and H. Paris, “School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence”,Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59–109, 2004. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059A. Fredricks and S. Eccles, “Parental influences on youth involvement in sports”, in Developmental Sport andExercise Psychology: A Lifespan Perspective, M.R. Weiss (Ed), Morgantown, WV: Fitness InformationTechnology, pp. 145–164, 2004.J.L. Glanville and T. Wildhagen, “The measurement of school engagement: Assessing dimensionalityand measurement invariance across race and ethnicity”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(6),pp. 1019–1041, 2007. doi:10.1177/0013164406299126J. Grenfell and I. Warren, “Virtual worlds to enhance student engagement”, The International Journal ofTechnology, Knowledge and Society, 6(1), pp. 25–40, 2010.M. Gresalfi, S. Barab, S. Siyahhan and T. Christensen, “Virtual worlds, conceptual understanding, and me:Designing for consequential engagement”, On the Horizon, 17(1), pp. 21–34, 2009. doi:10.1108/10748120910936126A.M. Harrington, “Problematizing the hybrid classroom for ESL/EFL students”, TESL-EJ, 14(3), 2010.Available online at: http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej55/a3.pdf (accessed 10 October 2012)D. Holley and M. Oliver, “Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk”, Computers andEducation, 54(3), pp. 693–700, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.035S. Hrastinski, “A theory of online learning as online participation”, Computers & Education, 52(1), pp. 78–82,2009. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009S. Hu and G. Kuht, “Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: The influences of student andinstitutional characteristics”, Research in Higher Education, 43(5), pp. 555–575, 2002. doi:10.1023/A:1020114231387International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2008. The ISTE National Educational TechnologyStandards (NETS T) and Performance Indicators for Teachers. Available online at: http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_T_Standards_Final.pdf (accessed 11 July 2012).T. Johnson, E. Top and E. Yukselturk, “Team shared mental model as a contributing factor to learn performanceand students’ course satisfaction in blended courses”, Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), pp. 2330–2338,2011. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.012Y. Kali, R. Levi-Peled and Y. Yudy Dori, “The role of design principles in designing courses that promotecollaborative learning in higher education”, Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), pp. 1067–1078, 2009.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.01.006Q. Kong, N. Wong and C. Lam, “Student Engagement in Mathematics: Development of Instrument andValidation of Construct”, Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), pp. 4–21, 2003. doi:10.1007/BF03217366A. Konstantinidis, Th. Tsiatsos, Th. Terzidou and A. Pomportsis, “Fostering collaborative learning in second life:Metaphors and affordances”, Computers & Education, 55, pp. 603–615, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.021G.D. Kuh, J. Kinzie, J.A. Buckley, B.K. Bridges and J.C. Hayek, What Matters to Student Success: A Review ofthe Literature, Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2006.A. Macías-Díaz, Report of Virtual Worlds in Education Conference at the University of Edinburgh, St Andrews:School of Management, University of St Andrews, 2008.F. Marković, O. Petrovic, C. Kittl and B. Edegger, “Pervasive learning games: A comparative study”, NewReview of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2), pp. 93–116, 2007. doi:10.1080/13614560701712873Y. Masters and S. Gregory, “Second life: Harnessing virtual world technology to enhance student engagementand learning”, in Rethinking learning in your discipline, Armidale, Australia: Teaching and Learning Centre,University of New England, 2010.M. Mayrath, T. Traphagan, E. Heikes and A. Trivedi, “Instructional design best practices for Second Life: A casestudy from a college-level English course”, Interactive Learning Environments, 19(2), pp. 125–142, 2011.doi:10.1080/10494820802602568A. McMahan, “Immersion, engagement, and presence: A new method for analyzing 3-D video games”, in TheVideo Game Theory Reader, M.J.P. Wolf and B. Perron (Eds), New York: Routledge, pp. 67–87, 2003.V. Mirabella, S. Kimani, S. Gabrielli and T. Catarci, “Accessible e-learning material: A no-frills avenue fordidactical experts”, New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 10(2), pp. 165–180, 2004. doi:10.1080/13614560412331325253N. Mount, C. Chambers, D. Weaver and G. Priestnall, “Learning immersion engagement in the 3D virtual world:Principles emerging from the DELVE project”, Italics, 8(3), pp. 40–55, 2009. doi:10.11120/ital.2009.08030040

Comparative perspectives and instructional affordances 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4

J. Ogbu, Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement, Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.B. Olaniran, “Culture, learning styles, and Web 2.0”, Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), pp. 261–271,2009. doi:10.1080/10494820903195124H. Park and S. Seo, “Effects of collaborative activities on group identity in virtual world”, Interactive LearningEnvironments, 2011. doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.604037E. Pascarella and P. Terenzini, How College Affects Students Vol. 2: A third Decade of Research, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 2005.N. Pellas, “A conceptual ‘cybernetic’ methodology for organizing and managing the e-learning process through[D-] CIVEs: The case of ‘Second Life’”, in Production and Manufacturing System Management: CoordinationApproaches and Multi-site Planning, P. Renna (Ed), Hershey, PA: Engineering Science Reference, pp. 278–314,2012.N. Pellas, “Towards a theoretical ‘cybernetic’ framework: Discovering the pedagogical value of the virtual world‘Second Life’”, in Software Development Techniques for Constructive Information Systems Design, K. Burggaand N. Zaman (Eds), Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 128–182, 2013a.N. Pellas, “An innovative ‘cybernetic’ organization improvement plan through participatory action research inpersistent ‘open source’ virtual worlds”, in Information Systems and Technology for Organization in aNetworked Society, T. Issa, P. Isaias and P. Kommers (Eds), Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 107–129, 2013b.N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis, “Utilizing and evaluating the virtual world of second life for collaborative activities:A primary case study”, in Proceedings of the 8th Pan-Hellenic Conference with International Participation “ICTin Education”, C. Karagiannidis, P. Politis and I. Karasavvidis (Eds), Greece: University of Thessaly, 2012.Available online at: http://hcicte2012.uth.gr/main/sites/default/files/proc/Proceedings/PellasKazanidis1.pdf(accessed 12 October 2012).N. Pellas, E. Peroutseas and I. Kazanidis, “Virtual communities of inquiry (VCoI) for learning basic algorithmicstructures with Open Simulator & Scratch4(OS): A case study from the Secondary Education in Greece”, inBalkan Conference in Informatics, BCI ’13, K. Diamantaras, G. Evangelidis, Y. Manolopoulos, C. Georgiadis, P.Kefalas and D. Stamatis (Eds), Thessaloniki, Greece: ACM Press, pp. 187–194, 2013.A. Sajjanhar, “Virtual worlds for student engagement”, Creative Education, 3, pp. 796–801, 2012. doi:10.4236/ce.2012.326118P. Shea and T. Bidjerano, “Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation and thedevelopment of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning environments”, Computers & Education,55(2), pp. 1721–1731, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.017J. Shen and L.B. Eder, “Intentions to use virtual worlds for education”, Journal of Information SystemsEducation, 20(2), pp. 225–233, 2009.J. Shernoff, “Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance”,American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(2), pp. 325–337, 2010. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9314-0?. Singh, Quantitative Social Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007.A. Skinner and J. Belmont, “Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and studentengagement across the school year”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, pp. 571–581, 1993. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571B. Somekh, Pedagogy and learning with ICT research the art innovation, Routledge: Oxford, 2007.C. Suárez-Orozco, A. Pimentel and M. Martin, “The significance of relations. Academia engagement andachievement among newcomer immigrant youth”, Teacher College Record, 111(3), pp. 712–749, 2009.N. Tselios, S. Daskalakis and M. Papadopoulou, “Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning universitycourse”, Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), pp. 224–235, 2011.F. Wang and J. Burton, “Second life in education: A review of publications from its launch to 2011”, BritishJournal of Educational Technology, 44(3), pp. 357–371, 2012.M. Wasko, R. Teigland, D. Leidner and S. Järvenpää, “Stepping into the Internet: New ventures in virtualworlds”, MIS Quarterly, 35(3), pp. 645–652, 2011.J. Voogt, M. Almekinders, J. van den Akker and B. Moonen, “A ‘blended’ in-service arrangement for classroomtechnology integration impacts on teachers and students”, Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), pp. 523–539,2005. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.003A. Zare-ee, “University teacher’s views on the use of information communication technologies in teaching andresearch”, TOJET, 11(3), pp. 318–327, 2011.C. Zhao and G. Kuh, “Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement”, Research in HigherEducation, 45(2), pp. 115–138, 2004. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de

144 N. Pellas and I. Kazanidis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:32

21

Oct

ober

201

4