Year 1/Stage 1 Report
AUSTRALIAN LEARNING AND TEACHING COUNCIL
Not for Publication
Grants Scheme
Year 1/ Stage 1 Report - 17th December 2009
FACILITATING FLEXIBLE, ENQUIRY-BASED EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING
THROUGH AN ACCESSIBLE, THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIRTUAL
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (3DVLE)
CG8-738
Lead institution: University of South Australia
Partner institution/s:
Flinders University
University of Sydney
Edith Cowan University
RMIT
Monash University
University of Sheffield (UK)
Project leader/s and contact details:
Dr. Denise Wood and Assoc Professor Gerry Bloustien
School of Communication
University of South Australia
St Bernards Road, Magill, SA 5072
Phone: 08 8302 4642 Mobile: 0413 648 260
Email: denise.wood@unisa.edu.au
Revised June 2009
Page 1 of 55
1.
Progress against specified outcomes and deliverables
This project address the limitations of existing 3D virtual learning environments
(3DVLEs) and as outlined in the initial project proposal, aims to encourage and
raise awareness of the potential of 3DVLEs as generic pedagogical tools for
flexible, experiential and community-based disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
learning in simulated environments. In accordance with the agreed outcomes
and deliverables the project thus far has achieved the following milestones:
Design and develop an accessible open source 3DVLE as a generic
pedagogical tool for flexible, experiential and community-based disciplinary
and cross-disciplinary learning in simulated environments
The requirements of the platform have been specified based on: a) extensive
review of the literature; b) ethnographic research undertaken in the 3D virtual
environment Second Life to identify accessibility specifications, authoring tool
requirements and multimedia features to be incorporated in the final learning
platform, and c) consultation with industry experts, people who identify as
being disabled and project team members. Several accessibility solutions have
been developed in collaboration with disability groups in Second Life including
Virtual Helping Hands. As a result of this collaboration a range of accessibility
specifications have been developed, technical solutions designed and initial
testing conducted in Second Life. A list of the specifications, solutions
developed so far and planned changes are documented in this report.
Several peer reviewed papers have been published and conference
presentations delivered reporting on the findings from the research completed
to date (see Appendix A). A network has been established linking key
researchers in the educational use of virtual worlds in Australia and a subgroup from that consortium is acting as the reference group for this project.
There has been significant industry consultation as well as collaboration with
disability organisations to ensure the platform under development meets
industry standards, is consistent with W3C accessibility guidelines and is a
suitable learning environment for higher education providers. There has also
been significant media coverage throughout the project.
Develop source code based on the same open source standards as popular
3DVEs such as Second Life (SL), which is a privately owned 3D virtual world
operated by Linden Laboratories
Over the last twelve months we have been comparing the features of various
open source platforms. To this end we have installed two different open source
systems on our University based server (OpenSim and SUN MicroSystems
Wonderland). As part of this evaluation process we have continued to conduct
trials in Second Life, and we have met with various industry experts from SUN
to discuss the features of the Wonderland platform, as well as consultation with
academics from other related ALTC funded projects (including USQ). Our
evaluations initially led us to rank Wonderland as our preferred platform for
development. That platform has undergone significant development over the
last twelve months and has required us to revise specifications constantly to
accommodate revisions released to the open source community. In parallel,
there have been important developments with both the OpenSim platform and
Second Life. A large number of universities and libraries are beginning to trial
OpenSim, and a company has now established a private, protected grid with
solutions that allow institutions to install the platform on their own h ost
institution servers. The underlying platform for this grid is OpenSim. Another
major development has been the release of a ‘behind the firewall’ option for
educators using Second Life as their preferred teaching and learning platform.
This means that a University can now host Second Life on their own servers,
although the server software remains under the control of Linden Lab, the
company that owns and manages Second Life.
This is an important development for this project because the viewer (client)
software for Second Life is open source. This is the same viewer that is used
to access OpenSim virtual worlds. Moreover, the Media Grid Consortium in the
US has now successfully transported avatars via their grid between
Wonderland and Second Life, with OpenSim also one of the standards they
are supporting. As a result, we are now focusing development on the client
viewer so that it provides an accessible interface by which learners can interact
with either OpenSim or Second Life 3DVLE platforms. This means that
education providers already using Second Life will not have to convert to a
new platform if they prefer using Second Life on their own server, but will be
able to use the tools and accessibility technologies we are already developing
in Second Life on either platform.
We have installed OpenSim on our University server and this will be ready for
trials in February 2010. We have also negotiated four free SIMs on
ReactionGrid (a public platform running OpenSim) for trials of courses and
have advised our partners and the newly established Australian Research and
Education Virtual Worlds Association that these SIMs will be available for
external trials throughout 2010. Two of the SIMs are already fully built with one
established to trial career planning events and Student-Employer fairs next
year (see Appendix B).
Ensure the 3DVLE developed using open source standards will integrate a
range of accessibility features that are currently not supported by 3DVEs
As mentioned, extensive work has been done in this area through consultation
with recognised disability experts, meetings with disability advocates in Second
Life and ethnographic research with individuals who identify as disabled. We
have been consulting with the Media Grid Consortium, the Association for
Virtual Worlds, ReactionGrid and most recently, Linden Lab in Second Life to
ensure the solution we develop is compatible with all of the existing virtual
worlds. We have also been consulting with the Australian Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity, Trace Centre, Madison-Wisconsin and the International
Center for Disability Resources on the Internet to ensure the accessibility
solutions, guidelines and policies that we are developing meet the required
international accessibility standards. The identified accessibility issues with
current technologies have been widely reported through a combination of peer
reviewed publications, conference presentations and ‘in world’ forums
conducted in Second Life. Denise Wood is reporting on the research
developments in a monthly segment on Radio 5RPH, which has a listener base
of 60,000 people with disabilities, and a series of Webinars reporting the
outcomes of the research is being hosted twice monthly by the California based Easy Access to Information organisation. As a result of this work,
Denise was appointed to the Australian Communications Consumer Action
Network Standing Advisory Committee on Disability Issues earlier this year and
was invited to present on the topic of accessibility of Web 2.0 and 3D virtual
worlds at the Gov 2.0 roundtable held at Parliament House on November 26 th,
2009 (http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/11/25/gov2-0-roundtable-onaccessibility-for-people-with-disabilities/).
The shell open source accessible interface is well into development. Dubbed
AccessGlobe, this open source viewer enables the user to select from a drop
down list which 3D world they want to connect to. It vocalises all menu options,
inventory items and narrates any text typed in the text chat window by utilising
the user’s built in voice engine (Appendix C). Further developments will involve
integrating ‘in world’ scripting that will speak aloud the names of avatars
nearby, find and narrate the labels of objects and lead the user’s avatar to an
object or follow another avatar. We are also working on a solution that will
speak aloud the coordinates of the 3D world grid so that a visually impaired
user can locate their avatar in world. These enhancements are summarised
below:
Completed:
 Modify Snowglobe (AccessGlobe) to implement text to speech output
for:
◦ Buttons
◦ Login Fields
◦ Chat Messages
◦ Instant Messages
◦ System Notifications and alerts
 Modify AccessGlobe viewer to allow login to Reaction Grid from login
screen.
 Clean up button and field names to have human understandable names
instead of programmatic names.



Create install / deinstall application for AccessGlobe and related
software.
Install Open Sim Server on UniSA server.
Configure Open Sim Server on UniSA Server.
In Progress:
 Extend Text to speech to:
◦ Inventory
◦ Friends List
 Modify viewer to allow login to local UniSA Server.
 Open the AccessGlobe viewer for testing by beta testers.
Planned:
 Recode the viewer to correctly detect grid when drawing world map.
(Currently the standard Second Life map is drawn)
The accessibility features of this open source viewer can turned off by the user
if not required making the viewer suitable to students regardless of whether or
not they have a disability.
Provide a range of accessible open source 3DVLE ‘tools’ such as whiteboards,
streaming media player, slide presenter, quizzes, interactive feedback form,
polling system and guest books, enabling academics to adapt ‘real life’
approaches to the creation of interactive activities designed to maximise
learner engagement
We are developing a large number of accessible teaching tools that can be
used in world and also simultaneously accessed from a standard web page for
users who cannot access the 3D virtual world environment. These tools
include:






Multi Grid / Multi Platform Slide-show / Movie Presenter (in progress)
Slide Presenter Closed Captioning tool. (Completed – See Appendix D)
IRC / WEB / Virtual World Chat Bridge.
Implement Google Auto-Captioning system.
Develop a virtual world / Web based quiz / exam system.
Develop a Guest book tool for Virtual Spaces.
Once these accessibility tools have been fully developed they will be trialled in
nominated courses across the partner institutions.
Develop guidelines to address pedagogy, accessibility and legal, ethical and
intellectual property (IP) responsibilities, as well as case studies of best
practice across disciplines to guide academics in designing environments that
facilitate learner engagement and experiential learning
Socio-cultural, accessibility, legal and ethical issues that need to be addressed
by the project have been identified through review of the literature and
ethnographic research undertaken in Second Life. Team members have also
undertaken review of health and defense case studies in Second Life. The
findings have been reported via peer reviewed publications and conference
presentations. The trials of courses undertaken in Second Life have identified
a range of pedagogical benefits and issues as well as limitations in relation to
intellectual property. A case study template (Appendix E) has been distributed
to partner institutions and as our partners trial courses they are documenting
the findings using the template. Several courses have already been written up
using this template (see Appendix F as an example). Once a sufficient number
of cases have been documented, the project team will be analysing the
findings and finalising the pedagogical guidelines. The completion of case
studies is running to schedule.
In my previous report I mentioned that delays in the signing of partner
contracts impacted on our partners’ capacity to complete case studies within
the planned timelines as well on one of the planned deliverables, which
involves the design of ethical guidelines. As a result of the delay Professor
Mark Israel from Flinders University was not able to commence this component
of the project due to his ALTC commitments and other University
commitments. A six month extension was requested and approved by the
ALTC to accommodate these unforeseen delays in finalisation of partner
contracts. At this stage Professor Israel plans to continue as a team member
as adjunct Professor at Flinders University and this aspect of the project will be
carried out in 2010.
Release the deliverables from the proposed project to the Carrick community
allowing universities access to the benefits of 3DVLEs.
Dissemination of outcomes from our initial review of the literature , trials in
Second Life and consultation with stakeholders has been ongoing through
publication, conference presentations, ‘in-world’ meetings and via the project
website. This is to ensure high profile and accountability of the project and to
encourage stakeholder ‘buy-in’ enabling the project to best meet the
requirements of the wider academic community. The project website and the
ALTC exchange will be the main vehicles for dissemination of the final
deliverables (ie guidelines and the open source code itself). There have also
been a significant number of peer reviewed publications and considerable
media coverage, which are documented later in this report.
2.
Review of Progress
This project addresses the limitations of existing 3D virtual learning
environments (3DVLEs) and as outlined in the initial project proposal, aims to
encourage and raise awareness of the potential of 3DVLEs as generic
pedagogical tools for flexible, experiential and community-based disciplinary
and cross-disciplinary learning in simulated environments. In accordance with
the agreed outcomes and deliverables the project thus far has achieved the
following milestones:
Design and develop an accessible open source 3DVLE as a generic
pedagogical tool for flexible, experiential and community-based disciplinary
and cross-disciplinary learning in simulated environments
The design specifications have been completed and widely reported via our
comprehensive dissemination strategy.
As described above, a large number of accessibility tools have been developed
in Second Life in collaboration with disability groups and these are being
adapted to our open source platform.
Both Wonderland and OpenSim have been installed on our test server.
Guidelines and standards for designing 3DVLEs using these two open source
platforms are well under development. The solution we have arrived at in
focusing development on the client software using open source standards
means that the final deliverable will enable educators much greater choice in
which 3DVLE platform they wish to use, thereby maximising the benefits to the
higher education community.
Develop source code based on the same open source standards as popular
3DVEs such as Second Life (SL), which is a privately owned 3D virtual world
operated by Linden Laboratories
As mentioned above, both Wonderland and OpenSim platforms already exist
and can be freely downloaded by any individual and installed on their own
servers. Second Life can also now be installed on an institutional server using
the ‘behind the firewall’ solution. This environment cannot be modified, but the
interface solution we are developing using the client software will ensure the
learning environment is more usable and accessible regardless of whether
OpenSim or Second Life is the preferred platform. Moreover, the teaching tools
we develop will be supported by both the open source OpenSim platform and
Second Life.
Ensure the 3DVLE developed using open source standards will integrate a
range of accessibility features that are currently not supported by 3DVEs
Extensive work has been done in this area through consultation with
recognised disability experts, meetings with disability advocates in Second Life
and ethnographic research with individuals who identify as disabled. The
identified accessibility issues with current technologies have been widely
reported through a combination of peer reviewed publications, conference
presentations and ‘in world’ forums conducted in Second Life. A series of
Webinars reporting the outcomes of this research is also being hosted by the
California-based Easy Access to Information organisation. These extensive
consultations are documented in the preceding section. A significant
development in the project has been the willingness of Linden Lab to now work
with us on the solutions we are developing as their liaison staff are
acknowledging that the open source technologies we are developing can also
serve the higher education community currently utilising Second Life as their
preferred education platform.
Provide a range of accessible open source 3DVLE ‘tools’ such as whiteboards,
streaming media player, slide presenter, quizzes, interactive feedback form,
polling system and guest books, enabling academics to adapt ‘real life’
approaches to the creation of interactive activities designed to maximise
learner engagement.
As mentioned above, the teaching tools are well into development and will be
trialled in 2010.
Develop guidelines to address pedagogy, accessibility and legal, ethical and
intellectual property (IP) responsibilities, as well as case studies of best
practice across disciplines to guide academics in designing environments that
facilitate learner engagement and experiential learning.
Socio-cultural, accessibility, legal and ethical issues that need to be addressed
by the project have been identified through review of the literature and
ethnographic research undertaken in Second Life. The findings have been
reported via peer reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trials of
courses undertaken in Second Life over the last twelve months (see example
case study in Appendix F) have identified a range of pedagogical benefits and
issues as well as limitations relation to intellectual property. This initial
research will form the basis for further development of guidelines as the new
platform is developed and trialled. To date six courses have been trialled at
UniSA in the Communications discipline and we are negotiating to conduct
trials in the Health Sciences and Marketing in the coming months. Our partner
institutions have also been conducting trials with two case studies completed
by our UK partners. Professor Ilana Snyder and Dr Michael Henderson have
been undertaking trials investigation the potential use of 3D virtual worlds for
HDR pedagogy and Dr Ian Maxwell has been developing case studies in the
disciplinary fields of Education and Medicine at the University of Sydney . As
mentioned above, the development of the ethical and IP guidelines has been
deferred until 2010 in view of the delays with the finalisation of partner
contracts as documented above.
Release the deliverables from the proposed project to the ALTC community
allowing universities access to the benefits of 3DVLEs.
Dissemination of outcomes from our initial review of the literature, trials in
Second Life and consultation with stakeholders has been ongoing through
publication, conference presentations, ‘in-world’ meetings and via the project
website. This is to ensure high profile and accountability of the project and to
encourage stakeholder ‘buy-in’ enabling the project to best meet the
requirements of the wider academic community. The project website and the
ALTC exchange will be the main vehicles for dissemination of the final
deliverables (ie guidelines and the open source code itself).
2.2 Lessons learnt
The milestones originally anticipated sign-off on criteria and design
specifications by the end of 2008. This proved unrealistic because the platform
chosen for development underwent major revisions during the first s ix months
of the project with some revisions not released until May 2009. As explained in
preceding sections, the significant developments that have also occurred with
other platforms meant that we have had to reassess our preferred enviro nment
for development. Thus, we will begin trials of the new platform in 2010 rather
than the latter half of 2009 as originally envisaged.
Lead time for contract negotiation was not factored into our original milestones
as we had envisaged this to be a much less complex process than has proven
to be the case. So while we had recruited a suitable programmer for the project
in October 2008 and he was keen to commence the project immediately, the
legal complexities involved in sub-contracting a programmer located off-shore
(in this case the US) led to delays in finalisation of the required contract. This
delay was also discussed in our six monthly report in January 2009. However,
we had not anticipated that there would also be significant delays on
finalisation of partner contracts, with the last of the contracts not received by
UniSA until the end of February of this year – six months later than envisaged.
In future, milestones therefore had to be adjusted to accommodate the delays,
Future projects should factor into the timelines the possibility that contracts
with partners might take up to six months for finalisation to avoid creating
unrealistic timelines for partner involvement.
2.3
Challenges met
The milestones originally anticipated sign-off on criteria and design
specifications by end of 2008. As documented above, this proved unrealistic
because the platform chosen for development was undergoing major revisions
and given the other technological developments occurring during that period,
we were forced us to reassess the preferred platform for development. The
challenges arise because 3D virtual environments are undergoing rapid
evolution and it is very difficult to anticipate some of the developments in
advance. Instead, we must adapt to changes as they occur and leverage the
benefits from all platforms to ensure maximum benefit to the higher education
community.
Lead time for contract negotiation was not factored into our original milestones
as we had envisaged this to be a much less complex process than has proven
to be the case. The delays in finalisation of partner contracts impacted on the
development of case studies and associated guidelines.
2.4 Indicate if and how these challenges will impact on the outcomes, the
timeline and the budget? Please specify.
These issues have not impacted on the outcomes or budget. However, we had
to request an extension of six months (which was approved) to allow our
partners sufficient time to contribute their components of the project as
documented in the original proposal.
2.5 In terms of the planned deliverables, what is your estimation of how far
the project has progressed? Please indicate percentage below:
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
3.
Formative Evaluation
Please attach copies of evaluations of events / activities undertaken
3.1
What Formative Evaluation Processes are being used?
As outlined in original project proposal, trials of the use of 3DVLEs have been
ongoing and the outcomes of the trials have been evaluated through a
combination of anonymous online student questionnaires, focus groups and
interviews with teachers. The outcomes from these trials have been used to
inform the development of the platform as well as the guidelines to accompany
the final deliverables.
The project website includes a bug tracking tool and Wiki, which will enable
academics to report issues as the project progresses.
Formal evaluations of student experience using 3D virtual worlds in the
specified courses have been conducted via anonymous online questionnaires.
The case study provided in the Appendix section of this report includes an
example of the online questionnaire completed by students (Appendix F). The
findings from these trials have been widely reported via conference
presentations and published peer reviewed papers.
Once the beta of the platform under development is ready for trials early next
year, formal evaluation via online questionnaires and ‘in world’ focus groups
will be implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of the new open source
platform and the guidelines under development in a formative manner.
Several individuals who identify as having disabilities have been recruited to
beta test the platform in terms of accessibility and usability. Initial testing has
already begun with members of disability groups in Second Life. The UniSA
Legal Services Department is advising us on the appropriate protocols to
follow in contracting the services of these individuals.
There has been widespread industry consultation as well as liaison with
disability organisations to ensure that what we are developing meets
international standards. The input from these expert groups has been
invaluable in allowing us to revise the technologies and guidelines that are
being developed progressively and in an iterative manner.
Denise Wood is reporting on progress on the project and other technological
developments in the field via her regular radio 5RPH program segment,
associated blog and EASI Webinars.
A national reference group has been established comprising members from
related ALTC projects, educators and industry providers who have
considerable expertise in the field. The representatives include:






Professor Peter Albion (University of Southern Queensland)
Linda McKeown (University of Queensland)
Professor Farzad Safaei (University of Wollongong)
Associate Professor Melissa de Zwart (formerly Monash now at
University of South Australia)
Mandy Salomon (Swinburne University of Technology)
James Sankar AARNET
An initial meeting was held earlier this year, a second meeting was held on the
15th July 2009 and a national meeting was held at the University of
Wollongong September 2009.
Professor Ron Oliver (Edith Cowan University) has agreed to undertake the
independent evaluation of the project and will participate in many of our
monthly teleconference meetings throughout 2010.
3.2
What have you learnt from these processes thus far?
The ongoing trials in Second Life have proved to be a very effective
mechanism for identifying issues in existing platforms as well as identifying
variability in student responsiveness to 3DVLEs, which need to be taken into
account in the development of pedagogical guidelines.
Given the accessibility guidelines have applicability beyond education it has
been particularly beneficial to have the participation of the wider disability
community as the accessibility guidelines are developed.
The widespread media attention, public consultation as well as our
presentations at a variety of conferences (Appendix A) has helped to ensure
our project is publicly accountable.
4.
Dissemination
What dissemination activities have you undertaken?
See Appendix A for detailed list of all dissemination activities to date. These
include:

Four book chapters (3 submitted for publication / in press and one
under review)

Four peer reviewed journal papers either published or under review

Eight national and international conference presentations completed or
proposed for 2010.

Presentations at various forums, colloquia and seminars as
documented in Appendix A

Widespread industry consultation including:
•
Linden Lab
•
Immersive Media Consortium
•
Association for Virtual Worlds
•
Australian Virtual World Collaboration
•
AARNET
•
Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
•
Trace Centre, Wisconsin-Madison
•
International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet
•
Easy Access to Software and Information
•
Virtual Helping Hands
•
Virtual Ability Inc
•
Alliance Library System in the US
•
Gimp Girl
•
Wheelies group in Second Life
•
Our Australian education reference group

Significant media coverage (see Appendix A)

Radio 5RPH and associated blog

Presentation at AARNET hosted national workshop in September 2009
at University of Wollongong

Presentation at Gov 2.0 RoundTable at Parliament House on 26 th
September 2009.

Project Website
5.
Impact
Is there any evidence of the impact from your project? If yes, where and how?
Yes, the interest shown by all of industry groups represented above, education
providers and the media is evidence that the innovative technological solutions
under development are ground breaking and will have significant benefit for
improving the accessibility of 3D virtual learning platforms for diverse learners.
6.
Events
Provide details of events held during the period. Events include workshops,
forums or colloquiums involving participants outside of the project team.
Date/s of the
event
Event title,
Location (city
only)
Brief description
of the purpose of
the event
Number of
participant
s
Number of
Higher
Education
institutions
represented
Number of
other
institutions
represented
26th
2009
Gov 2.0
RoundTable,
Canberra
Presentation to
Ministers,
Disability
Discrimination
Commissioner
and several
Senior
Government
policy makers as
well as
representatives
from disability
organisations on
accessibility
issues in Web
2.0 applications
and 3D virtual
worlds and the
solutions we are
designing with
ALTC funding
support.
Workshop
demonstrating
Approx 35
Only UniSA
(rest of
participants
were reps
from Govt
and NGOs)
Approx 1012
Approx 40
Approx 12
Approx 6
Nov
17th
September,
AARNET/Virtual
worlds workshop,
2009
Wollongong
12th August,
2009
ATEM Central
Region Event,
Adelaide
17th
November,
2009
Healthy
Development
Adelaide
31st July,
2009
Technologies of
Disability Forum,
Sydney
27th June
2009
‘Helen
Keller’
event in Second
Life (virtual)
18th
February
2009
Health
Literacy
on the Internet,
Education
Development
Centre, Adelaide
1 st and 5 th
December,
2008
South
Pacific
User
Services
workshop,
Adelaide
Second Life
Health
conference
(virtual)
1st October
2008
different 3D
virtual learning
platforms to
representatives
from Aust
Universities
Presentation
about Webs,
Wikis, Blogs and
3D worlds
Approx 40
3
none
Presentation on
health education
programs in 3D
virtual worlds
Presentation on
accessibility
issues in 3DVLEs
Approx 40
3
?
Approx 20
2
Teaching in 3D
virtual
worlds
workshop/present
ation
Presentation by
Gerry Bloustien
12
Unknown
(virtual
participants)
Unknown
(virtual
participants)
50
3
one
Presentation on
teaching in 3D
virtual worlds
Approx 18
?
?
Accessibility
virtual worlds
Approx 610
Unknown
(virtual
participants)
Unknown
(virtual
participants)
in
Provide details of events planned over the next six months. If you would like to
publicise forthcoming events on the ALTC website please go to
http://www.altc.edu.au/submit-event
7. International collaboration
Provide details of any international fora where the project has been
represented.
Poster session held at the IEEE Accessing the Future Conference in Boston,
20-21st July 2009: .
http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/accessingthefuture/documents/wood.pdf
EASI in California is broadcasting monthly podcasts from Denise’s regular
radio segments on Radio 5RPH.
8. Requests for approval of proposed amendments
There are no further amendments requested beyond those previously
approved and documented in previous reports.
Appendices (if applicable)
Appendix A: Dissemination (publications, workshops and media coverage
arising from the project thus far)
Appendix B: Screen shot of one of the four SIMs established on the
ReactionGrid public Server (careers sim)
Appendix C: Screen shots of accessible open source viewer under
development
Appendix D: Example of accessible teaching tools under development
Appendix E: Case Study Template used by team for trials
Appendix F: Completed Case Study examples
Appendix A – Dissemination
Book Chapters
Wood, Denise (forthcoming 2010). The benefits and unanticipated challenges
in the use of 3D virtual learning environments in the undergraduate
media arts curriculum. In G. Vincenti and J. Bramam (eds.) Teaching
through Multi-User Virtual Environments: Applying Dynamic Elements to
the Modern Classroom, IGI Global, Hershey PA.
Fewster, R., Chafer and Wood, D. (forthcoming 2010). Staging Second Life in
real and virtual spaces. In G. Vincenti and J. Bramam (eds.) Teaching
through Multi-User Virtual Environments: Applying Dynamic Elements to
the Modern Classroom, IGI Global, Hershey PA.
Hickey-Moody, A. and Wood, D. (in press). Ethics in Second Life: Difference,
desire and the production of subjectivity. In C.Wankel.and S. Malleck
(eds.) Emerging Ethical Issues of Life in Virtual Worlds, New York.
Lindsay, N. and Wood, D. (under review). Supporting diversity through
culturally appropriate entrepreneurship training in a 3D virtual world. In A.
Edmundson (ed.) Globalised and Culturally Appropriate eLearning:
Challenges and Solutions IGI Global, Hershey PA
Peer Reviewed Journal Publications
Wood, D. (in press). Virtually inclusive online learning environments, to be
submitted for special edition of Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of
Education, Carfax, Taylor and Francis, 2010.
Wood, D. (in press). Engaging the ‘net generation’ in research focused
activities through the use of Web 2.0 and 3D virtual learning
environments, the International Journal of Humanities. The University
Press Journals, New York and Victoria.
Wood, D. (2009). Real life access to Second Life worlds: The potential, the
problems and the possibilities for a barrier-free future, the International
Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 8(6).
The University Press Journals, New York and Victoria.
Bloustien, G and Wood. D. 2009 ‘Can I borrow your face for a minute?’: Issues
of aesthetics and bodily transformations in Second Life. Body and
Society (under review)
Hickey-Moody, A. and Wood, D. (2008). Virtually sustainable: Deleuze &
desiring differenciation in Second Life, Continuum: Journal of Media &
Cultural Studies, 22(6), pp. 805-816. Routledge, London.
Peer Reviewed Conference Presentations
Wood, D. (2009). Experiential learning in 3D virtual worlds: Students making a
difference to ‘real’ lives in ‘virtual’ places. Proceedings of the 26th
Annual ASCILITE Conference: Same Places: Different Spaces,
Auckland, New Zealand, 6 th-9th December, 2009.
Fewster, R., Chafer and Wood, D. (2009). Performance pedagogy in ‘real’ and
‘virtual’ spaces, to be submitted for review to Same Places, Different
Spaces: The 26th Annual Ascilite Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Lindsay, N. and Wood, D. (2009). Designing a flexible entrepreneur training
program for ‘real’, ‘virtual’ and ‘blended’ spaces, to be submitted for review
to E-Learn--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government,
Healthcare, & Higher Education, Vancouver, Canada, 26-30 October,
2009.
Bloustien G . ‘Teenagers, social networking & health literacy: a ‘Deadly’ mix? Key
note presentation at
Bloustien, G. (forthcoming 2009) Does my skin look big in this? Aesthetics and
bodily transformations in 3DVE for panel “No escape from reality:
S(t)imulating experiences in three dimensional virtual learning
environments (3DVLE) to be presented at The Australian Anthropological
Society Annual Conference 2009: The Ethics and Politics of Engagement,
Macquarie University, NSW, 10-11th December, 2009”.
Bloustien G & Wood, D. (forthcoming 2009) “Refractions through virtual space:
photography as methodological tool and research object in 3D immersive
environments” to be presented at 1st International Visual Methods
Conference. Leeds University September 15-17th 2009.
Bloustien, G. and Wood, D. (forthcoming 2009). 'Can I borrow your face for a
minute?' Issues of aesthetics and bodily transformations in Second Life.
Paper presented at the CFP - Cosmetic Cultures: Beauty, Globalisation,
Politics, Practices, University of Leeds, 24 - 26 of June 2009.
Seifert, J (2009) Vandalism and Terrorism in Second Life to be presented at The
Australian Anthropological Society Annual Conference 2009: The Ethics
and Politics of Engagement, Macquarie University, NSW, 10-11th
December, 2009.
Morgan, A (2009) Using Second Life for Medical Understanding of Hallucinatory
Experiences to be presented at The Australian Anthropological Society
Annual Conference 2009: The Ethics and Politics of Engagement,
Macquarie University, NSW, 10-11th December, 2009.
Christie, E and Bloustien, G (2009) ‘I cyborg: or how I became a better human
through machines’ Paper presented at Paper presented at Cosmetic
Cultures: Beauty, globalisation, politics, practices. Leeds University June
24th 2009. Also to be presented at The Australian Anthropological Society
Annual Conference 2009: The Ethics and Politics of Engagement,
Macquarie University, NSW, 10-11th December, 2009.
Hickey-Moody, A. and Wood, D. (2009). Ethnography and the ethics of affect in
virtual worlds to be presented at The Australian Anthropological Society
Annual Conference 2009: The Ethics and Politics of Engagement,
Macquarie University, NSW, 10-11th December, 2009.
Wood, D., Morris, C. and Ussery, J. (2009). Accessibility Solutions for 3D Virtual
Learning Environments. Peer reviewed abstract for publication in
Proceedings of IEEE Accessing the Future Conference, Boston, 20-21st
July 2009. http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/accessingthefuture/
Wood, D. and Hopkins, L. (2008). 3D virtual environments: businesses are
ready but are our ‘digital natives’ prepared for the changing landscape?
Proceedings of ASCILITE 2008: Hello! Where are you in the landscape
of educational technology? Deakin University, Melbourne.
Hickey-Moody, A. and Wood, D. (2008). Imagining Otherwise: Deleuze,
Disability & Second Life, Proceedings of Australian & New Zealand
Communication Association Annual Conference, 2008, Massey, New
Zealand.
Other presentations
Wood, D. (2009). Invited presenter at the Gov 2.0 Roundtable on Accessibility
for People with Disabilities, Parliament House, Canberra, 26th
November 2009.
Wood, D. (2009). Avatars, Health and Education in Virtual Worlds, Broaden
your Media Horizons, Healthy Development Adelaide, 17th November,
2009. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hda/news/
Wood, D, (2009). Virtual Worlds, AARNet training workshop, the University of
Wollongong, 17th September, 2009.
Wood, D. (2009). Technologies of disability in virtual worlds. Panelist with
Hickey-Moody, A. and Goggin, G. Technologies of Disability
Symposium, Sydney University, Sydney, Australia, 31st July, 2009.
Wood, D., Morris, C. and Ussery, J. (2009). Accessibility Solutions for 3D
Virtual Learning Environments. Extended abstract IEEE Accessing the
Future Conference, Boston, 20-21st July 2009.
http://ewh.ieee.org/conf/accessingthefuture/documents/wood.pdf
Wood, D., Raghavendra, P. and Newman, L. (2009) Internet use by
children/adolescents with physical disabilities: Implications for social
networking at the 2009 Research Symposium, Novita Regency Park
Centre, Wednesday 5th August.
Wood, D. (2009). Ethics in screen production research, panelist at the
Australian Screen Production Research and Education Association
annual conference, 9th July, 2009, Adelaide.
Wood, D. (2009). Teaching in Second Life, invited speaker at the Helen Keller
event in Second Life, 27th June, 2009
[http://www.unisa.edu.au/news/2009/250609A.asp].
Wood, D. (2009). Webs, Wikis, Blogs and Avatars! What the? ATEM Central
Region, invited speaker, 12 th August, 2009, Adelaide.
Bloustien, G. (2008) Refractions through virtual space: photography as tool
and symbol in 3D immersive environments. Photographies: new
histories, new practices conference, ANU School of Art in conjunction
with VIVID, the inaugural National Photography Festival 11 th July 2008.
Bloustien, G. (2008). Invited presentation: Refracting subjectivity: photography
as mimetic tool and symbol in 3D immersive environments. Sociology
Departmental Seminar, Flinders University, Adelaide, Thursday July
18th
Wood, D. (2008). Keynote speaker: Virtually inclusive Web 2.0 and 3 D online
communities. Australian Rehabilitation and Technology Conference,
Adelaide, 22 nd September 2008.
Wood, D. (2008). Invited presentation: Accessibility in 3D virtual worlds. Paper
presented at the Alliance Library Second Life Health Info Round Table,
8th October 2008.
Wood, D. (2008). Student engagement in immersive 3D virtual learning
environments: Pitfalls and promises. Paper presented at the UniSA
Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences Teaching and Learning
Colloquium, November 2008.
Wood, D. (2008). Invited presentation: Second Life in higher education.
Demonstration conducted at the South Pacific User Services
Conference, Adelaide, 1st December 2008.
In progress
Gerry Bloustien is also preparing a paper for her edited collection a Framed:
screen representations of otherness and refracted subjectivity. Negotiations for
publication are underway with two potential British publishers: PalgraveMacmillan and BFI.
Denise Wood is negotiating with a publisher regarding a proposed edited
collection of chapters for a book titled Designing Accessible Virtual Worlds.
Media Coverage
2009

Interview with Peter Greco, 5RPH Radio 28th November 2009, discussing
outcomes from the Round Table on Government 2.0 held at Parliament House
on the 26th November.

Article by Lowell Cremorne, Interview – Denise Wood, University of South
Australia, The Metaverse Journal, November 2, 2009,
http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/11/02/interview-denise-wooduniversity-of-south-australia/

Article in Technology Guide, Real Experience in an Unreal World, Education
Review, October 2009, p. v1.

UniSA News article September 2009, Improving communities, enhancing
student learning,
http://www.unisa.edu.au/unisanews/2009/September/feature.asp

Interview with Peter Greco, 5RPH Radio 29th August 2009, discussing student
engagement and experiential learning (Community Webs project and Health
Support Coalition student projects)

Interview with Peter Godfrey, Radio Adelaide 101.5 FM, 17th August 2009
about our research into providing accessibility solutions in 3D virtual worlds for
students with disabilities

Interview with Peter Greco, 5RPH Radio 25th July 2009, report on the IEEEIBM Accessing the Future Conference, Boston.

Interview with Peter Greco, RPH radio, 27th June 2009, report on the Helen
Keller event in Second Life.

Virtual Ability. SBS World News special on 30th May 2009.
2008

It's A Buyer's Market As Crunch Hits Virtual Realty, Sun Herald, December
28th, 2008, journalist Edmund Tardos.

Virtually Real. Outlook article published in City Messenger and Eastern
Courier Outlook, May 2008, journalist Louise Russell.
APPENDIX B: ONE OF THE REACTIONGRID SIMS FOR OPENSIM TRIALS
APPENDIX C: OPEN SOURCE ACCESSIBLE VIEWER UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Appendix D: ACCESSIBLE SLIDE SHOW PRESENTER (in world and via
Web based interface with voice and text)
APPENDIX E:
3D VIRTUAL LEARNING CASE STUDY TEMPLATE
Institution
Course/Subject
Contact
Prerequisite Skills
Background
Aims and Objectives
Intended Learning Outcomes
Assessment
Description of Learning Activities
Related material
Evaluation
Conclusion
Relevant References
Publications Relating to this Case Study
Evaluation Tools
Appendix F:
3D Virtual Learning Example Case Study
Institution:
University of South Australia
Course/Subject
Electronic Arts: Visual Theatre (PERF 2006)
Contact
Russell Fewster (coordinator)
Prerequisite Skills
Students have completed one year of undergraduate study
No prerequisite skill in using 3D virtual learning environments assumed
Background
Electronic Arts: Visual Theatre is a second-year course that runs on a weekly
3-hour basis over a 12 week period. The course offers students the opportunity
to create performance work that integrates visual technologies. Com positional
principles are conveyed through the body and technology and developed via
improvisation and team work. Reference to historical and new emerging
technologies offer interesting and exciting vantage points from which to explore
the creation of highly visual stage work.
Aims and Objectives
On completion of this course, students should be able to:



make judgements about the use of scenographic projection and
parallel technologies;
develop projects employing visual theatre elements;
understand and engage with audience reception of multiple visual
communications
Intended Learning Outcomes
The drama program at UniSA focuses on performance making. The Electronic
Arts: Visual Theatre course encourage students to think of themselves as
creators or devisors and their roles may range between performer, technician,
stage manager, technical operator and director. The course also gives strong
prominence to experiential learning with and provides students with the
opportunity to engage in a process of trial and error as they negotiate the
generation of ideas and the challenges of implementing these ideas in the
theatre. Students completing the course were required to demonstrate their
understanding and mastery of visual theatre concepts based on the following
criteria:
 Integration of the live performer with the projected image
 Live body extension, posture and balance
 Live and virtual bodies, voices and characters
 Rhythm of live and projected action
 Relating to the audience
 Geography of Second Life
Assessment
The course is practice based with each session set aside for students to
develop work for assessment. Assessment is divided between three groupdevised pieces that the students create over the duration of the course. In turn
this practical work is complimented by an essay where students draw on the
weekly readings set aside. The course primarily focuses on the integration of
media with live action and this is reflected in the readings i, practical and written
work. In the second semester 2008 offering of the course three practical
assessments were divided up between three tasks involving the creation of the
following pieces:
Form of assessment
Length
Weighting
Due date
Assessment 1a: Mediatised
Performance
One minute
15%
Week 3
Assessment 1b: Staging
Virtual Worlds
Three minutes
25%
Week 7
Assessment 2: Essay
1200 words
35%
Week 10
Assessment 3: Composition
Five minutes
25%
Week 12
The Second Life exercise (assessment 1b) required students to demonstrate
their developing understanding and use of the body and the voice, body
language, theatrical space and physical performance, and the performer’s
relationship with an audience in a dual setting of live and virtual performance.
The criteria for assessment were similar for all three practical projects and
reflected the focus on exploring the play between live and digital or virtual
presence.
Description of Learning Activities
Over a four-week period twenty-one students (13 male and 8 female) enrolled
in the second semester 2008 offering of the Electronic Arts: Visual Theatre
course undertook the staging of Second Life in a conventional proscenium arch
theatre. Following a session in a computer laboratory exploring the Second
Life environment, the students rehearsed short scenes that were shown as a
workshop-in-progress to an audience of University staff and students. The
students were directed by their course coordinator, Russell Fewster and
visiting director, Joff Chafer from Coventry University, assisted by lighting
designer Nic Mollison and computer programmer Kyal Tripodi.
Encountering Second Life
Students spent their first class in a computer laboratory creating their own
avatars. For most this was their first experience with Second Life. The
subsequent sight of twenty student-created avatars of varying shapes, sizes,
colours and genders hanging suspended in the sky together over the
University Island was like witnessing the spawning of a tribe. Attempts were
made to co-ordinate the group to do a series of actions together with varying
success; first positioning the group together as a starting point and secondly
simple gestures such as bowing, clapping, blowing a kiss became realisable.
More complicated movements like flying together were problematic as it was
too difficult to keep the group together. The notion of how Second Life gestures
might translate theatrically offered a way to transpose the virtual into real life;
indeed feedback from students and the programmer highlighted the
‘clunkiness’ of Second Life i.e., the time lag between typing and responses and
the robot like stiffness of the gestures. In turn, the coordinator encouraged the
students to consider how they might stage this ‘clunkiness’ and to play with
and enjoy transposing such Second Life clichés theatrically.
The Set-up
The set-up of the theatre (see Figure 1) was designed to create the illusion
that avatar actors and live performers were interacting in the same shared
space. To achieve this illusion, the Second Life world was projected onto a
large scrim positioned at the front of the stage and the student performers
located behind the scrim on the stage were lit appropriately to appear as if they
were in the same space as Second Life. The stage lighting had to be set low to
avoid washing out the projected image and to balance the illuminati on of the
live actor with the projected image.
Two computers located in the auditorium were used to control the
camera and projection unit, and to act as the controller for the actors. The
second computer allowed technical support staff to move avatar actors around
the 3D environment and to set-up props that did not appear on camera but
were visible on the avatar actor screen. The overall goal was to ensure avatar,
3D props and the virtual landscape could merge with the live performer so that
the virtual and real had a sense of shared time/space continuum. This required
the use of two main techniques designed to match the two spaces by
overlaying the 3D space in the real theatre space: 1) positioning the avatar in
the 3D space to match the size of the live performer and 2) lighting the
physical stage floor while projecting the avatar into this space to create an
illusion that the avatar was standing on a physical floor plane. Since this floor
plane was the same floor the live actor was standing on it helped t o convince
the audience that the interactions were occurring between the live and virtual
actors in the same shared space.
Figure 1: Set-up of the theatre showing scrim in front of actors on stage and lighting
arrangement
Working with the Live Performers: Rehearsal to Performance
The first rehearsal in the theatre involved students mimicking gestures in real
time. Following the rehearsal, the students formed groups of between five and
six students and improvised short scenes, which were then be worked up for
staging. Students played out Second Life clichés of time lag and stilted
gestures creating comical routines designed to emphasise the “clunkiness” of
virtual worlds. The varying gestures of Second Life avatars are fixed and
restricted to certain types of movements that are embodied in a mechanical
manner. For the performer to interact in a meaningful way with the avatars they
had to similarly embody Second Life gestures and movements. As one student
remarked:
The live performer based their performance around what
the avatar was doing because it is a lot easier and
quicker for a live performer to change what they are
doing than someone controlling an avatar.
Through trial and error it became evident that simple interactions between
performer and avatar were the most effective. Thus narratives proposed by
students were simplified to limit the programming and live manipulation of the
avatar to a set number of movements and gestures. Following are descriptions
of the scenes constructed by students:
The first scene involved improvisation of the game ‘rock, paper
scissors’. This group of students developed a scene that began with one
student playing against an avatar projected onto the scrim, that was then
extended by two more students entering and another avatar entering as well. A
mock fight then occurred between the two groups of live performers and
avatars, after which avatars and live actors exited. Live actors would replicate
the ‘muscle flex’ gesture of the avatar symbolising victory when they ‘won’ the
game, while the avatar’s gesture would be to cry; when the live actors ‘lost’
they would replicate the crying gesture while the avatar would embody the
victory gesture and so on.
The second scene drew on two techniques: the first was based on the
early silent films of George Melies, which focused on magic and slight of hand;
the second technique drew on traditional Japanese Bunraku style puppet and
object manipulation techniques. The piece began with an avatar creating a box
in Second Life that was projected onto the scrim; the box was moved through
space before disappearing or rather dissolving into an identical real box that
was suddenly revealed on stage. Out of this real box emerged an actor holding
a stick with ping pong balls to replicate the building signals of Second Life who
then created a ball. The ball appeared to the audience to be a virtual ball, but
was in effect a large white balloon illuminated by a torch and fixed to a boom
attached to the balloon, which a hidden puppeteer operated. This pi ece
therefore mixed live actors with avatars and real objects with a virtual object to
blur the boundaries between the real and the virtual worlds.
The third scene played heavily on the time lag and “clunkiness” of
Second Life gestures. Live actors mimed throwing the ‘virtual’ ball to each
other with significant delays between the ball arriving in their vicinity and their
attempts to catch it. The piece began with live actors and the puppeteer operated balloon after which an avatar joined in with the game. This scene, as
with the first scene, progressed to a mock fight in which the avatar and live
performers took turns knocking each other over with the balloon ball.
The fourth scene was one of the more effective scenes for its simplicity
and economy of staging. The ball was transformed into a virtual mirror ball
accompanied by a musical piece and an avatar entered and began to dance
with the music, employing ‘bump and grind’ gyrating movements. A live actor
was then revealed upstage and danced with the avatar, emulating the avatar’s
movements. The connections between the two were most obvious when both
avatar and live performer were simultaneously dancing the same movement.
This scene also reflected the importance of physically separating the performer
and the avatar to better distinguish between them. As a student commented:
The live performer and the avatar needed to be standing a
reasonable distance away from each other […] so the audience
could differentiate between them.
The fifth scene integrated the Second Life landscape with the live
performer. The performer mimed lifting off to fly with the Second Life
landscape falling simultaneously around them; a technique borrowed from
Melies and known in cinematic terms as the ‘matte’ effect. The performer who
lifted off was then replaced by a performer lying flat on a hidden bench who
mimed flying through the Second Life landscape twisting their torso sideways
and up and down as they seemingly passed between the projected buildings
and mountains. A kinetic integration was achieved between live performer and
the projected Second Life landscape.
The final piece involved a giant avatar of a T-Rex, which dramatically
filled the stage. A live performer entered and called out ‘Rex’ much like calling
to a pet dog. The projected T-Rex subsequently appeared and approached the
actor. After some verbal coaching from the performer, the T-Rex sat as a dog
would follow instructions from its owner. The T-Rex then began to become
overtly excited, jumping up and down bringing down a virtual lighting rig
(created to mimic the actual rig in the theatre) resulting in the actor rapidly
exiting. One of the key ways of integrating the T-Rex with the actor was to
program the T-Rex to swing its tail around in a 360 degree sweep and have the
actor duck at the opportune time. This gave the illusion of the two being
connected by the same action creating a sense of cause and effect between
avatar and actor.
Related material
(eg student presentations, images, student discussions, example assignm ents)
Following are photos taken from the auditorium (audience view) of the theatre
stage showing live student actors interacting with avatar actors projected from
the Second Life screen on the scrim at the front of the stage. The photos
illustrate the improvised pieces created and performed by students
experimenting with live and virtual theatre in shared space.
Live student actors play “ball” with the virtual avatar actor
Associated student script for the ‘ball’ piece follows:
Group: Balls
NOTE: ALL SPELLING IS AS WE WANT IT
JULIETTE is on stage asleep.
CHRIS and DANIEL enter and Juliette awakens.
Juliette:
hi lol
Chris: hi
Daniel: Hi
Juliette: how r u?
Chris: gud
Daniel: fin
Daniel: fine*
A ball rolls on
Daniel: look, a ball (POINTS)
All: oooh!
Juliette bends down and picks up the ball
Juliette throws the ball to Chris
Chris bounces the ball back to Juliette
Juliette throws the ball over Chris to Daniel
AVATAR whistles from offstage before walking on
Avatar: “Hey!” (WAVES)
All: “Hey!” (WAVES)
Daniel throws the ball hard at the avatar and the avatar
falls over
The avatar gets up and throws the ball hard back at Daniel
The ball knocks over Daniel and Chris
The avatar claps
Juliette
picks
the
ball
up
and
throws
it
back
at
the
avatar
The avatar catches it
Avatar throws the ball back and Juliette and knocks her
over
The avatar claps
All stand up and clap the avatar
All bow
All do muscleman poses
The live and avatar actor virtual dance routine
Live student actor interacting with the T-Rex avatar on stage
Evaluation
The twenty-one students enrolled in the course were invited to complete an
anonymous online questionnaire at the conclusion of the semester. This
questionnaire included questions aimed at identifying students’ familiarity with
and use of Web 2.0 and 3D virtual world technologies, and to assess the
extent to which the Second Life platform of delivery was perceived by students
to support the objectives of the course and enhance their learning. The
questionnaire included a mix of Likert-scale (5 point scale ranging from 1
strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) and open-ended text field questions.
Fourteen students (66.7%) responded to the evaluation; of those 7 (50%)
were male and 7 (50%) female and all were aged between 19 and 24 years. Al l
respondents had computers and broadband access at home and stated they
use the computer at home frequently or often. Yet despite fitting the profile of
Prensky’s (2001) ‘digital native’ population (those born after 1982), 9 (64.3%)
students stated they never use online multi-user games with the remaining 5
students (26.7%) stating they rarely use these technologies. Similarly, of the
14 respondents, 13 (92.8%) stated they never use 3D virtual worlds such as
Second Life, with only one student (7.2%) claiming to sometimes access 3D
virtual world. This was particularly surprising to us given 10 (71.4%) of the
students are enrolled in media arts related programs and therefore pursuing
careers in which they may well be designing for such platforms.
Table 1 shows student responses to the three questions relating to the
effectiveness of social interactions in Second Life. The average rating overall
for these questions (based on a scale of 1 representing strong disagreement, 3
representing a neutral agreement and 5 representing strong agreement) was
3.25. The criterion with the highest rating ‘The learning offered opportunities
for interaction and communication in Second Life’ received a rating of 3.62.
The lowest rating was given to the criterion ‘I felt as if I was communicating
with a real person in Second Life’ (2.92).
Table 1: Effectiveness of social interactions in Second Life
Statement (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)
Mean
Effectiveness of social interaction in Second Life
I felt as if I was communicating with a real person in Second Life
I was able to be expressive in Second Life
The learning offered opportunities for interaction and communication in Second
Life
Average for all criteria
2.92
3.21
3.62
3.25
Student ratings of the nine criteria relating to the effectiveness of learning
activities in Second Life are shown in Table 2. The overall rating of these
criteria was higher than for the criteria relating to social interactions (3.47
compared to 3.25 for social interactions). The criteria that received the highest
ratings ‘I was willing to put in the effort needed to complete the learning
activities’ (4.29); ‘I was engaged in the learning experience in Second Life’
(3.71) and ‘The learning experiences were active and collaborative in Second
Life’ (3.64) suggest the environment can provide engaging collaborative
experiences for students. The next highest rating ‘I liked using Second Life as
part of my course” (3.50) was interesting given the students’ rating of the
criterion ‘I would take another course that used Second Life’ was much lower
(2.79). This rating would appear to be an active reflection of respondents’
views, since reverse ratings were obtained in response to an alternative
question included in the survey, which was worded negatively ‘I would avoid
using classes using Second Life in the future’. Students rated this criterion as
3.21, with only 3 (21.4%) media arts students disagreeing (1 strongly disagree
and 2 disagree), and all but one of the remaining students st rongly agreeing
(21.4%) or agreeing 6 (42.9%) that they would avoid taking courses that use
Second Life in the future. The one remaining student responded to this
question with a neutral rating. This finding indicates that even though students
in the main agreed that using Second Life in this course was worthwhile, they
would not want to continue using Second Life as part of their studies in the
future.
Table 2: Effectiveness of learning activities in Second Life
Statement (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree)
Mean
Effectiveness of learning activities in Second Life
The learning activities in Second Life required me to think critically
I was engaged in the learning experience in Second Life
Second Life was an enriching experience
The learning experiences were active and collaborative in Second Life
Using Second Life was fun and exciting
I was willing to put in the effort needed to complete the learning activities
I would take another course that used Second Life
I would recommend that the instructor continue using Second Life
I liked using Second Life as part of my course
Average for all criteria
3.23
3.71
3.23
3.64
3.43
4.29
2.79
3.43
3.50
3.47
Students were also asked a series of questions relating to the adequacy
of the preparation they were given and the supports available to them in
Second Life. As shown in Table 3, the overall student rating for these criteria
was 3.47, with the highest rating for the criterion relating to the clarity of the
introductory explanations (3.57) and the lowest rating relating to how well the
activity was organised in Second Life (2.50).
Student responses to a series of open-ended questions about their
experience in Second Life suggest that some of the technical limitations of the
communication tools in Second Life impacted on the effectiveness of the
medium for interaction in-world. Several students commented that since they
were already communicating in ‘actual life’ the limitations of the chat tools
made communication more difficult. One student noted that ‘it was exactly like
using a chat room only more complex and complicated, just because it has
more options doesn't mean it's better’. Conversely, another student suggested
that ‘We didn't actually use Second Life much ourselves, but we did all enjoy it
in the class when we all used Second Life together and generated some good
interaction both in-program and in real life’ indicating that a blended learning
approach has merit and is worthy of exploration.
Several students commented on the need for more time to become
acquainted with the environment as well as the technical demands in
integrating the virtual with live theatre. As one student pointed out ‘We could
have done with a lot more time learning about how Second Life worked,
because there were a lot of problems to work out technically, as well as
problems staging’. This is not a surprising response given, contrary to our
expectations most students were not familiar with 3D virtual worlds or games
prior to taking this course.
The instability of the platform was a source of irritation for many students
and no doubt impacted on their attitudes towards the experience. Typical
comments such as ‘Being reliant on the internet made Second Life difficult to
work with due to lag, glitches, etc, and many people became impatient’
highlight this frustration. On the other hand, some students recognised such
challenges can provide useful learning experiences. As one student
commented ‘I learned how many technical things will and can go wrong when
using such a ‘glitchy’ program - so, in a way, kind of learning about "disaster
recovery plans" for the theatre’. Other students were more specific in criticising
the platform but noting the potential of mediatised performance, with one
student commenting ‘It made me hate Second Life, but the idea of using
computer generated media with live performance I found extremely fascinating.
I would like to attempt it again with other forms of video games with more
rehearsal time and technical set up time. It’s been quite an inspiration source’.
Staff and students were in agreement about the lack of time for the
activity. Apart from the technical demands imposed by the limitations of the
Second Life platform, the nature of the mediatised performance with live actors
and avatars created additional challenges. As the course coordinator
explained, the natural tendency was for actors to move towards the projected
avatar (i.e. downstage towards the scrim) but this only resulted in the actor
disappearing out of the light. In reality, the actor needed to move sideways to
appear to the audience as if they were moving toward the avatar. The
coordinator also observed that it was very difficult for the actor to know what
this visual relationship looked like from the auditorium. As a result, student
actors were heavily reliant upon the staff in the auditorium for guidance and
direction; more so than in a normal conventional actor /director relationship.
Students echoed such challenges noting ‘it was almost impossible for the
actors to know what it looked like from the audience, so it meant that the actors
had to rely heavily on the director for guidance’ and as another student
commented ‘it was also difficult to co-ordinate all of the smaller things such as
performance qualities, the projection, timing and the various interactions
between live and projected objects’.
Despite these limitations, staff and students acknowledged the value of
the learning experience and were able to identify strategies for addressing the
identified difficulties in future offerings of the course. Clearly students need a
longer period in the lead up to the performance activities to learn how to
navigate the Second Life environment and use the Second Life communication
tools more effectively. The need for more time for rehearsals was also noted
by both staff and students. One student suggested that ‘we could possibly
have filmed rehearsals and watched them back to be able to perfect the
performance and we could have pre-recorded more of the Second Life
projections more times and chosen the best ones’. The benefits of the
experience despite the frustrations with Second Life as a platform were evident
in several student responses. For example, one student suggested ‘I feel like if
we maybe used a video game, like Super Mario or Super Nindendo, it could
have been a lot easier to move the characters around. The Second Life
avatars were quite ‘glitchy’ and difficult to work with from what i could see’.
Another student commented that ‘I was able to see what technology was
capable of to create a performance from a new perspective in a way I wasn't
expecting- I'm pretty cluey with computers but learning to control the avatar
proved more difficult than originally anticipated’. The overall benefit of the
mediatised performance learning activity for students is perhaps best
exemplified by one of the respondents who stated that ‘I learned a fair bit from
using SL in this course because it was a bit different and it developed my
experience and understanding of experimentation and the visual aspect of
mediatisation in theatre’.
Conclusion
The course coordinator used mediatised performance environment as a
research laboratory in which students were encouraged to engage with new
technologies and consider how to stage them in relationship to the performer.
As the coordinator explained, ‘Digital presence is taken as a given as the
current dominant cultural presence in the arts and students are challenged to
consider how live presence may negotiate digital presence within a theatrical
environment’. Within this educational framework the stage is considered to be
a ‘hypermedium’ because of the unique capacity of theatre is able to absorb
other art forms and technologies while asserting its own authority.
The staging of Second Life project within the Electronic Arts: Visual
Theatre course played upon the liminal space between real and digital. The
coordinator commented that part of this frisson between real and virtual worlds
the performers embodied the stiffly programmed and somewhat uncoordinated
gestures and movements of Second Life in order to appear as much as
possible like an avatar. Similarly, as the coordinator explained, an object that
could be replicated in both real and digital worlds such as the box served to
cross over effectively between the two. The real balloon/ball gained its efficacy
much like the performers for appearing to be digital. This was achieved by
imitating the glow of a digital ball and for the ball’s puppeteer being hidden. In
turn the performers’ gestures or actions that directly related to the virtual world
aided this effect of integration; the flying action of the live performer not only
embodied a Second Life gesture, but when performed within a moving Second
Life landscape enabled the connection between the two. Finally, gestures that
the avatars were programmed to enact and which the actors could physically
react to also enhanced the sense of interaction. The cause and effect of the
swinging tail of the T-Rex and subsequent ducking of the live performer and
the games of rock paper scissors and passing the ball between performer and
avatar all served to bring the real and digital together in a shared time/space
continuum. There was a genuine interplay between performer and avatar
resulting in a ‘mutual affect’ between these different media.
In the coordinator’s opinion, the staging of Second Life gave the students
an opportunity to transpose a virtual world into a theatrical setting. The
students actively played between these two media in turn becoming
intermedialists. Within the hypermedium of the theatre they were able to
remediate the conventions of Second Life via their bodies and manipulation of
objects. This experience, according to the coordinator, reflects a growing trend
in performance pedagogy where technology and new ways of thinking about its
applications are increasingly integrated into the curriculum.
The trial of Second Life in the Electronic Arts: Visual Theatre course
therefore demonstrated the potential of 3D worlds to engage students in
collaborative performance activities that combine the live and the virtual. While
it is likely that the technical issues did frustrate many students, the problem
solving that arose from addressing the challenges clearly engaged some of the
students who were then able to see the potential of mediatised performance
despite the technical constraints of the Second Life platform. The observation
that most students regarded the learning experience as worthwhile indicates
that the learning objectives were achieved even though most students stated
they would not like to undertake another course using Second Life. Given
some of those students did suggest alternative platforms that might be used in
future offerings, it would seem that the limitations of Second Life as an
environment should not be regarded as a reflection of the possibilities afforded
by 3D virtual world platforms in general.
Notwithstanding the specific limitations of the platform identified by staff
and students, the trial of the use of Second Life in this course did highlight
several issues that can be addressed in future offerings of the course. It was
apparent that students need more time to become familiarised with the 3D
virtual world environment; one should not assume that students h ave any prior
experience using such environments. Students also need more time to
rehearse their performances and as one student noted, to also watch
recordings of their rehearsals to be able to better reflect on changes they need
to make in the final live performance. Many of the technical problems staff and
students experienced in combining the virtual with live performance have been
identified and strategies for addressing these limitations identified through a
process of trial-and-error undertaken during the course. While this trial-anderror process reflects the nature of a research laboratory, not all students were
resilient enough to cope with the technical frustrations they experienced. A
better balance between engaging students in problem-solving and
collaborative activities, and the challenges that arise in such an experimental
laboratory can be achieved in future offerings now that many of the
unexpected technical difficulties have been identified and addressed. The next
offering of this course will occur as a combined workshop with UniSA and
Coventry University in 2009. This planned learning opportunity will enable
students to experience another important dimension of mediatised
performance, which as Giannachi (2004) suggests, ‘challenges notions of
locality and regionality as well as globality, and even renders the idea of art
being in and about a location somewhat redundant’ (p. 11).
Relevant References
Auslander, P. (1999). Liveness: Performance in a mediatized culture.
Routledge: London.
Carlson, M. (2003). Video and stage space: Some European perspectives. In
J. Tompkins (ed.) Modern Drama (Special Issue: Space and Geographies
of the Theatre), XLVI (4).
Dixon, S. (2007). Digital theater and scenic spectacle. In Digital Performance,
pp. 335-361.
Fewster ,R. (2008). Live media and the ‘alive’ actor. Retrieved 21 February
2009 from
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/2549/1/ADSA2006_Fewster
.pdf
Giannachi, G. (2004). Virtual theatres : an introduction. London and New
York: Routledge.
Giesekam, G. (2007). Magic to Realism: European Pioneers. In Staging the
Screen, pp. 27-50.
Hoffman, K. (2006). Stage management for multimedia performance
scenography. In Live Movies, pp. 149-155.
Live Design. Retrieved 21 February 2009 from
http://www.LiveDesignOnline.com
Lavender, A. (2006). Mise en scene, hypermediacy and the sensorium. In
Intermediality in Theatre and Performance, pp. 55-65.
Lehmann, H-T. (2006). Media in postdramatic theatre, pp. 167-174.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5),
pp. 1-6.
White, G. (2006). New media scenography. In Live Movies, pp. 125-133.
Publications Relating to this Case Study
Fewster, R., Chafer and Wood, D. (forthcoming). Staging Second Life in real
and virtual spaces. In G. Vincenti and J. Bramam (eds.) Teaching
through Multi-User Virtual Environments: Applying Dynamic Elements to
the Modern Classroom, Hershey PA: IGI Global.
Evaluation Tools
Example of the online questionnaire students completed at the end of the
course.
Experiences using 3D virtual worlds such as Second Life in courses at UniSA
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. Data collected
through this survey will be used to improve the quality of teaching and
learning at UniSA and could also be used in external publications and
presentations. Individual responses will remain confidential and no
individuals will be identified.
Demographic
1. What is your Program at UniSA?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
2. Age Range

3. Gender
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
Computer Us
4. How often do you use a computer at home?

5. How often do you use a computer at University?

6. How often do you use chat software / instant messenger (e.g. AOL,
MSN, ICQ, etc)?

7. How often do you use social networking sites (e.g. Facebook,
MySpace, Flickr.)?

8. How often do you use online multi-user computer games (e.g. World
of Warcraft, Everquest, etc)?

9. How often do you use 3D online virtual worlds such as Second Life?

10. How often do you use social bookmarking sites?

11. How often do you use the computer to access podcasts / webcasts?

Internet Access
12. Do you use a high speed connection to the Internet from home or
dial-up?

Second Life Student Survey
13. What communication tools did you use?

None

Second Life chat tool

Second Life audio tool (Voice Over IP - VOIP)


Tools outside of Second Life (discussion boards, chat, blog,
etc)
Other (explain in final comments)
14. How would you classify your performance in this course (i.e.
grades)?

Excellent

Above Average

Average

Below Average

Poor

Other (explain in final comments)
Social Presence (immediacy and intimacy)
15. I felt as if I was communicating with a real person in Second Life.

16. I was able to be expressive in Second Life.

17. I was comfortable interacting with other participants in Second Life.

Engagement
18. I was engaged in the learning experience in Second Life.

19. Second Life was an enriching experience.

20. The learning experiences were active and collaborative in Second
Life.

21. Using Second Life was fun and exciting.

22. I was willing to put in the effort needed to complete the learning
activities in Second Life.

23. Second Life was a waste of time.

Online Learning Community
24. The learning activity encouraged contact between myself and my
classmates in Second Life.

Satisfaction
25. I would take another course that used Second Life.

26. I would recommend that the instructor continue using Second Life.

27. I liked using Second Life as part of my course.

28. Participating in Second Life was a useful experience.

29. It was difficult to access Second Life.

30. Getting into Second Life was easy.

31. Technical support was available when I needed it in Second Life.

32. I would avoid classes using Second Life in the future.

33. I would not recommend this course to a friend.

Learning
34. Second Life allowed me to better understand concepts.

35. Using Second Life helped me think more deeply about course
material.

36. Second Life did not help my learning in the class.

Online learning design (support, design, delivery, assessment)
37. The introductory explanations on how to use Second Life were clear.

38. The activity in Second Life was well-organized.

39. I understood all components of the activity in Second Life.

40. The instructions for Second Life were clear.

41. The activity offered opportunities for interaction and communication
in Second Life.

42. The goals in Second Life were clearly defined.

43. I understood what was expected of me in Second Life.

Open-Ended Questions
44. How did Second Life impact your communication and interaction with
others in this course?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
45. How was using Second Life different than using tools in a Course
Management System, like discussions or chat tools?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
46. What was one thing that you would change about your experience in
Second Life?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
47. What was one thing that you liked about your experience in Second
Life?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
48. How did Second Life impact your learning for this course?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
49. What were the challenges in staging Second Life in a theatrical
context?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
50. How did you integrate the live performer with the avatar from Second
Life?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
51. As a live performer what was it like interacting with an avatar from
Second Life?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
52. Is there anything else you would like to share with us about your
experience?
 (Enter text into this box, maximum 2000 characters)
i
The readings begin with the early integration of film into theatre by George Melies, move
to the current liveness debate and whether theatrical presence has become absorbed by
digital presence and develops to newer forms of thinking on this issue in the theories of
post-dramatic theatre and intermediality. The readings also refer to industry approaches to
staging new technologies. The readings include the following texts: Giesekam, Greg 2007,
‘Magic to Realism: European Pioneers’, in Staging the Screen, Chapter 1 pages 27-50;
Auslander, Philip 1999 Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized culture, Routledge, London;
Carlson, Marvin 2003, ‘Video and Stage Space: Some European Perspectives’, in Joanne
Tompkins (editor) Modern Drama (Special Issue: Space and Geographies of the theatre),
volume XLVI Number 4, Winter 2003; Dixon, Steve 2007, ‘Digital Theater and Scenic
Spectacle’ in Digital Performance, Chapter 14 pages 335-361; Fewster ,Russell 2008, Live
Media and the ‘Alive’Actor see
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/2549/1/ADSA2006_Fewster.pdf ; Lavender
Andy 2006, ‘Mise En Scene, Hypermediacy and the Sensorium’ in Intermediality in
Theatre and Performance, pages 55-65; Lehmann, Hans-Thies 2006, ‘Media’ in
Postdramatic Theatre, pages 167-174; White, Gail Scott 2006, ‘New Media Scenography’
in Live Movies, pages 125-133 and Hoffman Kira 2006, ‘Stage Management for
Multimedia Performance’ Scenography’ in Live Movies, pages 149-155.; Live Design a
Trade Journal available at http://www.LiveDesignOnline.com