Students’ Evaluation of a Virtual World for Procedural Training in a Tertiary-Education Course

Abstract

This article presents an investigation on the educational value of virtual worlds intended for the acquisition of procedural knowledge. This investigation takes as a case of study a virtual laboratory on biotechnology. A remarkable feature in this virtual laboratory is an automatic tutor that supervises student's actions and provides tutoring feedback when it is appropriate. The study presented in this article covers two different aspects of the system. First, it analyzes the impact of this virtual world in learning some concepts related to a biotechnology practice; and second, it surveys the students' opinion on the virtual world by means of three open questions (posi tive, negative, and general impressions). Results demonstrated that the virtual world had a positive influence in the students' knowledge, and it was well received by them.

Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education – where are the educators?

“…Diagnosing strengths or gaps in student knowledge, and providing automated feedback In most of the studies (n = 4) of this group, ITS are presented as a rather one-way communication from computer to student, concerning the gaps in students' knowledge and the provision of feedback. Three examples in the field of STEM have been found: two of them where the virtual assistance is presented as a feature in virtual laboratories by tutoring feedback and supervising student behaviour (Duarte, Butz, Miller, & Mahalingam, 2008;Ramírez, Rico, Riofrío-Luzcando, Berrocal-Lobo, & Antonio, 2018), and the third one is a stand-alone ITS in the field of Computer Science (Paquette et al, 2015). One study presents an ITS of this kind in the field of second language learning (Dodigovic, 2007).…”

Factors promoting the use of virtual worlds in educational settings

“…Some users enjoyed using the system but preferred face‐to‐face learning (Holmberg & Huvila, 2008). Most complained about technical difficulties which included, among others, lack of adequate technological resources, inadequate bandwidth, slow response time, program freezes and crashes, a nonintuitive interface, a need to update the system frequently, difficulty in activating parts of the program, following the large groups of students, coping with multiple tasks and lack of technical support (Badilla Quintana, Sagredo, & Lytras, 2017; Gregory et al ., 2015; Lin, Wang, Grant, Chien, & Lan, 2014; Mayrath et al ., 2010; Ramirez, Rico, Riofrỉo‐Luzcando, Berrocal‐Lobo, & de Antonio, 2018; Swier & Peterson, 2018). Furthermore, some users stated that the system had no clear goal, no apparent relationship to learning, increased distractions and the risk of being exposed to undesirable content.…”

Virtually Authentic: Graduate Students’ Perspective Changes toward Authentic Learning while Collaborating in a Virtual World

“…When it comes to higher education, the integration trend is seemingly becoming more focused on providing transformative yet authentic learning experiences using immersive technologies such as virtual worlds in lieu of simple web-based tools like wikis, blogs, or Google applications. Furthermore, we can foresee the increased adoption of immersive technologies including virtual world in the near future given their cost-effectiveness in providing immersive learning platforms (Monahan et al, 2009;Ramírez et al, 2018;Reinsmith-Jones et al, 2015). The current pandemic situation has also engendered increased demand for off-campus learning experiences, offering connectivity with classmates from the safe confines of home (Bronack et al, 2008).…”