       



 %

!" ! !$#!#%!#

Use of Second Life in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of
Research
Chris Inman
Vivian H. Wright
Julia A. Hartman
The University of Alabama

Abstract
This study reviewed empirical research conducted in Second Life by educators since Second
Life’s launch in 2003. The study’s purpose was to identify how Second Life is being used in both
K-12 and higher education. The methodology, findings, and recommendations of 27 researchstudies were analyzed. Researchers identified potential problems when using Second Life ineducation, including issues with the Second Life software and hardware requirements, a steep
learning curve, and the possibility of students becoming exposed to distractions or inappropriate
content. Researchers discussed potential uses of Second Life including role-play, game andsimulation creation, implementation within distance education programs, and the ability toencourage student-centered learning activities. Analysis also revealed several recommendations
for educators intending to use Second Life.

Introduction
As the capability and sophistication of technology improves, educational institutions seek
new opportunities to take the classroom online (Erickson & Siau, 2003). During the past decade,three-dimensional (3-D) virtual world environments have increased in popularity, andeducational institutions have taken note. A virtual world environment can be defined by thefollowing characteristics: it exists whether a user is logged in or not, it is populated by manyusers, it provides the illusion of 3-D space, avatars represent users in-world, and an interactive
chat function is available (Dickey, 2005; Robbins-Bell, 2008).
Virtual Worlds in Education
The use and implementation of virtual worlds in education has been in place since the1970s (Livingstone, Kemp, & Edgar, 2008); investigations into the adoption of threedimensional (3D) worlds in education have increased over the past two decades (De Lucia,
Francese, Passero, & Tortora, 2009). Educators have been drawn to 3D virtual worlds for anumber of reasons. As 3D immersive worlds provide opportunities for synchronous
communication and collaboration (Kemp & Livingstone, 2006), a prevailing reason toinvestigate 3D worlds is their use as a tool for distance learning.

44         

Educators are also looking to virtual worlds for their potential to foster experiential andconstructivist learning. Constructivist learning holds that knowledge is constructed by learners
rather than transmitted and that discussion encourages negotiation and collaboration among
learners (Jonassen, 1999; Vygotsky, 1978). Research by Dede (1995) indicated that 3D virtualenvironments could potentially provide safe environments whereby students could learn by
doing. Dickey (2003) found that although there are constraints, 3D virtual worlds do support
constructivist learning because users interact with each other and the environment. In applying
Rogers’ (1969) experiential learning theory, Mason and Moutahir (2006) successfully used a
virtual environment (Second Life) to create a project-based multidisciplinary program. Hew and
Cheung (2008) also found that educators use virtual worlds as experiential spaces.
Educators are also looking to virtual worlds for research opportunities. Hew and Cheung(2008) found that educators are conducting research in virtual worlds in one of three ways: tostudy “participants’ affective domain, participants’ learning outcomes, and participants’ social
interaction(p. 9).” In studying the affective domain, researchers are interested in examining
learner attitudes and feelings regarding the use of virtual environments as educational learning
environments. For example, a study by Cooper (2007) reviewed student opinion regarding theeffectiveness of a video game created in Second Life called “Nutrition Game,” and found thatmost students viewed the game positively. Likewise, Martinez, Martinez, and Warkentin (2007)
conducted a lecture inside Second Life and then surveyed their students regarding theeffectiveness of the lecture venue; most students indicated that they enjoyed it because using
Second Life was innovative.
Another area of interest is learning outcomes, or whether 3D virtual worlds can either
help students learn or improve learning. Cooper (2007) found that a majority of students
surveyed said they found the game “engaging and informative (p. 49).” A study by Holmes(2007) investigated whether the use of scripted, animated 3D software agents inside a 3D virtualenvironment would improve student learning. Although there were some issues (i.e., software
agent not meeting student expectations and limitations in the functionality of the agent), students
indicated that the agents did help them learn. Researchers also are interested in whether 3D
virtual spaces facilitate social interaction between students, as well as whether students use thecommunication features associated with particular 3D virtual environments. In a study byPeterson (2006), the researcher examined non-native speakers (students who do not speak
English as their first language) as they communicated and interacted inside the 3D environment
Active Worlds. Peterson found that students did use the communication tools and features
available to them and that these tools encouraged learner interaction.
Educators and learners from all age groups currently frequent several virtual worlds,
including There (for teens and adults), Club Penguin (for kids), Webkinz (for kids), Active
Worlds (for teens and adults) and Second Life (for adults over 18 years of age). Although there
are over 80 active, available educational worlds on Active Worlds (Active Worlds, 2009, ¶ 3),
Second Life has drawn the most media attention as well as more attention from educators. This
study will focus on the use of Second Life in education, both in K-12 and higher education.
Second Life and Education
Launched by Linden Lab in 2003, Second Life is an online, three-dimensional virtualenvironment in which users take on the form of an avatar, a representation of the user, and theninteract with other users in the synthetic environment. Users are encouraged to truly live asecond life by purchasing clothing, constructing buildings and other items such as cars and45         

landscape, and by meeting and visiting new people. Second Life is not a game; there are no
objectives to achieve or levels to complete. Instead, it is a virtual world accessible through theInternet which presents a 3D, virtual platform in which individuals and groups can meet to create
and collaborate. Linden Lab also maintains a grid called Teen Second Life, for teens aged 13 to
17 years of age, which is completely separate from the main Second Life grid. According to
Linden Lab, there are at least 300 universities around the world that teach courses or conduct
research inside the virtual world of Second Life (Michels, 2008, ¶4). Educational organizations
such as the New Media Consortium (NMC) and the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) have even constructed islands inside Second Life. Since the use of virtualworlds has increased, Second Life has become a popular destination for educators and noneducators alike. Educators are choosing Second Life because they believe that Second Life
allows for manipulation of space and time limited only by imagination (Vogel, Guo, Zhou, Tian,& Zhang, 2008), it presents a high degree of realism with minimal risk, provides a great venue
for informal learning situations (Pence, 2007-2008), and because Second Life has received
noticeable attention in the media (FitzGibbon, Oldham, & Johnston, 2008). Further, Second Lifeis not a game, but rather “lends itself well to the exploration of subjectivities in virtual
communities” (deWinter & Vie, 2008, p.315). Given that virtual worlds will continue to be partof the educational discussion, should educators continue to use Second Life, a content analysis ofactual research studies conducted and documented in Second Life by educators can potentiallyassist others as they formulate and design teaching and learning opportunities inside the virtualenvironment. Findings could provide researchers with previous types of studies alreadyattempted, and could assist educators in deciding how to use Second Life as an educational tool.
Therefore, this study’s purpose was to locate and review empirical research that has been
conducted by educators, both in K-12 and higher education, in Second Life from its launch to thecurrent time.
Study Design
Purpose of Study
The use of 3-D virtual worlds in education has increased in recent years. In particular, thevirtual world of Second Life, which launched in 2003, has increasingly been used by educators
to teach students, conduct class, and to explore the unique opportunities virtual worlds may
present for teaching and learning. Anecdotal evidence abounds concerning what educators are
doing in Second Life (Livingstone & Kemp, 2006). Additionally, studies describing how
universities in the United States are creating a presence in Second Life (Jennings & Collins,2008) and how higher education in the United Kingdom is progressing in Second Life
(Kirriemuir, 2007) are available, but a review of empirical research studies concerning educator
usage of Second Life is difficult to locate. Such a review can assist educators to identify current
teaching and learning strategies being implemented in Second Life as well as to help researchers
identify areas for further research.
The study’s framework is influenced by a review of 3-D virtual worlds in education (bothK-12 and higher education) by Hew and Cheung (2008) and by a content analysis conducted by
Kay (2006). The literature review was guided by the following questions:
1. What types of research methods (qualitative and quantitative) have been applied using Second
Life in K-12 and higher education settings?
2. How is Second Life used by students and teachers?
3. Of the research conducted thus far in Second Life, what are the related findings?

46

         

Selection of Resources
Relevant literature to be included in this review was identified using the following
criteria. First, the literature must present a completed empirical research study with themethodology, results, and discussion clearly identifiable. Second, because the focus of theinvestigation is the use of Second Life in K-12 education and higher education, the study
presented must involve the use of Second Life in K-12 education or higher education. Finally,
the study must not be sponsored by Linden Lab, the creators of Second Life, and it must notappear in any presentation, workshop, or publication supported by Linden Lab.
A multi-step process was used to identify the relevant research studies to be included inthis current study. First, conference papers from three major technology and education
organizations were searched for references of "Second Life" from 2004 to 2009 (Second Life
launched in 2003). Conferences examined were the Society for Information Technology andTeacher Education Conference (SITE) presented by the Association for the Advancement ofComputing in Education (AACE), the AECT International Convention presented by the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), and the National
Educational Computing Conference (NECC) presented by the International Society forTechnology in Education (ISTE). These organizations were selected because they are respectedorganizations in the field of education technology. AECT is one of the oldest professionalorganizations in the field, ISTE established the National Educational Technology standards(NETS), and AACE houses the EdITLib Education and Information Technology Library.
Second, prominent empirical research journals published by AACE, AECT, and ISTE
were searched for the term "Second Life". Journals searched included Educational Technology
Research and Development, the Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, the Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, and the Journal of Computing in Teacher Education.
Moreover, the EdITLib Education and Information Technology Library housed by AACE wasalso searched. Third, the following research databases were searched for the term "Second Life":
Academic, Academic OneFile, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, Education Full Text,
ERIC, and PsycARTICLES. Finally, in order to identify research studies outside of the previous
sources, a broad search of the term "Second Life" was conducted using Google Scholar. In total,
these searches yielded 27 research articles that met the current study’s stated criteria.
Data Analysis
The basic unit of analysis was each individual empirical research study. Each study
reviewed was evaluated in terms of methodology, the topic of focus, and the reported findings.
The examination of methodology included the following elements: type of research (qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed methods), the sample size, the education level of focus (i.e., K-12, higher
education), and data collection and analysis. The examination of the topic of focus describes thecontext of the study and the specific activities in which students were engaged. The examinationof findings discusses the implicated findings in the studies. A more thorough description
detailing how data were analyzed is provided in each of the following three sections.
Results and Discussion
Overview
The search of relevant literature was conducted over a seven-week period in spring of2009. A total of 27 studies fitting the criteria of this study were identified (see Table 1). Twostudies were retrieved from Academic OneFile (Brown, Hobbs, & Gordon, 2008; Gillen, 2009).

47

         

One article was retrieved from AECT conference proceedings (Chow, Andrews, & Trueman,2007). Two articles were retrieved from the 2007 SITE conference proceedings (Franklin,
Mayles, Liu, & Chelburg, 2007; Sanchez, 2007a). Five articles were retrieved from the 2008
SITE conference proceedings (FitzGibbon, Oldham, & Johnston, 2008; Gao, Noh, & Koehler,2008); Margerum-Leys, 2008; McKay, Shie, & Headley, 2008; Park, Jung, & Collins, 2008).
Two articles were retrieved from EdITLib (Mayrath, Sanchez, Traphagan, Heikes, & Trivedi,
2007; Sanchez, 2007b). Seven articles were retrieved from Education Full Text (De Lucia,
Francese, Passero, & Tortora, 2009; Delwiche, 2006; Good, Howland, & Thackray, 2008;
Jarmon, Traphagan, & Mayrath, 2008; Luo & Kemp, 2008; McVey, 2008; Rappa, Yip, & Baey,2009). Eight articles were retrieved from Google Scholar (Fetscherin & Latteman, 2008; Hayes,
2006; Lambert & Kidd, 2008; Messinger, Ge, Stroulia, Lyons, Smirnov & Bone, 2008; Rycroft;
2007; Vogel, Guo, Zhou, Tian, & Zhang, 2008; Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, & Merget,
2007; Yellowlees & Cook, 2006).

Table 1
Source of Study
SourceAcademic OneFile
AECT conference
proceedings
SITE (2007) conference
proceedings
SITE (2008) conference
proceedings
EdITLib
Education Full Text

Google Scholar

Study
Brown, Hobbs, & Gordon (2008); Gillen (2009)
Chow, Andrews, & Trueman (2007)
Franklin, Mayles, Liu, & Chelburg (2007); Sanchez (2007a);
FitzGibbon, Oldham, & Johnston (2008); Gao, Noh, & Koehler (2008);
Margerum-Leys (2008); McKay, Shie, & Headley (2008); Park, Jung, & Collins (2008)
Mayrath, Sanchez, Traphagan, Heikes, & Trivedi (2007); Sanchez (2007b)
De Lucia, Francese, Passero, & Tortora (2009);
Delwiche (2006); Good, Howland, & Thackray (2008); Jarmon, Traphagan, & Mayrath(2008); Luo & Kemp (2008);McVey (2008); Rappa, Yip, & Baey (2009)
Fetscherin & Latteman (2008); Hayes (2006); Lambert & Kidd (2008);
Messinger, Ge, Stroulia, Lyons, Smirnov & Bone (2008); Rycroft (2007);
Vogel, Guo, Zhou, Tian, & Zhang (2008);
Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, & Merget (2007); Yellowlees & Cook (2006)

Methodology: Each Study’s Design
In this section, a discussion of the methodology used in the reviewed studies is provided
to answer the question, What types of research methods (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed
method) have been applied using Second Life in K-12 and higher education settings? In
empirical research studies, the methodology section includes information regarding research
design, the sample size, and a description of data collection instruments (Lauer, 2006).
Therefore, the researchers focused on these areas for analysis. First, each identified study wasread and re-read. Second, each study's sample size, type of research conducted, education levelof focus, and data collection instruments were identified as categories and recorded in a table,with one column for each category. Third, information recorded in each of the four columns was
individually read thoroughly to summarize data and to determine any trends.

48         

Type of Research.
In this section, the types of research methods implemented in the identified studies are
summarized. Research method is divided into types of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method.
According to Merriam (1998), qualitative research focuses on nature and essence, as theresearcher becomes the primary instrument for collecting data. Qualitative research produces
findings which are rich in description, but results may not be generalizable. In contrast,
quantitative research focuses on quantity, with information generally represented as numbers or
measurements (Lauer, 2006). Quantitative research produces precise numerical findings which
are typically, more generalized based on study design. As can be seen in Table 2, studies arealmost evenly split between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods (i.e., both qualitativeand quantitative measures are included in research). There were nine qualitative studies, ninequantitative studies, and nine mixed method studies, therefore, not suggesting any one dominant
type of research being conducted in Second Life.

Table 2
Research Method Distribution
Qualitative

Quantitative

Mixed Method

Brown, Hobbs, & Gordon (2008)

Fetscherin & Lattemann (2008)

Delwiche (2006)

FitzGibbon, Oldham, & Johnston(2008)

Franklin, Mayles, Liu, &Chelburg (2007)

Lambert & Kidd (2008)

Gao, F., Noh, J. & Koehler, M.
(2008)

Gillen (2009)

Luo & Kemp (2008)

Jarmon, Traphagan, & Mayrath(2008)

Good, Howland, & Thackray(2008)

Messinger, G, Stroulia, Lyons,
Smirnov & Bone (2008)

Mayrath, Sanchez, Traphagan,
Heikes, & Trivedi (2007)

Hayes (2006)

Park, Jun, & Collins (2008)

McKay, van Shie, & Headley(2008)

Margerum-Leys (2008)

Vogel, Guo, Zhou, Tian, & Zhang(2008)

McVey (2008)

Rappa, Yip, & Baey (2009)

Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, &Merget (2007)

Rycroft (2007)

Sanchez (2007a)

Yellowlees & Cook (2006)

Sanchez (2007b)

49

Chow, Andrews, & Trueman(2007)De Lucia, Francese, Passero, &Tortora (2009)         

Sample Size
Sample size varied from zero to 835 subjects. In calculating the median sample size, two
ethnographies were removed from analysis, and two further studies were removed because a
specific sample size was not provided. Therefore, 23 studies were included in the mean sample
calculation of 107.78 subjects. The sample standard deviation was approximately 204.57. Thereis a noticeable break in sample size distribution (see Table 3). Six studies had sample sizes of 97
subjects or higher, with the largest sample size being 835 subjects. The remaining 17 studies had
sample sizes of 43 subjects or fewer, with the lowest number of subjects being four.
Approximately 74% of the identified studies had a sample size between four and 43 subjects.

Table 3Sample Size
Article Author

Sample Size

Margerum-Leys (2008); Jarmon et al. (2008);
Franklin et al. (2007); McVey (2008)
Brown et al. (2008); Lambert et al. (2008)

4 to 1012Delwiche (2006)

15

Chow et al. (2007); Mayrath et al. (2007); Sanchez (2007a);
Sanchez (2007b)*
Luo et al. (2008); De Lucia et al. (2009); Gao et al. (2008)18
22 to 36

Good et al. (2008); Rycroft (2007); McKay et al. (2008)

41 to 50

Messinger et al. (2008)

97

Park et al. (2008)

120

FitzGibbon et al. (2008)

243

Fetscherin et al. (2008)

249

Yellowlees et al. (2006)579

Yee et al. (2007)

835*Sanchez 2007a and Sanchez 2007b share the same sample.

Education Level of Focus.
Of the studies analyzed, only one focused on elementary education (Park, et al., 2008).
Additionally, only one focused on middle school education (Franklin et al., 2007) while two
focused on high school age education (Gillen, 2009; Rappa et al., 2009). The remaining 23
studies focused on higher education. In higher education, 4 studies focused on Second Life usewith graduate students (Chow et al., 2007; Jarmon et al., 2008; Lambert et al., 2008; McVey,
2008) and 12 focused on undergraduate students (Brown et al., 2008; De Lucia et al., 2009;
Delwiche, 2006; FitzGibbon et al., 2008; Gao et al., 2008; Good et al., 2008; Margerum-Leys,
2008; Mayrath et al., 2007; McKay et al., 2008; Sanchez, 2007a; Sanchez, 2007b; Vogel et al.,50         

2008). The remaining 7 studies focused more upon examining concepts rather than a particular
type of student (in K-12 or higher education). These studies included the following: how library
information science educators could use Second Life (Luo et al., 2008), the impact of online
media such as Second Life on young adult development of political awareness (Rycroft, 2007),
comparing behavior in Second Life to behavior in the real world (Yee et al., 2007), exploringmental health simulations in Second Life (Yellowlees et al., 2006), the relationship between
avatar and self (Messinger et al., 2008), possible Second Life use in adult education (Hayes,
2006), and factors influencing how one accepts the use of Second Life (Fetscherin et al., 2008).
One unavoidable pattern can be identified from data concerning the education level offocus: Second Life is currently predominantly associated with higher education. A total of 23 outof the identified 27 studies were conducted in the context of a higher education classroom, or
conducted with higher education students, or were experiments conducted by higher education
faculty.
Data Collection and Analysis.
As mentioned previously, there were nine qualitative studies, nine quantitative studies,and nine mixed method studies identified. Three studies used an ethnographic approach to collectand analyze data: Rycroft (2007), Gillen (2009), and Hayes (2006). Three studies used a casestudy approach to collect and analyze data: McKay (2008), Margerum-Leys (2008), and Franklin
et al. (2007). One study, Sanchez (2007a), implemented an interactive qualitative approach. Six
studies used interviews to collect and analyze data, three studies used focus groups, and nineused participant observations to collect and analyze data. Eleven studies collected and analyzed
transcriptions from a number of places, including discussion board transcripts, chat histories inSecond Life, asynchronous forum transcripts, a wiki, blog postings, listserv postings, emailcomments, and standard end of course assessment forms. Seventeen studies used a survey orquestionnaire to collect data, with seven of those studies being subjected to statistical analysis.
Regardless of the research method, the use of a survey or questionnaire was the predominant
type of instrument used to collect data, with 17 studies using such instruments. Other than asurvey or questionnaire, the most common form of data collection was the transcription of data
(11) from message boards, emails, listservs, chat transcripts, wikis, and blogs.
Topic of Focus
In this section, a discussion of the topic of focus in the reviewed studies is provided toanswer the question, How is Second Life used by students and teachers? In empirical researchstudies, the methodology section usually includes information regarding the context of the study.
Therefore, the researcher focused on the methodology section, paying close attention to what
educators were doing (i.e., teaching a class, facilitating a class, conducting an experiment, etc.)
in Second Life and to what students were doing (i.e., listening to a lecture, working on a groupproject, etc.) in Second Life. After reading and re-reading each study, two themes emerged:
student activity and educator activity. Therefore, a column for educator activity and a column forstudent activity were created and identified as categories. Second, the methodology of each study
was organized and recorded in the two columns according to educator activity and student
activity. Third, information recorded in each column was read and noted to identify key words orphrases such as “taught a course” or “simulation.” Fifth, key words and phrases were grouped
together and identified as patterns.

51         

Educator Activity.
In 13 of the studies reviewed, educators taught a course or facilitated a course with
Second Life. In five studies, educators conducted experimental research. In three studies
educators participated as an ethnographer, and in two studies educators gathered informationfrom surveys. In one study, educators were building simulations, and in another, educators
examined the use and design of space in Second Life. The most significant finding within thesedata is that 13 out of 27 studies, or 48%, used Second Life either to teach a course, to facilitate acourse, or as part of a course.
Student Activity.
Three of the studies showed that students were engaged in role-playing activities (Gao etal., 2008; Mayrath et al., 2007; Rappa et al., 2009), and one of the studies focused on role-playand gender issues (Park et al., 2008). In two studies students attended lectures or virtual seminars(Chow et al., 2007; De Lucia et al., 2009). In FitzGibbon et al. (2008), students answered asurvey indicating how much they knew about Second Life. Students in a study by MargerumLeys (2008) explored the use of design and space in Second Life, and students in McVey (2008)
went on a virtual tour. Middle school students played games in Franklin et al. (2007) whilecollege students in Delwiche (2006) created games. Students studied Second Life (Lambert et al.,2008) and participated in various group projects in Second Life (Brown et al., 2008; Gillen,
2009; Good et al., 2008; Jarmon et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2008).
A significant pattern can be identified when reviewing these data: in only two of thestudies (Chow et al., 2007; De Lucia et al., 2009) were students engaged in activities in Second
Life that can be characterized as the traditional lecture-based, teacher-centered form ofeducation. In all of the other studies, with the exception of FitzGibbon et al. (2008) wherestudents responded to a survey, students were engaged in student-centered forms of educationsuch as engaging in role-play, exploring the surroundings of Second Life, and using Second Lifeto collaborate or communicate on group projects.
Findings of the Studies
In this section, a discussion of the findings is provided to answer the last guiding
question, Of the research conducted thus far in Second Life, what are the related findings? In
empirical research studies, research findings are usually listed in the findings section and therecommendations section. Therefore, the researcher focused on these two areas for analysis inorder to answer the question. First, each identified study was read. Second, each study's findings
and recommendations were summarized and recorded in a table, with one column for findings
and one column for recommendations and conclusions. Third, information recorded in the twocolumns of findings and recommendations were read thoroughly to determine any patterns in theform of key words or phrases such as “distraction” and “training and support.” Fourth, key words
and phrases were color coded and identified as themes. Fifth, the identified themes were thenorganized into categories. The identified categories were potential problems, potential uses, andrecommendations.
Potential Problems.
As can be seen in Table 4, researchers discussed potential problems with using SecondLife. One significant problem, or theme, concerns the acceptance and adoption of Second Life as
an educational tool, as some students did not see the value of its use (Jarmon et al., 2008;
Lambert et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2008), while others did not take it seriously (FitzGibbon et al.,52         

2008). Fetscherin et al. (2008), however, suggested that student acceptance of Second Life wasdependent upon the perceived value of communication, the communication channels available
in-world (i.e. inside Second Life), and cooperation. A second theme, technical problems
associated with Second Life’s heavy requirements for computing capacity coupled with thenormal problems associated with computer maintenance, also caused significant frustration andconsternation (Chow et al., 2007; Delwiche, 2006; Franklin et al., 2007; McVey, 2008; Sanchez,
2007b). Second Life requires a cable or DSL Internet connection, at least 800 MHZ processor(1.5 GHz recommended), and at least 512 MB of memory (1 GB recommended). If a computer
does not have these requirements, it will have difficulty operating the Second Life software
program. Potential technical problems include slow download time of the virtual environment,
software freezing up, and software crashes, all of which will impact a student’s experience with
Second Life. In addition to technical problems, FitzGibbon et al. (2008) and Luo et al. (2008)
identified Second Life’s steep learning curve as another potential problem; the interface can bedifficult to master and it takes time to learn how to build objects inside Second Life. Researchers
also noted the potential for distraction due to Second Life's wide open structure as a problem, as
there are no goals or tasks to accomplish in Second Life similar to those associated with video
games and massively multi-player online games, and users are free to go and do as they please(FitzGibbon et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2008). Hayes (2006) pointed out theperception that Second Life was too open to abuse and misinformation, as well as mentioning
such problems as pornography in-world (i.e., inside Second Life), the tension between private
ownership of content and public access, and the appearance of "gated neighborhoods" whichreflect material and social divisions among participants (p. 158).
Table 4
Potential Problems with Second Life
Authors
FitzGibbon et al. (2008); Jarmon et al.
(2008); Lambert et al. (2008); Vogel etal. (2008).
Chow et al. (2007); Delwiche (2006);
Franklin et al. (2007); McVey (2008);
Sanchez (2007b)
FitzGibbon et al. (2008); Luo et al.
(2008)
FitzGibbon et al. (2008); Luo et al.
(2008); McKay et al. (2008)•

Potential Problem
Student acceptance of Second Life as an
educational tool or environment•

Technical problems and lack of staff support•

Steep learning curve•

Potential for distraction and exposure toincorrect or inappropriate content

Potential Use.
Researchers identified several potential uses of Second Life (see Table 5). One potentialuse, or theme identified, is that Second Life has the capacity to facilitate role-play activities thatare equally effective as role-play activities in the real world (Gao et al., 2008; Mayrath et al.,2008). The notion of role-play is supported by findings by Yee et al., (2007) that interactions inSecond Life are governed by the same social norms in the real world, even though Messinger etal. (2008) found that behavior in a virtual world was more outgoing and risk-taking when53         

compared to behavior in the real world. Indeed, McVey (2008) recommended that any activity
planned in Second Life should follow familiar social conventions. Related to the notion of roleplay is the use of Second Life to explore gender roles as students take on different roles indifferent situational contexts (Park et al., 2008). A second potential use of Second Life is that
Second Life can be implemented as a tool for distance education, since it allows for synchronous
virtual experiences and information seeking as well as meeting opportunities (Brown et al., 2008;
Chow et al., 2007; Luo et al., 2008). The ability to create simulations inside Second Life whichreflect real world situations and processes is a third theme, as Yellowlees et al. (2006) createdsimulations in the form of mental hallucinations, while Franklin et al. (2007) successfully built
and tested middle school science experiments. Engaging in group work and group projects is
another potential use of Second Life recognized by educators, as students successfully worked
together and in some instances preferred to be together rather than alone (Brown et al., 2008;
Delwiche, 2006; Mayrath et al., 2007). Another theme identified is Second Life’s potential toencourage and foster alternative forms of education which are student-centered rather thanteacher-centered, and that follow constructivist principles such as problem-based learning (Goodet al., 2008; Luo et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2008). Second Life also provided opportunities tobuild and create virtual communities (Gillen, 2009; Rycroft, 2007). Finally, several educators
noted Second Life’s ability to allow students to communicate, collaborate, and interact socially(De Lucia et al., 2009; Delwiche, 2006; Gillen, 2009; Margerum-Leys, 2008; Rappa et al, 2009).

Table 5
Potential Uses of Second Life
Authors
Gao et al. (2008); Mayrath et al. (2008);
Park et al. (2008)
Brown et al. (2008); Chow et al. (2007);
Luo et al. (2008)
Yellowlees et al. (2006); Franklin et al.
(2007)
Brown et al. (2008); Delwiche (2006);
Mayrath et al. (2007)
Good et al. (2008); Luo et al. (2008);
Jarmon et al. (2008); McKay et al. (2008)
Gillen (2009); Rycroft (2007)
De Lucia et al. (2009); Delwiche, (2006);
Gillen (2009); Margerum-Leys (2008);
Rappa et al. (2009)•

Potential Use
Facilitating role-play activities, including
exploration of gender roles
Distance education•

Simulations and games•

Group work and group projects•

Student-centered teaching and learning
strategies based on constructivist principles
such as problem-based learning
Build/create virtual community
To foster and encourage student
communication, collaboration, and social
interaction•••

Recommendations.
Several of the studies provided insight into how to adopt Second Life for educational
purposes (see Table 6). A prominent theme was that educators should establish a clear
connection between course objectives and course activities in Second Life (Delwiche, 2006;
Mayrath et al., 2007) and that a correspondence between the technology and what students view54         

as being useful to them must be present to hold their attention (Brown et al., 2008). Without thisconnection, students may not see the value or relevance in using a tool such as Second Life
(Brown et al., 2008; Jarmon et al., 2008; Lambert et al., 2008). A second theme was that
educators should place an emphasis on technical training and support, as Second Life requires
robust, up-to-date computers to handle and run the software, and support staff who are familiar
with Second Life were not available (Chow, et al., 2007; Mayrath et al, 2007; Jarmon et al. 2008;
Sanchez, 2007b). A third theme was that educators should provide scaffolding activities inside
Second Life which help students to build skills, to practice, and to acclimate to the virtualenvironment (Delwiche, 2006; Mayrath, et al., 2007; McVey, 2008; Rappa et al., 2009; Sanchez,
2007b). Margerum-Leys (2008) and De Lucia et al. (2009) mentioned a fourth theme that spaces,such as collaborative zones and lecture rooms, should be constructed to achieve or encourage
intended instructional goals and objectives.

Table 6
Recommendations by the Researchers
Researchers
Brown et al. (2008); Delwiche (2006);
Mayrath et al. (2007); Sanchez (2007b)••

Chow, et al. (2007); Mayrath et al. (2007);
Jarmon et al. (2008); Sanchez (2007b)
Delwiche (2006); Mayrath, et al. (2007);
McVey (2008); Rappa et al.(2009);
Sanchez (2007b)••

Margerum-Leys (2008);
De Lucia et al. (2009)

Recommendations
Establish a clear connection between
course objectives and activities in Second
Life
Incorporate technical training and support
into any planned Second Life activity
Create scaffolded learning activities forstudents so they can practice inside
Second Life and acclimate to the virtualenvironment
Design and construct different spaces toencourage different types of student
interaction

Summary
Data gathered from this review can offer several pieces of information regarding the useof Second Life in education to further inform future research. First, neither form of research,
qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method, is currently more prevalent. Second, the sample sizesof the studies conducted thus far are relatively small, with approximately 74% of the identifiedstudies having a sample size between four and 43 participants. Third, Second Life is currently
predominantly the domain of higher education, with 23 out of the identified 27 studies conductedby higher education faculty or in the context of a higher education classroom or with higher
education students. Fourth, regardless of research method, the use of a survey or questionnaire
was the predominant type of instrument used to collect data, with 17 studies using such methods.
Fifth, educators in 13 out of 27 studies, or 48%, used Second Life either to teach a course, tofacilitate a course, or as part of a course. Lastly, in 14 of the 17 studies where students wereinvolved, students were engaged in student-centered types of learning such as role-play,
simulations, project-based learning, group learning, and explorative learning.

55         

Several potential problems with using Second Life were identified by researchers.
Problems include issues such as student acceptance of Second Life as an educational tool,technical problems, a steep learning curve, the potential for distraction and disruption caused byavatars unrelated to the class, and potential exposure to misinformation and pornography.
Despite these problems, educators also recognized potential uses for Second Life as an
instructional tool or forum. Potential uses included implementing Second Life to engage in roleplay activities, to explore gender roles, to augment distance education, to create and participate
in simulations and games, to employ group-based and project-based learning, and to use studentcentered forms of teaching and learning. With potential uses in mind, researchers also maderecommendations regarding how to implement Second Life. Recommendations include
connecting course content and objectives to learning activities in Second Life, incorporating
technical training and support, providing scaffolded learning opportunities for students toacclimate to the virtual environment, and designing and creating distinct types of spaces toencourage different types of social interaction.
Second Life and Constructivism
Several studies mentioned the use of Second Life as a constructivist tool or environment(Good et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2008). Constructivism is neither a theory oflearning nor a model for designing instruction (Jonassen, 2006). Instead, it is an “epistemologicaland psychological thesis about how we learn (Splitter, 2008, 139).” Windschitl (1999) notes that
constructivism is based on the reasoning that learners actively interpret, create, and reorganize
knowledge; such knowledge creation is reflected in John Dewey’s notion of “learning by doing.”
In constructivism, students actively participate in the knowledge creation process rather thanmerely receiving knowledge from the transmitter (i.e. the teacher). Learning experiences
therefore include “problem-based learning, inquiry activities, dialogues with peers and teachersthat encourage making sense of the subject matter, exposure to multiple sources of information,and opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding in diverse ways (Windschitl,
1999, 157).” Based upon the content analysis, Second Life facilitates all of these activities, thus
indicating that it may be a constructivist tool.
Recommendations for Using Second Life
This study identified a number of actions that educators should take if they are to venture
forth either into Second Life or virtual worlds in general. A description of the recommendations
is provided below.
Identify Course Goals and Objectives
As with using any technology tool or activity, it is important to identify the objectives of
the course and the educational goals students are to achieve. This step should not be overlooked
as students may not consider Second Life to be a serious educational environment or tool(FitzGibbon et al., 2008; Jarmon et al., 2008; Lambert et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2008). The
instructor should devote significant time to ensure that students understand the connection
between course goals, requirements, and the activities to be completed in the virtualenvironment.

56         

Choosing a Virtual Environment
Choosing a virtual environment to incorporate into teaching and research is also an
important consideration. Virtual worlds such as Second Life have age restrictions (age 18 andolder); the Teen Second Life grid is restricted to teens aged 13 to 17, although teachers andresearchers can gain entry by completing a screening process. Once a teacher is admitted to Teen
Second Life, the educator must stay on islands restricted to adults; teens may visit and leave theadult islands, but adults cannot leave. Educators or researchers using Second Life should spend
time and effort to select the virtual environment most appropriate to address their needs. Costand pricing should also be considered.
Hardware and Software Requirements
Second Life maintains significant software and hardware requirements. As stated earlier,Second Life requires a cable or DSL Internet connection, at least 800 MHZ processor (1.5 GHz
recommended), and at least 512 MB of memory (1 GB recommended). Without meeting theseminimum requirements, any computer attempting to run the Second Life program will encounter
difficulty in the form of slow software download times, software freezes, and software shutdowns (Chow et al., 2007; Delwiche, 2006; Franklin et al., 2007; McVey, 2008; Sanchez.
2007b). Such occurrences will likely tarnish any activity the student attempts to complete.
Educators should ensure that students have access to computers that can process the software,
either personally owned computers or a computer lab on site.
Connecting Content to Course Activities
Similar to the need of identifying course goals and objectives is the need of explaining
the connection between course content and Second Life activities. Students must be able tounderstand why completing the course activity in Second Life will contribute to the course andto their overall understanding of the course material. Instructors should take special care to makethe connection clear or the students may not consider the activity worthwhile (FitzGibbon et al.
2008; Jarmon et al., 2008; Lambert et al., 2008; Vogel et al., 2008).
Use of SpaceThe Second Life environment is vast, with wide-open spaces. Therefore, it may be
helpful to create specific types of spaces to encourage different types of student interaction(Margerum-Leys, 2008; De Lucia et al. 2009). For example, to encourage student collaborationin building projects, creating a sandbox (an area where any avatar can build for free) wherestudents could practice together would be helpful. Teachers and researchers should also consider
restricting space, both in terms of who has access and in what the avatar (student) can view on
the monitor screen at any given point. Such restrictions could assist in addressing the problemsof student distraction and exposure to unrelated content mentioned in a few studies (FitzGibbon
et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2008).
Scaffolded Learning Activities
Given that Second Life has a steep learning curve due to the complexity of the interface(FitzGibbon et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2008), it is sensible to design learning activities that help
students to slowly learn how to use Second Life (Delwiche, 2006; Mayrath, et al., 2007; McVey,
2008; Rappa et al., 2009; Sanchez, 2007b). Such activities could begin with an introduction to
Second Life, followed by avatar creation, and then move to a search activity in which students57         

learn how to search and teleport inside Second Life, all while locating items for their avatar.
More complex activities could follow.
Student-Centered Learning Activities
While Second Life can certainly support the traditional teacher-centered form ofeducation, it also supports and encourages more student-centered, constructivist forms ofeducation described by Windschitl (1999) such as problem-based learning, inquiry, dialogue
between peers and teachers, access to multiple sources of information, and opportunities forstudents to demonstrate their understanding in diverse ways. Second Life is particularly suitedfor open-ended problem-based learning because it does not suffer from lack of resources orconstraint of scale found in the real world (Good, 2008, p.171). Second Life does not lack for
information, as island after island is available to be searched. The Second Life tools also present
the possibility for students to demonstrate understanding in a number of different ways (i.e., roleplay, game creation, simulation creation, works of art, three-dimensional models, etc.).

Limitations and Conclusions
There are two limitations to the study. First, the study was restricted to research studies
involving only Second Life. Other virtual worlds were purposely not included. Therefore, it may
be difficult to generalize any findings with other virtual worlds. Second, despite the best effortsof the researchers to locate all empirical research studies with Second Life not sponsored by
Linden Lab, it is possible that some studies were missed and were therefore not included. Any
exclusion was not done so with intent.
Despite these limitations, this review has several implications for the use of Second Lifeas an educational tool. First, it is clear that if educators are to continue to use Second Life as an
educational tool and environment, then more empirical research should be conducted todetermine best practices for using this particular virtual world. An important question should also
be considered, for both researchers and educators: given that only 4 studies focused on the use of
Second Life in K-12 education, should researchers and educators look to virtual environments
other than Second Life in which to teach K-12 students? Furthermore, should researchers andeducators continue to consider virtual world environments as viable learning tools? Currently,
Second Life has two distinct and entirely separate grids: the main adult grid for people ages 18
and up and the Teen Second Life grid for teens ages 13 to 17. Students over the age of 17 are notlegally allowed to enter the Teen Second Life grid, and educators are considerably restricted in
how they can enter and interact with teens in the Teen Second Life grid. If virtual environments
are to continue to be used as learning and research tools, it may be time for researchers andeducators to collaborate to develop a more safe and secure environment for all students in K-12.
Initiatives such as the Immersive Education Initiative by Media Grid (http://mediagrid.org) arecurrently working to establish standards and best practices for virtual worlds. Perhaps efforts
such as these can assist in developing a virtual arena that is more appropriate for K-12 students
and educators (Kelton, 2008).
For research purposes, studies such as these are intended to provide snapshots of research
and activity currently taking place at a given point in time. Therefore, it is recommended thatfurther research continue where this study ended, as Second Life may undergo change over time,either assisting or hindering educator efforts in Second Life. Future research may also examine

58         

specific reasons why little research with K-12 education is taking place in Second Life whencompared with higher education. Certainly, further research could explore the various ways inwhich higher education educators and researchers are using the Second Life platform to teach,research, and experiment. It is important that research continue, since it is likely that virtualworlds, in the form of Second Life or another platform, will continue to play a role in education
and research.

59         

References
Active Worlds. (2009). Active Worlds and education. Retrieved March 25, 2009:http://www.activeworlds.com/edu/
Brown, A., Hobbs, M., & Gordon, M. (2008). A Virtual World Environment for Group Work.
International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 3(1), 1-12.
Chow, A., Andrews, S., & Trueman, R. (2007). A "Second Life": Can this online, virtual reality
world be used to increase the overall quality of learning and instruction in graduate
distance learning programs? In M. Simonson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Association for
Educational Communications and Technology 2007, Volume 2 (pp. 86-94). Anaheim,
CA: AECT.
Cooper, T. (2007). Nutrition game. In D. Livingstone & J. Kemp (Eds), Proceedings of theSecond Life Education Workshop 2007 (pp. 47–50). Chicago, IL. Retrieved August 1,
2009: www.simteach.com/slccedu07proceedings.pdf
De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2009). Development and evaluation of avirtual campus on Second Life: The case of SecondDMI. Computers & Education,
52(2009), 220-233.
Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed
virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46-52.
Delwiche, A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom.
Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 160-172.
deWinter, J. & Vie, S. (2008). Press Enter to “Say”: Using Second Life to teach critical media
literacy. Computers and Composition, 25(3), 313-322.
Dickey, M.D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtualworlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105-121.
Dickey, M.D. (2005). Brave (new) interactive worlds: A review of the design affordances andconstraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive
Learning Environments, 13(1-2), 121-137.
Erickson, J. & Siau, K. (2003). e-ducation. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 134-140.
FitzGibbon, A., Oldham, E. & Johnston, K. (2008). Are Irish Student-Teachers Prepared to beAgents of Change in using IT in Education?. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings ofSociety for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference2008 (pp. 1397-1404). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Fetscherin, M. & Lattemann, C. (2008). User acceptance of virtual worlds. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research 9(3), 231-242.
Franklin, T., Mayles, J., Liu, C. & Chelberg, D. (2007). Games and Engineers in the Middle
School Science Classroom: A Case Study. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings ofSociety for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference
2007 (pp. 1207-1212). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Gao, F., Noh, J. & Koehler, M. (2008). Comparing Student Interactions in Second Life and Faceto-Face Role-playing Activities. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp.
2033-2035). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Gillen, J. (2009). Literacy Practices in Schome Park: A virtual literacy ethnography. Journal of
Research in Reading, 32(1), 57-74.

60

         

Good, J. Howland, K., & Thackray, L. (2008). Problem-based learning spanning real and virtualworlds: A case study in Second Life. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 16(3),163-172.
Hayes, E. (2006). Situated learning in virtual worlds: The learning ecology of Second Life.
Proceedings of Adult Education Research Conference 2006. Retrieved February 12, 2009
from Google Scholar.
Hew, K.F. & Cheung, W.S. (2008). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in
K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of
Educational Technology, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x
Holmes, J. (2007). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers andEducation, 48(4), 523–525.
Jarmon, L., Traphagan, T., & Mayrath, M. (2008). Understanding project-based learning in
Second Life with a pedagogy, training, and assessment trio. Educational MediaInternational, 45(3), 157-176.
Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.).
Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction (137-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Associates.
Jonassen, D.H. (2006). A constructivist’s perspective on functional contextualism. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54 (1), 43-47.
Jennings, N. & Collins, C. (2008). Virtual or virtually U: Educational institutions in Second Life.
International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3), 180-186.
Kay, R.H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice
education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
38(4), 383-408.
Kelton, AJ. (2008). “Virtual worlds? Outlook good”. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(5), 15-22.
Kemp, J. & Livingstone, D. (2006). Massively multi-learner: Recent advances in 3D social
environments. Computing and Information Systems Journal, 10(2), School of Computing,
University of Paisley.
Kirriemuir, J. (2007). An update on the July 2007 “snapshot” of UK higher and further education
developments in Second Life. Eduserv Foundation, 1-39.
Lambert, J. & Kidd, L. (2008). The Potential and Limitations of Teaching and Learning in an eLearning 2.0 Environment from a Cognitive Load Perspective. In Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp.
6003-6008). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Lauer, P.A. (2006). An education research primer: How to understand, evaluate, and use it. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Livingstone, D. & Kemp, J. (2006). Proceedings of the Second Life education workshop at theSecond Life community convention, August 18-20th, 2006. Article retrieved March 23,
2009: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/ef/03.pdf
Livingstone, D. Kemp, J. & Edgar, E. (2008). From multi-user environment to 3D virtual
learning environment. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology 16(3), 139-150.
Luo, L. & Kemp, J. (2008) Second Life: Exploring the Immersive Instructional Venue for
Library and Information Science Education. Journal of Education for Library andInformation Science 49(3), 147-166.

61

         

Margerum-Leys, J. (2008). Houses of worship and teacher education in Second Life: The
development of social capital. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for
Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp.
3055-3060). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Martinez, L. M., Martinez, P. & Warkentin, G. (2007). A first experience on implementing a
lecture on Second Life. In D. Livingstone & J. Kemp (Eds), Proceedings of the Second
Life Education Workshop 2007 (pp. 52–55). Chicago, IL. Retrieved August 1,, 2009:www.simteach.com/slccedu07proceedings.pdf
Mason, H. & Moutahir, M. (2006). Multidisciplinary experiential education in Second Life: A
global approach. Paper presented at the at the Second Life Education Workshop, August20, 2006, at the Second Life Community Convention, San Francisco.
Mayrath, M., Sanchez, J., Traphagan, T., Heikes, J. & Trivedi, A. (2007). Using Second Life in
an English course: Designing class activities to address learning objectives. In C.
Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4219-4224). Chesapeake,
VA: AACE.
McKay, S., Van Schie, J. & Headley, S. (2008). Embarking on an Educational Journey in SecondLife. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology andTeacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 1762-1766). Chesapeake, VA:
AACE.
McVey, M.H. (2008). Observations of expert communicators in immersive virtual worlds:
implications for synchronous discussion. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology,16(3),173-180.
Messinger, P.R., Ge, X., Stroulia, E., Lyons, K., Smirnov, K., & Bone, M. (2008). "Virtualworlds research: Consumer behavior in virtual worlds". Virtual Worlds Research, 1(2), 117.
Michels, P. (2008). Universities use Second Life to teach complex concepts. Govtech.com.
Article retrieved March 26, 2009: http://www.govtech.com/gt/252550
Park, H., Jung, J. & Collins, C. (2008). Effect of the activities in the Second Life as tool formutual understanding of gender role. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp.
1778-1783). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Pence, H. (2007-2008). The homeless professor in Second Life. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 36(2), 171-177.
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 79-103.
Rappa, N.A., Yip, D.K.H., & Baey, S.C. (2009). The role of teacher, student, and ICT inenhancing student engagement in multiuser virtual environments. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 40(1), 61-69.
Robbins-Bell, S. (2008). Higher education as virtual conversation. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(5),24-35.
Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Merrill: Columbus, OH.
Rycroft, A.E. (2007). Young adults and virtual public spheres: Building a new political culture.
Master's Long Project. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from Google Scholar.

62         

Sanchez, J. (2007a). Second Life: An Interactive Qualitative Analysis. In C. Crawford et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education
International Conference 2007 (pp. 1240-1243). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Sanchez, J. (2007b). A Sociotechnical Systems Analysis of Second Life in an Undergraduate
English Course. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conferenceon Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 4254-4258).
Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Splitter, L.J. (2009). Authenticity and constructivism in education. Studies in Philosophy and
Education, 28 (2), 135-151.
Vogel, D. Guo, M., Zhou, P., Tian, S., & Zhang, J. (2008). In search of Second Life nirvana.
Issues in informing science and information technology 5(2008), 11-28.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80 (10), 751-757.
Yee, M.S., Bailenson, J.N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable
likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtualenvironments. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 115-121.
Yellowlees, P.M. & Cook, J.N. (2006). Education about hallucinations using an Internet virtual
reality system: A qualitative survey. Academic Psychiatry 30(6), 534-539.

63