Serious Virtual Worlds

I've read a lot of Sara de Freitas' work (e.g., here and here), and I enjoy reviewing the reports she produces. They are thorough, insightful, and I always find that I learn something. Her latest report, "Serious Virtual Worlds" is no exception. In fact, it's one of the better pieces I've read recently on the topic of educational uses for virtual worlds. If you don't have time to read through this 52 page report, make time to peruse the tables that are integrated throughout the text.

De Freitas begins by stating the obvious: virtual worlds are popular. However, many of the claims made about the popularity of these environments are found in blog postings and other informal, and unvalidated outlets. Thus, it is difficult for educators to know which ones to select and for which contexts. The purpose of this report is to help policy makers and educators better understand virtual worlds. In addition, de Freitas hopes to shed light on the role learners play in these worlds.

Not only does de Freitas provide a nice literature review on the current state of virtual worlds, but she also provides case studies on five virtual worlds: 1) Active Worlds Educational Universe (AWEU), which was launched in 1997; 2) Project Wonderland, an open-source world; 3) Online Interactive Virtual Environment (OLIVE), a world used for training by the U.S. military and medical schools; 4) Second Life SciLands; and 5) Croquet, a world that has been described as "Alice in Wonderland-type" (p. 21). One thing to look out for is a shift from the name virtual worlds to immersive worlds. De Freitas seems to use these terms interchangeably, and she may be previewing a change in the way we refer to these worlds. [NOTE: She also used the term "immersive" in her 2007 report on game-based learning.]

In the section on "Working Worlds," de Freitas outlines five different categories of virtual worlds. They include the following: 1) role play worlds; 2) social worlds; 3) working worlds; 4) training worlds; and 5) mirror worlds. She also provides examples of each type of world (e.g., World of Warcraft is listed as a role play world, whereas Second Life (SL) is categorized as a social world) and notes the value of these worlds for learning and education.

One section of this report that is of particular interest to me is de Freitas' discussion on the blending between massively multiplayer games (MMOGs) and SL. A convergence between the two, according to de Freitas, is "quite possible" (p. 12). In fact, she highlights the use of Project Darkstar as Project Wonderland's underlying technology as an example of the convergence between the two. While there are scholars who claim that open-ended virtual worlds such as SL are not games (e.g., Bartle, 2004; Kelton, 2007; Oishi, 2007; Steinkuehler, 2008), there is not 100% agreement on this point. Virtual worlds and MMOGs are becoming more alike, and as a result, the game vs. not a game "debate" may be wasted energy. Instead, the more interesting point to examine may be why open-ended virtual worlds are becoming more game-like. Or, alternatively, the focus may be on why MMOGs are becoming more open-ended virtual environments.

Overall, virtual worlds place greater emphasis on the learner. Further, there are signs that physical world and virtual world experiences are beginning to blend. In the end, though, de Freitas contends that virtual worlds will not replace face-to-face interactions. Instead, these virtual spaces will supplement traditional approaches.