Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) as Alternative Lifeworlds: Transformative Learning in Cyberspace

Abstract

Direct instruction (PowerPoint presentations, lectures) often imposes hierarchical classroom structures where the teachers are considered experts, imparting knowledge to passive learners. However, the emergence of tools like Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) encourages the creation of democratic learning environments. We hypothesize that these tools lead to higher degrees of civil discourse within the classroom and create transformative learning trajectories for students, allowing them to create shared purpose to incite social change. By comparing reflectivity displayed in weekly students’ blogging assignments in a classroom using an MUVE (Second Life), and one using direct instruction, we sought to gauge the effect MUVEs had on students’ reflectivity with the passage of time. Results indicated that MUVEs facilitated more critical reflection and transformative learning trajectories as compared to direct instruction frameworks.

Keywords

critical reflection transformation transformative pedagogy

Instrumental and Transformative Reflection in Society and Education

Political, social and educational theorists have suggested the importance of links between democratic discourse and the purposes of learning environments. The ideas of Mezirow (1995) and Habermas (1989) exemplify this relationship. The discourse ethics within the public sphere in Habermas’ framework is associated with communicative rationality to create balanced solutions to existing social issues. In learning environments, this relates with making critically reflective arguments through sharing ideas (Joldersma & Crick, 2010). Participatory environments form the backbone of Mezirow’s transformative learning, which conceptualizes learning as something that starts with disorienting dilemmas (Taylor, 2007), and culminates into creating social change through integration of new perspectives into lived experience (Kitchenham, 2008; Taylor, 2008).

Critical reflection in higher education is coveted by educators but difficult to achieve (Mezirow, 1995). It can be fostered through democratic learning environments. Dewey’s (1916) “continuity” asserts that true learning occurs through adapting to new information and integrating it into one’s life. This is similar to Mezirow’s final stage of transformative learning, which involves forging relationships and engaging in discourse to transform perspectives and social change (Mezirow, 1995, 2003). The transformation that such learning creates is epistemic (it is a development of thinking rather than just learning; Vygotsky, 1978), as well as rooted in the transformation of meaning schemes through social interactions (Carter, 2002).

Participatory learning environments open up possibilities for transformative learning, by allowing individuals to combine varied experiences to achieve a common end in view and critique different perspectives (Tennant, 1991). Learners act as free agents who respect individuality and can use ideological variation to add deeper meaning to their common purpose (Dewey, 1916). Participatory environments for critical reflection are an important educational goal but are no mean feat. Our society is hierarchical, and classrooms mirror this by defining the teacher as an expert who imparts knowledge to students. The teacher always knows better (Freire & Faundez, 1989; McLaren, 2000). Students are explicitly and implicitly trained to perform to get approval from instructors, which often means forfeiting independent thinking that might go against the teacher’s (and society’s) expectations. Even if critical thinking is encouraged, its outcomes tend to be evaluated based on teacher-defined standards.

Based on Dewey, Habermas and Mezirow, transformative learning propels students to advance participatory democracy and improve the human condition. Mezirow’s work is related with Freire’s (1984) and relies on the development of ontological vocations in individuals who reflect and act upon their world non-hierarchically (Taylor, 2007). Humans have inner drives that allow us to make meaning by negotiating and critically assimilating what is around us (Mezirow, 2000). This can be hard to achieve in traditional, hierarchical classrooms.

The Link Between Communicative Rationality and Transformative Learning

While transformative learning conceptualizes reflection as achievable, the psychoanalytic and psychocritical view of the theory that focuses on the inner self (Cranton, 2000) has been criticized for focusing on the individual (Collard & Law, 1989) and rational dimensions of thought, rather than looking at the socio-emotional aspects of reflection (Malkki, 2010). This perspective falls short on providing prerequisites required to engender such reflection. Mezirow (1991, 2003) addresses these shortcomings by asserting that transformative learning is built around discourse and thrives in conditions where communicative rationality perpetuates. The social emancipatory and psychodevelopmental perspectives of the theory (Kegan, 1994), rooted in gaining incremental knowledge through social processes further cement Mezirow’s acceptance of discourse. The initial theory of ten stages was expanded to include an 11th stage of forging new relationships towards transforming perspectives (Mezirow, 1991). The links between Mezirow and Habermas highlight how deliberative, Deweyan processes emerge within such environments (Fleming, 2018).

While Marx and Gramsci focused on political civil society, Habermas decoded its cross-disciplinary role in the public sphere. Coffee houses, salons, and educational settings where people discuss matters of mutual concern are ecologies of communicative rationality for Habermas. He asserts that social processes transform public opinions incrementally (Fleming, 2018). This has been recognized in Mezirow’s (1991, 2000, 2003) newer conceptions of transformative learning, that assert the link between communicative rationality, our affect (Kokkos, 2017; Mezirow, 2000), the transformation of perspectives and knowledge, and the creation of new meaning.

Cohen and Arato (1992) assert that perspective transformation occurs in public spheres across varied domains. Transformative learning is the deliberative appreciation of the diversity of the many facets of transformation of thinking that the human condition has undergone across domains (Lange, 2015). The capacity for non-hierarchical interactions and the serendipity of creating new understanding is facilitated through social processes and creating ideal speech situations (Habermas, 1970). Transformative learning transforms frames of reference arising from both conflict and agreement (Mezirow, 2003). Thus, even conflictual presence (Xie et al., 2017) can provide value to ideological exchanges that occur within Habermas’ (1989) lifeworld.

The Lifeworld as an Ecology of Change

The lifeworld is the background for communicative rationality (Habermas, 1989). It comprises an “incalculable web of presuppositions” that accumulate owing to societal development. Every classroom contains its own lifeworld (Davis & Ziegler, 2000). Free will to participate in learning and detachment whilst understanding diverse perspectives culminate into transformative learning and run parallel to democracy in education. We suggest in this article that classes using online platforms such as Multi-User Virtual Environments (MUVEs) and blogs can help create learning communities that mirror ideologies of a lifeworld in cyberspace.¹ Our main purpose is to investigate to what extent computer-mediated technologies (virtual environments, blogging platforms) promote reflective, balanced civil discourse in classrooms. Such experiences can turn learners into detached social activists who critique concepts towards positive social change (Mezirow, 1995, 2003).

Bringing Mezirow and Habermas together lower levels of reflectivity in Mezirow’s theory and Habermas’s instrumental rationality seems to align. Instrumental rationality (Habermas, 1984) involves adopting radical means to an end that lie beyond democracy to achieve a goal for personal gain. Achieving transformative learning is situated in the forging of relationships (Kitchenham, 2008). Mezirow (2003) himself recognizes the validity of Habermas’ theory, differentiating instrumental and communicative rationality. He posits that thoughtful action and communication is associated with learning rather than introspection (Mezirow, 1991), which does not involve using the affect to create new meaning (Kitchenham, 2008).

In this article, we build on the thesis that one of the best ways to view how new cyberspace applications lead to “transformation” is through a Mezirow type lens (Glassman, 2019b). Too often, transformation when used in relation to the internet is used to describe material changes in how we educate, for example, MOOCs (Glassman, 2019a). It is more important to understand the internet and cyberspace as transforming our thinking (Glassman & Kang, 2016). We also see the internet as the next step in the evolution of Mezirow’s ideas, creating new types of platforms and opportunities that expand the educational context towards a transformative educational process.

MUVEs and the Creation of Transformative Educational Communities

One reason for the difficulty to transition from traditional hierarchical structures to a participatory system may lie in the mediating tools used in the classroom. Vygotsky posits that mediating tools link individuals and knowledge from the external environment. In direct-instruction classrooms, language is the mediating tool that facilitates internalization of knowledge (Penuel & Wertsch, 2010). Content-heavy instructional methods deem the teacher an expert who imparts knowledge. Altering the mediating tools could potentially encourage higher critical reflection. Allowing freedom for reflection through such alteration could enable civil discourse within the “lifeworld” of the classroom. When this principle is taken to an online community, this notion can be simulated within the limitless bounds of cyberspace.

MUVEs as mediating tools could prove useful in facilitating this type of transformative learning. Dissolving boundaries between digital and physical space can create communities that encourage reflective civil interaction. Such tools can foster reflectivity within the virtual setting that mirror social change (Glassman & Kang, 2016). Three-dimensional environments offer a great potential for such communities, with avatars (embodied virtual projections of users) being able to simulate real-world, place-based ideological exchange and provide opportunities for immediate feedback through typed input, and pre-programmed non-verbal cues (Salmon, 2009).

Bainbridge (2007) observed that MUVEs like Second Life pose few barriers for integrating individuals into the community. There are also compelling arguments pointing towards the capacity of MUVEs to adapt to learner needs and create challenging tasks in context (Mascitti et al., 2012). In MUVEs, learners can create objects (Nie et al., 2009) that can be manipulated in ways inconceivable to physical reality (Edirisingha et al., 2009). Such objects can become focal points for productive discussion and the formation of an online learning community (Salmon, 2009). The learner engages with the digital (MUVE) and physical (classroom) through the creation of an avatar that mirrors one’s identity and self-perceptions (Kuznetcova et al., 2018; Theodore, 2009) and allows engagement in a democratic “sandbox” fostering free ideological exchange. By adopting a problem-based approach, MUVEs can allow students to work together with shared purpose and learn by doing and engaging in civil discourse in the virtual world (Kluge & Riley, 2008). The ability for immediate interaction towards solving a common problem is what MUVEs allow for a social distribution of cognition and collaborative processes (Dieterle & Clarke, 2009; Kuznetcova et al., 2019; Tüzün et al., 2019). With MUVEs, initial familiarity with the platform is necessary towards facilitating democratic processes, and efforts must be made towards developing this knowhow (Papachristos et al., 2014), familiarizing peers with the system, and one another. Blogs are a second online ecology that can foster creation of a learning community. Research has shown blogging communities can foster communal understanding among students by encouraging an exchange of knowledge (Kim & Glassman, 2013; Kreijns et al., 2013; Preece, 2000; Rovai, 2002). This framework, much like MUVE environments, depends on the way such platforms are designed and used in the classroom to foster discussion (Bartholomew et al., 2012).

Functional digital environments can encourage critical reflection, by allowing the balanced ideological exchange that could be accompanied by the creation of online identities and 3D projections capable of immediate interaction. In these environments, new spaces for non-hierarchical learning and the capacity to exchange and create new knowledge is made possible (Dogan et al., 2018). In order to maintain the stability of such ecologies, perspective transformation needs to take place within the confines of civil discourse (Fleming, 2000). Democracy calls for willing participation and expression of ideas, to gradually result in perspective transformation. Communicative action forms the basis of such change, and democratic debates within the lifeworld, or in this case, the virtual world, need to be shared to promote it (Habermas, 1984). Habermas emphasizes the importance of democratic exchange and active engagement by the learning community towards the creation of transformed, evolved social perspectives (Fleming, 2009). Such exchange is made richer through capacity for instantaneous feedback and can lead to perspective transformation through engagement with limitless possibilities, (Kuznetcova et al., 2019).

This is where the boundaries between blogs and MUVEs start to show. Written reflection without capacity for immediate interaction could impede transformative learning trajectories. This arises from the uncertainty for the incidence of immediate salient feedback, since a blog allows chronological posting rather than multichannel communication. A hybrid framework could allow an eloquent narration of perspective and democratic discourse.

Research Questions

We propose that online learning communities involving the use of hybrid methods might lead to higher reflectivity within the classroom, by encouraging communicative processes. Through alteration of mediating tools towards using MUVEs and online blogs, this study aims to examine whether MUVEs can promote transformative learning. Our research questions are as follows:

Research Question 1

Does participation in an MUVE as part of an educational process increase the likelihood of critical approaches to information?

Research Question 2

Does participation in an MUVE as part of an educational process lead to more transformative thinking?

Method

The current study was implemented in two sections of an undergraduate classroom at a large Midwestern university that was administered to pre-service teachers. One section was the experimental class, which integrated an MUVE platform into the curriculum, but also involved blogging for weekly assignments, and direct instruction. The control classroom involved only blogging and top-down instruction. Data were collected from the weekly blogging assignments from both sections. A coding scheme was developed on the basis of Mezirow (1991, 1995, 2003) and Habermas’ (1970, 1984, 1989) theories and used to qualitatively label the blogs for different levels of reflectivity. Interrater reliability was carried out in order to ascertain the validity of the coding process. Following this, individual students were mapped over three time points for growth in reflectivity using linear growth curve modeling.

Participants

Fifty-six pre-service undergraduate students (28 in the experimental group, 28 in the control group) participated in the study. The median age in both conditions was 20 years, with the range falling between 18 and 34 years (M = 21.38, SD = 3.37). Other demographic variables, including reported internet use and gaming experience, are presented below.

Curriculum

The active control class used a curriculum based on Open Source Educational Processes frameworks (Glassman et al., 2011; Glassman & Kang, 2016). The same curriculum was used by the instructor in this particular class over the last 5 academic years. Open Source Educational Processes (OSEP) focus on the efficacy of learners in using the internet to spur discussion and share information. One tool regularly used in OSEP classrooms to facilitate discussion and sharing of information is weekly blogging. This framework was used in the control classroom, along with top-down instruction.

In the MUVE conditions, the aim was to create an alternative lifeworld, as Habermas would call it, in order to discursively reify knowledge and create ideal speech situations to facilitate such creation of perspectives. The MUVE acted as this alternative lifeworld and was incorporated into the aforementioned control classroom framework for the experimental group. Strategies were devised to link MUVE activity to lectures, reading and blog-posting. The lectures in the MUVE class were compressed to make room for virtual activities. In the control condition, this was replaced by longer lectures and physically situated discussions. The remaining time in both classes was used to expose students to other media like audio and video.

In the MUVE condition, learners collectively built artefacts, learnt how to use textures within the platform, and collectively engaged in tasks. They even designed and built flipped classrooms as part of one of the assignments. Since the class was related to adolescent identity development, some activities involved collectively simulating activities typical of adolescents, such as going on a date, going camping, to a dance party, or learning about a new culture by traveling within the virtual world. Students collectively solved problems and gained insights, which were then asynchronously expressed on the blog, after pondering over them through the lens of in-class instruction. MUVE classrooms thus involved a combination of blogging, physical top-down instruction, and virtual exploration in Second Life. In effect, the MUVE acted as a mid-step or alternative lifeworld between the physical classroom and the blogging activity. It allowed students to explore a space that can show the potential for communicative rationality and immediate feedback, reflect on their experiences, and reify this knowledge in a transformative/ critically reflective manner as a narrative.

The control group only featured activities conducted in the physical classroom and blogging activities. This allowed for asynchronous interactions on the blog and immediate interactions within the classroom, but these were largely within a top-down framework, with instructors considered as authoritative figures. MUVEs allowed students to assume autonomy and interact non-hierarchically with one another, as well as the instructors. We hypothesize that this allowed them to discursively create knowledge, challenge the status quo, and transform their perspectives, all of which found expression on the blogging platform.

Students in both experimental and active control groups were required to attend every class and write weekly blog posts. There were no other assignments, and attendance and blog posts were graded only based on completion. A curriculum team and research team were formed to discuss weekly MUVE activities. Discussions regarding the MUVE curriculum often revolved around creation of democratic learning environments, moderating levels of authority of instructors and Teaching Assistants (TAs), and understanding why students showed signs of radical thinking in some sessions (Glassman et al., 2020).

Applications/Platforms

Both conditions used Blogger for blogging assignments. Students were required to make one weekly post, comment at least once on another peer’s writing, and add useful links to information to their posts. An aspect that made Blogger the ideal choice was the capacity to display posts in reverse chronology, which adds organization to the development of a communicative blogging community (Bartholomew et al., 2012; Kim & Glassman, 2013).

In the experimental setting, Second Life was chosen as the MUVE platform. The research team discussed other MUVEs such as Active Worlds, Opensimulator and Minecraft had for this class and determined Second Life as “best of breed.” A consensus was reached to stay away from MPORG (Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) platforms due to difficulties associated with tying in-game content to classroom activities due to rigid plotlines that these platforms often have, making deliberative outcomes elusive.

Purchasing a virtual land, the team developed an island called “Wisdom Shores,” walled off from visitors. Students were free to travel and explore. The learning curve was extremely steep, and the intuitiveness and graphic quality was often considered to fall behind contemporary benchmarks. Learners, owing to individual difference, reacted to these aspects differently, ranging from calling the platform redundant to engaging with possibilities associated with it.

Coding Scheme

To label blogs for reflectivity, a coding scheme was developed using Kember et al.’s (2008) four-part framework, and adapting it using Habermas’s theory of communicative action. Kember et al. (2008) relied on Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning (Mezirow, 1995) to create a four-part coding scheme. We adapted the coding scheme to include more nuanced considerations of communicative rationality, based on the updates made to the theory of transformative learning that we have discussed in the previous sections of this article. The communicative undertones of Mezirow’s framework (Fleming, 2000) highlight the link between critical reflectivity and communicative rationality. In Kember et al.’s (2008) article, a four-part scheme was developed, consisting of four labels: (1) non-reflection, (2) understanding, (3) reflection and (4) critical reflection.

In our scheme, we adapt Kember’s original framework to involve the communicative or transformative possibilities in integrating the MUVE into a curriculum (Weber, 1990). The purpose of using the coding scheme was to facilitate a granular qualitative analysis on the narratives produced on the blogging platform and provide context-specific evidence of growth in reflectivity towards transformative learning. Keeping with Mezirow and Habermas, we chose to label understanding and critical reflection as variables that could either be instrumental or communicative. The difference between transformative understanding and critical reflection is similar to the difference that Dewey (1933) highlights between less considered reflection/reflection and critical reflection. The former would involve hasty decisions lacking critique and would, in our coding scheme, be associated with less nuanced thinking, but achieved through democratic processes.

Instrumental understanding and reflection are rooted in the individualistic side of the educational lifeworld. They help explain basic understanding and habitual action, which involves generating quick responses that are based on reflections based on rigid value systems. The transformative variables in our coding arise from social processes, but critical reflection is harder to achieve, as it involves a sound critique of the concepts being discussed. The coding scheme is presented below.

Instrumental Understanding

This level represents an empirical understanding of a topic. Rather than critiquing a concept thoroughly, students showing instrumental understanding will merely reproduce data that they read or come across to present factual matter. In other words, they accept the perspectives that authoritative figures put forward as absolute.

Instrumental Critical Reflection

Habermas proposed two ways to create discourse. One of them is breaking down existing conceptions completely through a sort of rebellion. This is represented by instrumental critical reflection, in our scheme. Learners showing this level would thoroughly criticize a concept rather than providing a deeper critique and would call for a complete change rather than proposing action plans for incremental change. They would comment on concepts after generating reflections from rigid value systems rather than critiquing them. Although this notion of complete change may align with social good, the mode that it adopts to incite it may create turmoil within the learning environment.

Transformative Understanding

Transformative understanding is associated with a surface level understanding of why the system or concept being studied needs to be changed. However, one aspect lacking in this level is a thorough critique of the existing system. Individuals showing this level of reflectivity will call for incremental change for social good without reflecting over the implications it has. Therefore, while this lies within civil discourse, learners showing this level of reflectivity do not pose a rationale that powers their intention to create change.

Transformative Critical Reflection

Mezirow believes that transformative learning is indicative of the transformation of social perspectives through the convergence of diverse opinions (Kember et al., 2008; Mezirow, 2003). When we integrate Habermas’ communicative rationality to adapt the original coding scheme, one can see how civil discourse can be created through ideologically balanced debate. In our coding scheme, transformative critical reflection indicates thorough critique of a system using multiple positions, and calls for gradual change, formulated through civil discourse. We believe that the MUVE is a space that can encourage such reflectivity, by forming the middle-step or “alternative lifeworld” that allows the synchronous reification of knowledge between peers and instructors, from top-down instruction, into transformed, asynchronously created perspectives on the blogging platform.

Blogs were taken from three time points (Week one, Week seven, and Week 13) for each group, to measure the growth that students showed in each condition for the variables outlined.

Coding Scheme: Applied

Below is a comprehensive qualitative analysis of blogs. One blog exhibiting each level of reflectivity has been explained to provide a deeper understanding of parameters that guide our coding scheme.

Instrumental Understanding

I think it is interesting when people say they would go back and change things that have happened in their lives (school, work, relationships, etc.). I’d rather not go back and change anything that has happened in the past. Whether it be big or small mistakes, there is always something to learn from it if you choose to do so. Things that I regret doing or not doing in the past I would rather look at as opportunities to learn, not to dwell and feel bad about. There is no escaping the initial, “I messed up” feeling though. That is normal and should come in the process. But we come to this point when we have a decision of continuing to dwell or moving forward. Here is a TedTalk I found about learning from your mistakes https://www.ted.com/talks/diana_laufenberg_3_ways_to_teach

In Week 13 of the control classroom, students wrote blogs about the mistakes they make and the risks that they take during adolescence. In this post, the student elaborates upon the nature of life, and how one learns from mistakes. Rather than providing a critique by arguing about things like repentance, as opposed to forgetting and moving on, the student merely says that both these things are a part of life, without providing action plans to help negotiate such experiences, or considering the anecdotes of others. Thus, this blog was coded as instrumental understanding.

Instrumental Critical Reflection

I was extremely interested in the movie we watched the past week. I hope we can watch the end of it this week. The movie however made me upset. The thing of it is that cyberbullying like what took place in this movie happens all the time. Kids pick on kids just for their own enjoyment. I hate it. I don’t get how someone can get enjoyment by making fun of someone, and hurting them. When I was in high school, we had something similar to this happen. Fortunately, nothing too serious happened because a teacher became aware of the situation. It really hurts me to see stuff like this happen. It’s terrible that things like this are happening more and more now that social media is so frequently used. Here is a link about cyberbullying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmQ8nM7b6XQ

In Week seven of the control class, students were asked to blog about technology in educational settings. In this post, the student talks of how technology and social media has negatively impacted social interactions in school settings. Rather than posing a balanced argument, the student merely says that technology is unfavorable to adolescent identity development, calling for radical change. Thus, this blog was coded as exhibiting instrumental critical reflection.

Transformative Understanding

I think as teachers; it’s our responsibility is to introduce our students to methods on how to learn in inside and outside of the classroom. I think that it is beneficial to incorporate technology into our lessons to students, since technology is so valuable and prominent in society today. As a teacher, I want to incorporate technology into my classroom in a way that promotes learning, while making it clear to my students that technology is not to be used in any way as a distraction. To me, it’s crucial that my students need to understand how to navigate the internet, in order to find answers to their questions from credible and reliable sources. Also, I think it’s important to expose students to the various resources that are available to help them learn on the internet, such as YouTube and Khan Academy. I believe that it is more important for teachers to show their student how to be success learners in all aspects of live, with or without technology, rather than for them to just spoon feed their students by transferring the class’s information to them. I attached an article that discusses the importance of technology in the classroom (http://www.securedgenetworks.com/blog/10-Reasons-Today-s-Students-NEED-Technology-in-the-Classroom).

In this blog, the student talks about how there needs to be a balance between using technology and gaining applied knowledge and thus acknowledges the need for change. However, no balanced critique of the advantages and impediments of technology is present. Thus, the blog was coded as showing transformative understanding.

Transformative Critical Reflection

I do not think that there is anything necessarily wrong with students dating in high school. I think students who do date in school miss out on certain things because they are caught up in a relationship. With that being said, I think it is completely natural for people to want to have a significant other at that age, and I also think that it is their right to have a relationship if they want one. I was involved in a relationship when I was in high school, and sometimes I look back on it and wish that I did more things with a lot of the other people in my class other than that one person. I also think that good things can come from dating in school. Also, dating in high school is such a significant part of the American culture at this point it would be incredibly hard to stop children from having romantic relationships at that age. Just look at how many important generational movies are based on romance in high school in the attached link (http://www.ranker.com/list/best-teen-romance-movies/ranker-film).

In Week 13 of the experimental class, students were asked to comment on dating in high school as a part of identity development. In this blog, the student says that a relationship can be enjoyable but may prevent engagement in several other aspects of one’s personal life. By claiming that dating is a seminal part of American culture that needs to be morphed incrementally to allow more balanced experiences in one’s personal life, the student thus engages in transformative critical reflection.

Results

Blogs were coded according to the aforementioned coding scheme, after developing familiarity with the variables under consideration. The highest level of reflection seen was ascribed to each post and mapped over time. Two raters coded 30 of the set of 152 blogs to conduct reliability tests for the coding scheme. Cohen’s κ was calculated for the process. After interrater reliability, the level of agreement was seen to be moderate to substantial (κ = .66, 95% CI [.45, .88]). When the whole data set was coded after this process, major disagreements were resolved through collective negotiation to reach a consensus about contested codes. After codes for the entire data set were obtained, linear growth curve modeling was conducted to gauge whether greater growth in reflectivity towards transformative critical reflection was seen in the MUVE condition, as compared to the active control.

Descriptives

Descriptive statistics for 152 blog entries (67 entries in the control group and 85 in the experimental group across three time points) were carried out, and are shown in Table 3. Across all three time points, 46% of students demonstrated instrumental understanding, 26% demonstrated instrumental critical reflection, 14% transformative understanding, and 14% showed transformative critical reflection.

Table 1.
Distribution of Gender.

Condition Male % Female % Total

Experimental 11 39.30 17 60.70 28

Control 15 53.60 13 46.40 28

Total 26 46.40 30 53.60 56

Table 2.
Descriptives of Age.

Age Descriptive

Median 20

Mean 21.38

SD 3.37

Table 3.
Student Academic Status.

Academic Status Frequency %

Undergraduate Student 49 87.50

Graduate Student 7 12.50

The data were further divided into experimental and control conditions. The active control group exhibited 52% instrumental understanding, 19% instrumental critical reflection, 21% transformative understanding, and 8% transformative critical reflection over all three time points. The experimental condition exhibited different proportions, viz. 39% instrumental understanding, 34% instrumental critical reflection, 6% transformative understanding, and 21% transformative critical reflection (Table 7).

Table 4.
Reported Daily Internet Usage.

Daily Internet Use n %

1–3 hr 21 37.50

3–5 hr 19 33.90

more than 5 hr 16 28.60

Table 5.
Reported Gaming Experience.

Gaming Experience Experimental % Control %

A lot 9 32.1 10 35.7

Some 6 21.4 6 21.4

Little 8 28.6 8 28.6

None 5 17.9 4 14.3

Table 6.
Coding Scheme.

Code Explanation

Instrumental understanding Basic retrieval of concepts. Lacks solid critique.

Instrumental reflection Proposes radical change. Often involves a harsh criticism of existing concepts.

Transformative understanding Characterized by desire for steady, incremental change, but lacks thorough critique of existing systems.

Transformative critical reflection Provides sound critique of existing systems and proposes action plans for incremental social change.

Table 7.
Counts and Percentages Across All Three Time Points.

Condition Instrumental Understanding Instrumental Critical Reflection Transformative Understanding Transformative Critical Reflection

Control 44 (52%) 16 (19%) 18 (21%) 7 (8%)

Experimental 26 (39%) 23 (34%) 4 (6%) 14 (21%)

Total 70 (46%) 39 (26%) 22 (14%) 21 (14%)

Table 8.
Contingency Table of Reflectivity Across Time.

Time Point Instrumental Understanding Instrumental Critical Reflection Transformative Understanding Transformative Critical Reflection

Time 1 22 (84.6%) ^C
11 (50%) ^E 0 (0%) ^C
8 (36%) ^E 2 (8%) ^C
2 (9%) ^E 2 (8%) ^C
1 (5%) ^E

Time 2 11 (37%) ^C
11 (61%) ^E 4 (13%) ^C
5 (28%) ^E 12 (40%) ^C
1 (6%) ^E 3 (10%) ^C
1 (5.6%) ^E

Time 3 11 (38%) ^C
4 (15%) ^E 12 (41%) ^C
10 (37%) ^E 4 (14%) ^C
1 (4%) ^E 2 (7%) ^C
12 (44%) ^E

Note. ^C = control group, ^E = experimental group.

Table 9.
Significance Levels for Growth in Instrumental Understanding.

Variable Coefficient SE T

Fixed effect

Intercept 1.11* .42 2.60

Condition −0.74 .61 −1.21

Time −0.99** .32 −3.10

Time × Condition 0.17 .46 0.37

Random effect

Intercept 0.79

Slope (time) 0.51

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Table 10.
Significance Levels for Growth in Instrumental Critical Reflection.

Variable Coefficient SE T

Fixed effect

Intercept −4.07* 0.99 −4.10

Condition 3.36 1.11 3.02

Time 1.89 0.56 3.35

Time × Condition −1.84 0.65 −2.82

Random effect

Intercept 1.40

Slope (time) 0.25

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Table 11.
Significance Levels for Growth in Transformative Understanding.

Variable Coefficient SE T

Fixed effect

Intercept −1.47** .46 −3.56

Condition −0.82 .85 −0.99

Time 0.14 .33 0.56

Time × Condition −0.63 .71 −0.90

Random effect

Intercept 0.37

Slope (time) 0.008

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Table 12.
Significance Levels for Growth in Transformative Critical Reflection.

Variable Coefficient SE T

Fixed effect

Intercept −2.39*** 0.57 −4.16

Condition −1.48 1.36 −1.09

Time −0.04 0.47 −0.08

Time × Condition 1.83* 0.87 2.09

Random effect

Intercept 1.35

Slope (time) 0.90

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

To explore growth patterns, we initially plotted percentages at each time point (Figures 1 –4). The experimental group showed a growing trend in transformative critical reflection, whereas the control group appeared to remain the same. Conversely, for instrumental critical reflection, the experimental group showed similar proportions over time, whereas the control group increased drastically.

Figure 1.
Percentages of instrumental understanding across three time points.

Figure 2.
Percentages of instrumental critical reflection across three time points.

Figure 3.
Percentages of transformative understanding across three time points.

Figure 4.
Percentages of transformative critical reflection across three time points.

Linear Growth Curve Models

Linear growth curve modeling was carried out to measure average growth for the four variables. Differential effects of treatment group were observed over time on these variables. We employed a Linear Growth Model due to the small quantity of time points available. At Level 1, we include a systematic growth trajectory term (time). At Level 2, we included one person-level characteristic (condition). We allowed the intercept and growth rate parameters to vary between individual students at Level 2. As all variables were dichotomously coded, growth models were estimated using logistic growth curve models. Results are presented in terms of logits.

Model equations

${Level 1 model: η}_{t i} = π_{0 i} + π_{1 i} \times ({TIME}_{t i})$

${Level 2 model: π}_{0 i} = β_{00} + β_{01} \times ({EXPERIME}_{i}) + r_{0 i}$

$π_{1 i} {= β}_{10} {+ β}_{11} \times {(EXPERIME}_{i}) + r_{1 i}$

${Mixed model: η}_{t i} {= β}_{00} {+ β}_{01} \times {EXPERIME}_{i} {+ β}_{10} \times {TIME}_{t i} {+ β}_{11} \times {EXPERIME}_{i} \times {TIME}_{t i} + r_{0 i} + r_{1 i} \times {TIME}_{t i}$

Instrumental understanding

The interaction between experimental group and time was not significant (B = 0.17, SE = .46, p = .71). The likelihood of exhibiting instrumental understanding in the blog posts decreased, on average, at a rate of 0.17 logits lower for the experimental group than their control group counterparts, but this was not statistically significant (Figure 5). Looking at the variance–covariance matrix, intercept variance and slope variance were not significantly different across individuals.

Figure 5.
Linear growth curve for instrumental understanding.

Instrumental critical reflection

Treatment group was significantly related to individual growth rates (B = −1.84, SE = .65, p < .01). The likelihood of exhibiting instrumental critical reflections in the blog posts increased at a rate of 1.84 logits lower for the experimental group than their control group counterparts (Figure 6). Observing variance/covariance components, we observed that intercept variance and slope variance were not significantly different across individuals.

Figure 6.
Linear growth curve for instrumental critical reflection.

Transformative understanding

The interaction between experimental group and time was not significant (B = −0.63, SE = .71, p = .37). The likelihood of exhibiting transformative understanding decreased, on average, at a rate of 0.63 logits lower for the experimental group than their control group counterparts, but this was not statistically significant (Figure 7). Looking at the variance–covariance matrix, intercept variance and slope variance were not significantly different across individuals.

Figure 7.
Linear growth curve for transformative understanding.

Transformative critical reflection

There was a significant difference in the growth rates between the treatment group and control group on transformative critical reflection (B = 1.83, SE = .80, p < .05). The likelihood of exhibiting transformative critical reflection in the blog posts increased, on average, at a rate of 1.83 logits higher for the experimental group than their control group counterparts (Figure 8). There was no significant variance in the intercept or slope components.

Figure 8.
Linear growth curve for transformative critical reflection.

Discussion

The two sections of the class considered for the current study comprise the second round of classes using the same hybrid framework. In the first round (Glassman et al., 2020), epistemic identity development was seen to be extremely individualistic, and this was characterized by micro-rebellions among students. This led to considerations among the TAs and instructors about the levels of autonomy that students were to have in class. The activities outlined for the MUVE classroom (building and exploration) were designed to encourage more communication within the virtual environment for the students participating in the current study. We think that this allowed more transformative reflection in the written blogging assignments. Upon qualitative analysis of blog posts, it was seen that students in the experimental setting had a higher tendency to critique systems rather than labeling them as absolute or in need of radical change.

Although there were higher incidences of transformative learning trajectories in the MUVE setting, some fascinating anomalies were observed, which can be regarded as micro-rebellions. These micro-rebellions (Glassman et al., 2020) are more pronounced indicators of conflictual presence within the classroom. For Mezirow (2003), these would also lead to transformative learning when resolved towards a common goal, communicatively. We chose to streamline these issues in the fall round, in order to fit within the constraints of available time within the academic year. In Week nine, students were asked to assume the roles of instructors and construct virtual classrooms. This enabled them to flip the notion of “authority” and create a democratic learning environment. Students were elated to assume positions of authority, and this helped them understand how overcoming their reticence could heighten quality of discourse within the classroom. Although higher levels of transformative reflection were seen in the experimental condition, when instructors critiqued student output, some were less than pleased, and exhibited “uncivil discourse,” which also spilled over into subsequent weeks. Thus, it was seen that some students exhibited instrumental critical reflection as a response mechanism; however, the incidences were far less pronounced than in our previous work (Glassman et al., 2020). While the MUVE provided the scope for critical and transformative learning trajectories, as posed by our research questions, there were some instances of radical thinking. This can be attributed to the learnt habits that students developed through their experiences in hierarchical learning environments.

While Blogger facilitated an online community, it produced less pronounced increases in reflectivity in isolation, without being supplemented by the MUVE. This can be attributed to the uncertainty for immediate feedback on the blog. In the MUVE condition, the projections Second Life were capable of such immediate feedback and enabled the creation of live democratic debates as MUVE activities ensued, allowing for the transformation of social perspectives through civil discourse (Mezirow, 2003). As a result of the absence of such capability in the control group, students often proposed that systems and concepts that they did not agree with need to be dissolved to give birth to a new order (instrumental critical reflection), or simply claimed to agree with them, or accept them as absolute (instrumental understanding).

Higher levels of instrumental reflection can thus be observed in such settings, as the blog posts in the control setting are not created as part of a democratic social process that allows immediate ideological exchange. The role of situational interest in the possibilities that MUVEs have to offer could also play a mediating role (Arnone et al., 2011), in predicting the higher levels of engagement and civil discourse manifested in the experimental setting. On the whole, it can be inferred from students within the MUVE that there is a possibility to engender higher reflectivity through the use of such tools.

Limitations

While MUVEs can create civil discourse within learning environments, their use is not immune to limitations. The emergence of technology coincides with the advent of postmodernism in the late 1900s. Postmodernism is a period characterized by evolutions in art, media, and technologies that dissolve boundaries between the privileged and the middle class (Spanos, 1990). This leads to greater access and a loosening of moral and ethical boundaries associated with technology and art, culminating in greater freedom of speech, greater incidence of counterculture, and a higher sense of individualism.

When we apply this to the present study, the emergence of micro-rebellions within the MUVE is explained (Glassman et al., 2020). These were mitigated (but not eliminated) in the present study through careful curation of instructional methods. Students desiring a tried, tested method and well laid out syllabi that are favored by top-down instruction indicate the chance for micro-rebellions within the virtual environment. This is a function of the cultural presuppositions associated with the top-down nature of teaching and learning that theorists such as Freire and Faundez (1989) and McLaren (2000) discuss. Parameters associated with the design of technological tools can affect engagement that learners have with online learning communities (Kreijns et al., 2013). Expanding upon our current framework using such literature might help strengthen our findings. The use of an Internet Self-Efficacy Scale could help understand whether higher levels of such self-efficacy (Kim & Glassman, 2013) show stronger correlation with transformative learning in both conditions.

The last concern associated with the present study is the use of a fairly small sample size. The qualitative analysis made use of a small data set to analyze the blogs in a microscopic manner and derive insights based on our adapted coding scheme. This gave us a fairly strong overview of the cause of difference in narratives between the two conditions. The following quantitative analysis that maps student growth is not an attempt to generalize our findings on a large scale, but provide an accurate picture of the growth students showed in their transformative reflectivity in the context we considered. The present study is meant to provide a micro-level, context-specific view of the effect that MUVEs can have on learning environments. Therefore, while a small sample size does call into question the generalizability of the study, it’s purpose, geared towards context-specific content analysis of narratives, warrants such a compact sample.

Conclusion

Computer-mediated technologies, when used carefully, can foster civil discourse that Habermas (1970) labels as the facilitator of transformative learning. These seamless discussions can turn the perceived unidirectional nature of instruction inside out. It is in these alternative, digital lifeworlds that Habermas’s (1989) praxis can be achieved, to encourage perspective transformation. While virtual environments can bring the risks associated with excess autonomy and open access to knowledge, it is fascinating to study how careful moderation of civil discourse can engender perspective transformation.

From our findings, we can see that participatory environments like MUVEs may contribute towards perspective transformation through non-hierarchical processes. This embodies Mezirow’s (1995) notion of transformative learning culminating in meaningful relationships to effect action plans generated from deliberative reflection. The creation of participatory environments is only possible when both instructors and learners overcome their learnt perceptions about the nature of teaching and learning. As Dewey (1916) says, humans advanced to be a dominant species owing to their social adaptive capacity. When we are able to understand how lived experiences and the interiorization of new experiences from the social world (Vygotsky, 1978) shape learning, transformative learning becomes a possibility in the educational lifeworld that we may no longer need to covet.

Condition	Male	%	Female	%	Total
Experimental	11	39.30	17	60.70	28
Control	15	53.60	13	46.40	28
Total	26	46.40	30	53.60	56

Age	Descriptive
Median	20
Mean	21.38
SD	3.37

Academic Status	Frequency	%
Undergraduate Student	49	87.50
Graduate Student	7	12.50

Daily Internet Use	n	%
1–3 hr	21	37.50
3–5 hr	19	33.90
more than 5 hr	16	28.60

Gaming Experience	Experimental	%	Control	%
A lot	9	32.1	10	35.7
Some	6	21.4	6	21.4
Little	8	28.6	8	28.6
None	5	17.9	4	14.3

Code	Explanation
Instrumental understanding	Basic retrieval of concepts. Lacks solid critique.
Instrumental reflection	Proposes radical change. Often involves a harsh criticism of existing concepts.
Transformative understanding	Characterized by desire for steady, incremental change, but lacks thorough critique of existing systems.
Transformative critical reflection	Provides sound critique of existing systems and proposes action plans for incremental social change.

Condition	Instrumental Understanding	Instrumental Critical Reflection	Transformative Understanding	Transformative Critical Reflection
Control	44 (52%)	16 (19%)	18 (21%)	7 (8%)
Experimental	26 (39%)	23 (34%)	4 (6%)	14 (21%)
Total	70 (46%)	39 (26%)	22 (14%)	21 (14%)

Time Point	Instrumental Understanding	Instrumental Critical Reflection	Transformative Understanding	Transformative Critical Reflection
Time 1	22 (84.6%) ^C 11 (50%) ^E	0 (0%) ^C 8 (36%) ^E	2 (8%) ^C 2 (9%) ^E	2 (8%) ^C 1 (5%) ^E
Time 2	11 (37%) ^C 11 (61%) ^E	4 (13%) ^C 5 (28%) ^E	12 (40%) ^C 1 (6%) ^E	3 (10%) ^C 1 (5.6%) ^E
Time 3	11 (38%) ^C 4 (15%) ^E	12 (41%) ^C 10 (37%) ^E	4 (14%) ^C 1 (4%) ^E	2 (7%) ^C 12 (44%) ^E

Variable	Coefficient	SE	T
Fixed effect
Intercept	1.11*	.42	2.60
Condition	−0.74	.61	−1.21
Time	−0.99**	.32	−3.10
Time × Condition	0.17	.46	0.37
Random effect
Intercept	0.79
Slope (time)	0.51

Variable	Coefficient	SE	T
Fixed effect
Intercept	−4.07***	0.99	−4.10
Condition	3.36**	1.11	3.02
Time	1.89**	0.56	3.35
Time × Condition	−1.84**	0.65	−2.82
Random effect
Intercept	1.40
Slope (time)	0.25

Variable	Coefficient	SE	T
Fixed effect
Intercept	−1.47**	.46	−3.56
Condition	−0.82	.85	−0.99
Time	0.14	.33	0.56
Time × Condition	−0.63	.71	−0.90
Random effect
Intercept	0.37
Slope (time)	0.008

Variable	Coefficient	SE	T
Fixed effect
Intercept	−2.39***	0.57	−4.16
Condition	−1.48	1.36	−1.09
Time	−0.04	0.47	−0.08
Time × Condition	1.83*	0.87	2.09
Random effect
Intercept	1.35
Slope (time)	0.90

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michael Glassman

Note

References

Arnone

Small

Chauncey

McKenna

(2011). Curiosity, interest and engagement in technology-pervasive learning environments: A new research agenda. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(2), 181–198. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41414933

Bainbridge

W. S.

(2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317, 472.

Bartholomew

Jones

Glassman

(2012). A community of voices: Educational blog management strategies and tools. TechTrends, 56(4), 19–25.

Carter

T. J.

(2002). The importance of talk to midcareer women's development: A collaborative inquiry. The Journal of Business Communication, 39, 55–91.

Cohen

Arato

(1992). Civil society and political theory. MIT Press.

Collard

Law

(1989). The limits of perspective transformation: A critique of Mezirow’s theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(2), 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001848189039002004

Cranton

(2000). Individual differences and transformative learning. In Mezirow

&Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 181–204). Jossey-Bass.

Davis

D. C.

Ziegler

M. F.

(2000). Transformative learning at a large-system level: Using a participative research process to help change the culture of a state’s welfare system. In Wiessner

C. A.

Meyer

S. R.

Fuller

D. A.

(Eds.), The third international transformative learning conference: Challenges of practice: Transformative learning in action (pp. 1–10). Columbia University.

Dewey

(1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.

10.

Dewey

(1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D.C. Heath.

11.

Dieterle

Clarke

(2009). Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In Pagani

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and networking (2nd ed.) (pp. 1033–1041). Idea Group.

12.

Doğan

Çınar

Tüzün

(2018). Multi-user virtual environments for education. In Lee

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of computer graphics and games (pp. 1–7). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_172-1

13.

Edirisingha

Salmon

Nie

(2009). 3-d multi-user virtual environments for socialization in distance learning. In Roberts

(Ed.), Users and innovation programme project presentations (pp. 20–24). JISC. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/altc2008presentations.pdf

14.

Fleming

(2000). Habermas on civil society, lifeworld and system: Unearthing the social in transformation theory. Teachers College Record Online, 1–10. http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/1058/1/HabermasTFleming.pdf

15.

Fleming

(2009). Condemned to learn: University and the learning society. In Murphy

Fleming

(Eds.), Habermas, critical theory and education (pp. 111–125). Taylor & Francis.

16.

Fleming

(2018). Critical theory and transformative learning: Rethinking the radical intent of Mezirow’s theory. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 9(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAVET.2018070101

17.

Freire

Faundez

(1989). Learning to question. Continuum.

18.

Glassman

(2016). Educational psychology and the Internet. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316155134

19.

Glassman

(2019a). DeMOOCing society: Convivial tools to systems and back again in the information age. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1413–1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1539827

20.

Glassman

(2019b). The internet as a context for participatory action research. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10033-1

21.

Glassman

Bartholomew

Jones

(2011). Migrations of the mind: The emergence of open source education. Educational Technology, 51(4), 26–31. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429928

22.

Glassman

Kang

(2016). Teaching and learning through open source educative processes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 281–290.

23.

Glassman

Kuznetcova

Lin

T. J.

Tilak

Wang

Walling

Wen

(2020). Spaces of rebellion: The use of multi-user virtual environments in the development of learner epistemic identity. The Journal of Experimental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1712311

24.

Habermas

(1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597

25.

Habermas

(1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon.

26.

Habermas

(1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Vol. 1). MIT Press.

27.

Joldersma

C. W.

Crick

R. D.

(2010). Citizenship, discourse ethics and an emancipatory. Model of lifelong learning. In Murphy

Fleming

(Eds.), Habermas, critical theory and education (pp. 137–153). Routledge.

28.

Kegan

(1994). In over our heads. Harvard University Press.

29.

Kember

McKay

Sinclair

Yuet Wong

F. K.

(2008). A four category coding scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293355

30.

Kim

Glassman

(2013). Creating an educational context for open source intelligence: The development of internet self-efficacy through a blog centric course. Computers & Education, 69, 332–342.

31.

Kitchenham

(2008). The evolution of Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678

32.

Kluge

Riley

(2008). Teaching in virtual worlds: Opportunities and challenges. Issues in Information Science and Information Technology, 5, 127–135.

33.

Kokkos

(2017). The contribution of aesthetic experience in transformative learning and bildung. In Laros

Fhur

Taylor

E. W.

(Eds.), Transformative learning meets bildung: An international exchange (pp. 331–340). Sense Publishers.

34.

Kreijns

Kirschner

P. A.

Vermeulen

(2013). Social aspects of CSCL environments: A research framework. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 229–242.

35.

Kuznetcova

Glassman

Lin

T. J.

(2019). Multi-user environments as a pathway to distributed social networks in the classrooms. Computers & Education, 130, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.004

36.

Kuznetcova

Teeple

Glassman

(2018). The dialectic of the avatar: Developing in-world identities in second life. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds, 10(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1386/jgvw.10.1.59_1

37.

Lange

E. A.

(2015). The ecology of transformative learning: Transdisciplinary provocations. Journal of Transformative Learning, 3(1), 28–34. https://jotl.uco.edu/index.php/jotl/article/view/48/46

38.

Mälkki

(2010). Building on Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning: Theorizing the challenges to reflection. Journal of Transformative Education, 8(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344611403315

39.

Mascitti

Fasciani

Stefanelli

(2012). Virtual worlds in education: AVATAR, ST.ART and Euroversity action-research initiatives. FormaMente, 1-2, 253 -265. https://formamente.guideassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012_1_2_Mascitti_et_al.pdf

40.

Mezirow

(1991). Transformative dimensions in adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

41.

Mezirow

(1995). Transformation theory of adult learning. In Welton

(Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld (pp. 39–70). SUNY Press.

42.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In Mezirow

& Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 3–34). Jossey-Bass.

43.

Mezirow

(2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

44.

Nie

Edirisingha

Wheeler

(2009, June 10–13). Second life for archaeology, digital photography and media and communications education—three case studies [Conference presentation]. EDEN 2009 Conference Proceedings, Leicester, England.

45.

Papachristos

N. M.

Vrellis

Natsis

Mikropoulos

T. A.

(2014). The role of environment design in an educational Multi-User Virtual Environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 636–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12056

46.

Penuel

W. R.

Wertsch

J. V.

(2010). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3002_5

47.

Preece

(2000). Online communities: Designing usability and supporting sociability. John Wiley.

48.

Rovai

(2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1), 1–16. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/49515/

49.

Salmon

(2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 526–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00967.x

50.

Spanos

(1990). What was postmodernism? Contemporary Literature, 31(1), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.2307/1208640

51.

Taylor

E. W.

(2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475

52.

Taylor

E. W.

(2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.301

53.

Tennant

M. C.

(1991). The psychology of adult teaching and learning. In Peters

J. M.

Jarvis

, & Associate (Eds.), Adult education: Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study (pp. 191–216). Jossey-Bass.

54.

Theodore

P. A.

(2009). Real education in virtual space: Looking at a multi-user virtual environment through a Deweyan lens. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education, 59, 118–121.

55.

Tüzün

Bilgic

H. G.

Elci

S. Y.

(2019). The effects of 3D multi-user virtual environments on collaborative learning and social presence. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2019349247

56.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

57.

Weber

R. P.

(1990). Basic content analysis (Vol. 49). Sage.

58.

Xie

Cheng

S. L.

Izmirli

(2017). The interactions between facilitator identity, conflictual presence, and social presence in peer-moderated online collaborative learning. Distance Education, 38(2), 230–244.