Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Formative Design and Development of a Three-Dimensional Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment Through Learning Experience Design Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Formative Design in Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe the formative design, development, and evaluation of a three-dimensional collaborative virtual learning environment (3D CVLE) called the Museum of Instructional Design. The 3D CVLE was designed to support the classroom activities of doctoral students enrolled in an instructional design and technology program with an emphasis on providing synchronous discourse and applied design opportunities. The development of the MID was led by an iterative three-phased learner experience design process based on the Successive Approximation Model that included (1) preparation, (2) iterative design, and (3) iterative development. The findings from this paper will provide insight into how formative learner experience design processes can lead to the development of a 3D CVLE.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Advanced Learning Technologies Studio. (2022). Project PHoENIX [virtual reality software]. Copyright 2022 University of Florida.

  • Ainsworth, S. (2018). Multiple representations and multimedia learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.) International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (1st ed.) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-10

  • Allen, M. W. & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences. Association for Talent Development.

  • Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckem, J. M., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & I. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, E. F., & Snowdon, D. (1998). Collaborative virtual environments: An introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Reality, 3(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01409793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. SAMS Publishing.

  • Czerkawski, B., & Berti, M. (2021). Learning experience design for augmented reality. Research in Learning Technology, 29. 10/25304/rlt.v29.2429

  • Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desrosier, J. (2011). Rapid prototyping reconsidered. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2011.614881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K., & Utley, J. (2018). Bootleg 2018. Design Thinking Bootleg. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg

  • Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1993). A practical guide to usability testing. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

  • Eason, K. (1988). Information technology and organisational change. Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advanced in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, H., & Kop, R. (2015). MOOC learning experience design: Issues and challenges. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(3), 289–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal, D., & Lewis, M. (2018). Designing a programmatic digital learning environment: Lessons from prototyping. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(3), 315–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, B. (2015). Online learning revealing the benefits and challenges. Education Masters. Paper 303.

  • Glaser, N., & Schmidt, M. (2021). Systematic literature review of virtual reality intervention design patterns for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(8), 753–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1970433

  • Glaser, N. J., Schmidt, M., Wade, S. L., Smith, A., Turnier, L., & Modi, A. C. (2017). The formative design of Epilepsy Journey: A web-based executive functioning intervention for adolescents with epilepsy. Journal of Formative Design in Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-017-0011-3

  • Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. In R. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. Buxton, & S. Greenberg (Eds.), Readings in human-computer interaction, toward the year 2000 (pp. 528–547). Morgan-Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. & Boling, E. (2016). Inscribing ethics and values in design for learning: A problematic. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 969–1001. https://edtechbooks.org/-jcS

  • Greenhow, C., Graham, C. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2022). Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C., Yilmaz, S., Daly, S., Seifert, C., & Gonzalez, R. (2015). Idea generation through empathy: Reimagining the ‘cognitive walkthrough.’ 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 26.871.1–26.871.29. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24208

  • Gummesson, E. (2006). Qualitative research in management: addressing complexity, context and persona. Management Decision.

  • Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H., & Lee, C. F. (2019). Factors affecting usability of 3D model learning in a virtual reality environment interactive. Learning Environments, 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1691605

  • Joyce, A. (2021). 10 usability heuristics applied to virtual reality. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-heuristics-virtual-reality/

  • Kimmons, R., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2022). Trends and topics in educational technology, 2022 edition. Tech Trends, 66, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00713-0

  • Le, D. A., MacIntyre, B., & Outlaw, J. (2020). Enhancing the experience of virtual conferences in social virtual environments. 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) (pp. 485–494). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW50115.2020.00101

  • Lederman, D. (2020). The shift to remote learning: The human element. Inside Higher Ed, 1–3.

  • Lee, J., Sanders, T., Antczak, D., Parker, R., Noetel, M., Parker, P., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Influences on user engagement in online professional learning: A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 518–576. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321997918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. R. (2018). Measuring perceived usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(12), 1148–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, K. H., Benbasat, I., & Ward, L. M. (2000). The role of multimedia in changing first impression bias. Information Systems Research, 11(2), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.2.115.11776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, F. (2009, May). Real or imaginary: The effectiveness of using personas in product design. In Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society annual conference (Vol. 14, pp. 1–10).

  • Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: Research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren, L., Stofer, K. A., Dunckel, B. A., Krieger, J., Lange, M., & James, V. (2019). Panel-based exhibit using participatory design elements may motivate behavior change. Journal of Science Communication, 18(2), 1.

  • Martin F., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2020). Standards and competencies: For instructional design and technology professionals. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/standards_and_competencies

  • Mashapa, J., Chelule, E., Van Greunen, D., & Veldsman, A. (2013). Managing user experience – managing change. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 8118. INTERACT 2013 (pp. 660–677). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40480-1_46

  • McClannon, T. W., Cheney, A. W., Bolt, L. L., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Predicting sense of presence and sense of community in immersive online learning environments. Online Learning, 22(4), 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinn, J., & Kotamraju, N. (2008). Data-driven persona development. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1521–1524). https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357292

  • Miaskiewicz, T., & Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Design Studies, 32(5), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modi, A. C., Schmidt, M., Smith, A. W., Turnier, L., Glaser, N., & Wade, S. L. (2017). Development of a web-based executive functioning intervention for adolescents with epilepsy: The epilepsy journey. Epilepsy & Behavior, 72, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2017.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsestuen, K., & Smith, J. (2020). Empathy Interviews. The Learning Professional, 41(5), 59–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 152–158). https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191729

  • Nielsen, L., & Hansen, K. S. (2014). Personas is applicable: A study on the use of personas in Denmark. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1665–1674). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557080

  • Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindhi, S. (2018). Online education: Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implications. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S., & Zhao, J. J. (2021). 3D Virtual learning environment for acquisition of cultural competence: Experiences of instructional designers. In Handbook of research on teaching with virtual environments and AI (pp. 17–42). IGI Global.

  • Sauro, J. (2011). A practical guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, benchmarks, & best practices. Measuring Usability LLC.

  • Schmidt, M., & Glaser, N. (2021). Investigating the usability and learner experience of a virtual reality adaptive skills intervention for adults with autism spectrum disorder. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1665–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423‐021‐10005‐8

  • Schmidt, M., & Huang, R. (2022). Defining learning experience design: Voices from the field of learning design & technology. TechTrends, 66(2), 141–158.

  • Schmidt, M., Earnshaw, Y., Tawfik, A. A., & Jahnke, I. (2020a). Methods of user centered design and evaluation for learning designers. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books.

  • Schmidt, M., Glaser, N., Riedy, T., Rietta, C., Huszti, H., Wagner, J., Smith, G., Gutierrez-Colina, A. M., Wetter, S. E., Guilfoyle, S. M., Patel, A., & Modi, A. C. (2022b). Learning experience design of an mhealth intervention for parents of children with epilepsy. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 104671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104671

  • Schmidt, M., Lu, J., Luo, W., Cheng, M., Lee, R., Huang, Y., Weng, J. C., Kichler, S. D., Corathers, L. M., Jacobsen, A., Albanese-O’Neill, L., Smith, S., Westen, A. M., Gutierrez-Colina, L., Heckaman, S. E., Wetter, K. A., Driscoll, A., & Modi. (2022a). Learning experience design of an mHealth self-management intervention for adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–39 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10160-6

  • Schmidt, M., Tawfik, A. A., Jahnke, I., Earnshaw, Y., & Huang, R. T. (2020b). Introduction to the edited volume. Learner and user experience research. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books.

  • Shackel, B. (1991). Usability–context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In B. Shackel & S. Richardson (Eds.), Human factors for informatics usability (pp. 21–37). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. A. (2013). Museum practice and mediation: An afterword. The International Handbooks of Museum Studies (pp. 613–634).

  • Shin, D. H. (2017). The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1826–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siricharoen, W. V. (2020). Using empathy mapping in design thinking process for personas discovering. In P. C. Vinh, & A. Rakib (Eds.), Lecture notes of the institute for computer sciences, social informatics and telecommunications engineering: Vol. 343. Context-aware systems and applications, and nature of computation and communication (pp. 182–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67101-3_15

  • Sleezer, C. M., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Gupta, K. (2014). A practical guide to needs assessment (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.

  • Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations: Improving the quality of education and training. Routledge.

  • Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Chen, Y., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2021). Examining competencies for the instructional design professional: An exploratory job announcement analysis. International Journal of Training and Development, 25(2), 95–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD handbook of instructional technology (pp.11.1–21.22). McGraw-Hill.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Science & Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, 221I Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Noah Glaser

  2. Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA

    Dana AlZoubi

  3. School of Instructional Technology and Innovation, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Yvonne Earnshaw

  4. Department of STEM Education & Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Elisa L. Shaffer & Mohan Yang

Authors
  1. Noah Glaser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dana AlZoubi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yvonne Earnshaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elisa L. Shaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah Glaser.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glaser, N., AlZoubi, D., Earnshaw, Y. et al. Formative Design and Development of a Three-Dimensional Collaborative Virtual Learning Environment Through Learning Experience Design Methods. J Form Des Learn 6, 63–76 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-022-00072-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-022-00072-2

Search

Navigation